Is AMD 64 Worth It?

[T-Doit]

Is AMD 64 Processors worth all that Money!?

 

[Giancarlo]

you bet. And let me tell you they aren't all that expensive to begin with.

 

[Mental Liberator]

It depends what you want to do, I decided that I want to play music while having 5 browsers open and burning a cd, while chatting on AIM and downloading at the same time, so I went with Pentium 4 3.0 ghz with 1 mb cache. Of course I can play Halfe Life 2, Doom 3, Cs: S, but an AMD 64 is mainly for gaming, I have a AMD 3200+ aswell, and I have to say for everyday uses my pentium based computer laps it 10 times. The point is, if you want a lot of applications running, get a pentium 4, if you're going to do some hardcore gaming then get a AMD.

 

[res1bxh3]

that is exactly what ive been looking for banchan thank you very much

 

[alvino]

They are worth every penny. Since, AMD made a price drop a while ago, all of the processors are actually quite cheap compared to their Intel counterparts.

 

[Giancarlo]

It depends what you want to do, I decided that I want to play music while having 5 browsers open and burning a cd, while chatting on AIM and downloading at the same time, so I went with Pentium 4 3.0 ghz with 1 mb cache. Of course I can play Halfe Life 2, Doom 3, Cs: S, but an AMD 64 is mainly for gaming, I have a AMD 3200+ aswell, and I have to say for everyday uses my pentium based computer laps it 10 times. The point is, if you want a lot of applications running, get a pentium 4, if you're going to do some hardcore gaming then get a AMD.

Oh the multitasking myth again. I can do all of those just fine. In fact my machine works more then great and my task bar is fully loaded. AMD 64 handles multitasking just as good if not better then the P4. You made a mistake going with the P4. Well good luck with an underperforming, hot processor.

The point is, the multitasking myth is false.

 

[alvino]

Well AMD's CAN multitask, but I have to admit that P4's can do a bit better...

 

[winterfreshpwnz]

I'm not one of those AMD hardcore fans as most of you should have noticed by now since in most topics regarding which CPU is better (p4 or amd 64) I usually just say it depends on what you are doing. But that shit you just said there ban, is bs. AMD if anything is about equal to P4's in multi-tasking. I can run as many apps as possible and have no slowdown Maybe that comp is athlon xp or something or just a crappy comp in general cuz the CPU can't do everything itself ya know if it's paired off with some crappy ram, mobo, etc. You prolly haven't seen any benches or something cuz in benches AMD gets like the same scores for multi-tasking as p4's do. When you get to the page for multi-tasking notice that AMD wins 2/5 benches and even when the P4 wins, the difference is too small to notice (except for maybe the first where the highest P4 gets 231 and the highest AMD gets 222, but even that isn't TOO big). All I'm saying, is I don't think there is an OVERALL better CPU, each one is good for certain things, but when people start saynig how P4's own AMD in multi-tasking, all I can think of is ignorance and stupidity. I also highly suggest you read the whole review cuz otherwise you will miss a lot of it and not a smuch will be cleared up.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249&p=1

 

[Giancarlo]

Well AMD's CAN multitask, but I have to admit that P4's can do a bit better...

That's purely a myth.

 

[SSE4]

Are you dense? If you look at those benchmarks (Provided you can read) the P4 3.0GHz nearly tops the 3200+ every time. I'd say, given the P-scale, that's a hands-down defeat. The truth of the matter is, that benchmark has more AMD processors in it than Intels. And when you compare proper processor models, the Intels offer a great deal of performance. The AMD will sometimes beat it like in content creation and Mozilla + Encoder, but having Mozilla on while encoding is hardly multitasking, Mozilla isn't really CPU-intensive. So sorry to burst your bubble, but the Pentium 4 processors consistently, when compared to a matching model, typically come out on top when it comes down to heavy multitasking. You just solidified the point with those benchmarks. Thanks.

Also when you talk about Intel not winning by "big amounts", well to be honest a lot of the benchmarks don't involve either winning by a "big amount", like the one time the 3200+ beats the 3.0GHz. (Excluding the Mozilla benchmark, that's just dumb) It's not a myth. In fact it's almost insulting to hear you say that. Half the benchmarks are just nitpicky anyway. The Intels offer a better boost in multitasking (Heavy CPU-intensive tasks that will slow an AMD down. The AMD performs more IPC therefore if it isn't a heavy application, the AMD will obviously come out on top) in consideration to proper model comparisons.

T-Doit, you have to keep in mind that not a lot of people really understand what they're talking about (On a serious technical level) and there is a lot of bias in consideration to the strengths and weaknesses of the two processors. The best way to find out is to try them both yourself.