connchri
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,025
- Location
- Scotland, UK
Hi All
Currently I have a 3200 Barton (well, 2500 oc'ed) and have decided to upgrade the whole lot of my PC. As in sell it off and build a new one from scratch.
The Question is, would I be better of getting the Winchester core 3000+ and try to overclock it to 250MHz FSB (1GHz HTB), or go for one of the new 6xx series P4's.
Please try not to be biased on this.
From what I gather, the only advantages from AMD's offering is about 10-15% faster gaming and lower heat production.
However, the new 64bit P4's (aka 6xx series) still have faster video encoding, and current benchmarks tend to show that they have a 10-15% speed advantage over similarly priced A64's in a 64bit enviroment (WinXP 64). Hyperthreading also shows a great increase in performance when doing two CPU intensive task's at the same time (about 60%). It also lso has DDR2 and SSE3 support.
The P4 offering will be about £50 more expensive, however. Which would be the better offering, the P4 or the A64?
I would also like to know, how many people have managed succesfully to get the FSB of the 3000+ Winchesters to 250MHz?
I admit, I am an AMD fan due to the "Bang for Buck", however, the 630 P4 is reasonably priced at about £130, and runs at 3.2GHz (could be 3GHz, can't quite remember) and gaming is not an essential issue. Intel has, in my opinion, catched up and probably just slightly surpassed AMD from a technological point of view.
I would greatly appriciate any help on this topic, but please be as open minded and non-biased as possible. I would like real world uses in mind here. Also, I'll be buying the cheapest varient of the choosen CPU.
Thanks for the help.
Currently I have a 3200 Barton (well, 2500 oc'ed) and have decided to upgrade the whole lot of my PC. As in sell it off and build a new one from scratch.
The Question is, would I be better of getting the Winchester core 3000+ and try to overclock it to 250MHz FSB (1GHz HTB), or go for one of the new 6xx series P4's.
Please try not to be biased on this.
From what I gather, the only advantages from AMD's offering is about 10-15% faster gaming and lower heat production.
However, the new 64bit P4's (aka 6xx series) still have faster video encoding, and current benchmarks tend to show that they have a 10-15% speed advantage over similarly priced A64's in a 64bit enviroment (WinXP 64). Hyperthreading also shows a great increase in performance when doing two CPU intensive task's at the same time (about 60%). It also lso has DDR2 and SSE3 support.
The P4 offering will be about £50 more expensive, however. Which would be the better offering, the P4 or the A64?
I would also like to know, how many people have managed succesfully to get the FSB of the 3000+ Winchesters to 250MHz?
I admit, I am an AMD fan due to the "Bang for Buck", however, the 630 P4 is reasonably priced at about £130, and runs at 3.2GHz (could be 3GHz, can't quite remember) and gaming is not an essential issue. Intel has, in my opinion, catched up and probably just slightly surpassed AMD from a technological point of view.
I would greatly appriciate any help on this topic, but please be as open minded and non-biased as possible. I would like real world uses in mind here. Also, I'll be buying the cheapest varient of the choosen CPU.
Thanks for the help.