AMD equivalent of Intel

[Jamxx]

Hey, I don't think Opterons are "half-decent" as you say. They're really nice, in my opinion. I've used Pentium 4's before with 3 - 3.4 GHz clock speeds, and they were about as fast as my 2.2 GHz Opteron while running single applications. There was a noticeable gaming difference (graphics cards were similar) though I do acknowledge that multitasking with a Pentium 4 is somewhat smoother.

And, asking that question, with no real "guidelines" is going to get you a lot of answers, as shown here. I agree with them; AMD's are better in some respects, and Pentium 4's are better in some respects. I do believe they're about right, though, a 3200+ (which is 2 GHz, if I'm not mistaken) is probably around a 3 GHz Pentium 4 (this is approximate, just from my experience overall).

 

[connchri]

Now I went to tomshardware (throught the links u gave me) and kept the same 3200+ that u had selected, and changed the second one to P4 3.0Ghz.

Then I looked at all of the benchmarks.
The P4 3.0Ghz performed better in 16 of the non game benchmarks, amd was better in 5.
So there a 3.0Ghz intel P4 was better than the 3200+ u made the comparison with.

Now I don't want to check through all of the gaming benchmarks, but there is 6 of them, and we can assume that amd was better in all of them.
So that would mean that a 3.0Ghz won 16 of the benchmarks, when the 3200+ Venice core won 11.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=247&model2=226&chart=74
that is the link to the 1st benchmark, and as most of u should notice u can change the benchmark from the box just ontop of the picture of the current benchmark.

edit: u can also check how it ends with a P4 2.8Ghz and the 3200+ Venice core. Im guessing that the 3200+ performs better in most of the benchmarks.
And that would just mean that in these particular benchmarks the 3200+ was better than a 2.8Ghz P4, and worse than a 3.0Ghz P4. Which is quite much what I said in my 1st post.

Fiar enough, but you are comparing old benchmarks again. These are the older Northwood cores. They are faster than the current P4's for the same speed, but again, where can you buy them. They Lack the additional cache and 64bit support to make them worthy CPU's to biuld a lasting system today with. Not to mention lack of motherboards that you could use with them which would also provide a future upgrade path.

I'd also like to point out that there was only a 3 second difference.

In all seriousness, it is pointless comparing to the older P4's when the 600 series is the way to go - Availible to buy and with SLI motherboards. Lets just say that any low range P4 (630, 640) and Athlon 64 (single core versions, 3200+, 3400+) are more or less the same performance wise. With AMD winning by a significant margin in gamming, and Intel in Mutitasking. Anything inbetween is so stupid to ask about as it's only about 5% to 10% difference in each case.

These sort of things could be argued all day, yet it is not a simple black and white answerable question. Loads of gray areas inbetween. If you compare the older Athlons to the Older P4's, Intel seem to dominate. You compare the Older P4's to the new Athlons things are a lot closer with AMD struggling a bit. Compare the new P4's to the Athlons, and you get all the features of the 600 series but not quite as fast as the older P4s and AMD seem to fair much better. They seem more evenly matched.

As I've said in a few previous threads, I'm a fan of the 600 Series, and did order one for a build (canceled due to gettin the iBook in my sig). I did not contemplate comparing them to the older P4's as these are no longer mainstream. It's a bit like saying whats better, Intel or AMD 1.3GHz CPU, you could compare to the Older P3, or the P4, the P3 would have been better than the P4.

Jaxx, sorry if I confused you, But where I'm from, Half-decent actually means good.

 

[mammikoura]

Fiar enough, but you are comparing old benchmarks again. These are the older Northwood cores. They are faster than the current P4's for the same speed, but again, where can you buy them. They Lack the additional cache and 64bit support to make them worthy CPU's to biuld a lasting system today with. Not to mention lack of motherboards that you could use with them which would also provide a future upgrade path.

yes I know I used the older northwood core, and yes, I did it because northwoods just are better atm. I also used the best core for the 3200+
And u can buy P4's with northwood cores where I do my shopping at. And if u are building a future proof system u are most likely going dual core, and while there is no SLI mobos for socket 478, I don't see the need because a single 7800GT or something similar in enough for todays games.

I'd also like to point out that there was only a 3 second difference.

Yes in that benchmark. But as I said overall, not looking at the gaming bechmarks p4 was better in 16 of the 21 benchmarks.

These sort of things could be argued all day, yet it is not a simple black and white answerable question. Loads of gray areas inbetween.

Agreed. But then again u can always learn something when having a civilized argument like we are having.

 

[SirVal]

Thanks folks.

 

[SirVal]

Just a quick question just to confirm something, an AMD 64 3200+ is equivalent to what Intel pentium 4 processor?

Cheers

 

[mammikoura]

about 2.8-3.0 Ghz.

 

[connchri]

2.8-3GHz?! Don't kid yourself.

A 3200+ is, OVERALL performance wise, about the same speed as a 3.2-3.4GHz P4 600 series CPU. a P4 640 is the clossest you'll get to it.

But, the features of the P4 640 make it more future proof. 2MB cache for when 64bit programs come out and also Hyperthreading for future multi-threaded programs. Both are 64bit and support more or less the same instruction sets. As well as Intels SEE3 in the Venice cores and above Athlon 64s as well.

To be honest, in the low end market (about GB£100) your best bet is a 600 series P4 (630 or 640). For the silly ammount of performance difference (about 10% slower then AMD in games, but a lot faster in encoding and when multithreaded programs are used - read "multitasking" for today). Plus the benifits of furture proofing.

If you have a bigger wad of cash, such as GB£400, the Athlon x2's are the way to go.

You can also get a half decent, Super overclocking Opteron CPU for GB£100. The Skt 939 Opteron 144. They have the 1MB cache and are known to go about 2.6 to 2.9GHz on stock cooling (from 1.8GHz). But your recomended to spend a bit more on the other hardware supporting it all.

 

[mammikoura]

2.8-3GHz?! Don't kid yourself.

A 3200+ is, OVERALL performance wise, about the same speed as a 3.2-3.4GHz P4 600 series CPU. a P4 640 is the clossest you'll get to it.

I don't know where u get ur facts.

Super Pi 1m

Super Pi 8m

PcMark04

more to come...

 

[mammikoura]

Sisoft Sandra 2004 (processor test)

Sisoft Sandra 2004 (mem test)

3dMark03

Of course there is no game tests there, and we all know that amds are better at gaming. But overall performance, those tests will give u a good idea.

and I had to double post because u can't put many pictures in one post.

 

[Lac3y]

haha, good old mammi