Pentium 4 vs. Athlon 64

[Lord Kalthorn]

I'm not sure what Benchmarks you're looking at but they're not those I have seen. It would be interesting to see a link?

Benchmarks on DirectX 9.0

I presume from the RAM you're after Games so while I dislike that the AMDs have the top stops for one of the few times they get it it does show the Celeron D 2.8 (lower versions of the D aren't on here) beats the Sempron by a few points of a Frame Per Second - pretty useless it has to be said but the rest of the benchmarks show the same story in greater clarity with larger margins. Here. In the DivX encoding the Celeron D 2.8 comes out 30 seconds faster than the Sempron 3000+. I do also like, not directly effecting this point but how a 2.4Ghz Intel Northwood beats an FX-55 Clawhammer High End Processor in the SiSoft Sandra Whetstone CPU Bench.

And its not as if you cannot overclock a Celeron D If you're into that kind of cheating scummery.

 

[acphenom]

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_11599_11605~88854,00.html

I am not after games, as i stated earlier. I just feel that 512 is the minimum to last me for about 2 years.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Haha, hardly impartial

Ah, well then even more reason to chose the Celeron D.

 

[acphenom]

Wow! i've just seen this: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron_7.html and it seems to prove you right! If i find a good value Celeron and compatible motherboard, then i'll probably go for it. Thanks, LK.

 

[OTSS]

ok I have not read all of them but I was looking into Processors all day and everywhere said Athlon 64 3400+ is best for gaming and framerates but the 3.4ghz - 3.6ghz p4 chips better at multi tasking and compressing and encoding... but just barely the Athlon 64 3400+ came a close second place plus it has better gaming than p4's so for the $100 cheaper your way better off with the Athlon 64, unless of course you don't care about price and you want that extra few seconds faster encoding time lol

 

[winterfreshpwnz]

lol the 3400 isn't the best at gaming (fx-55) and shouldn't be compared to a 3.6ghz P4, the 3500 on the other hand....

 

[acphenom]

So, what d'you think? For web-browsing, listening to music and watching videos on Linux FC2, Celeron D, Athlon 64 or Sempron?

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

On that budget Celeron D; Intel never does well with Business Winstone but all the other non-gaming ones Celeron beat it. If you're after spending as near to £150 as possible that will be the best setup.

If you'd prefer to get only what you need; for those kind of things you only really need a Sempron 2200, it may not be worth getting anything better.

 

[Giancarlo]

Whatever sizable edge they had 18 months ago has been destroyed already. Intel sold more EM64T processors in the few months than AMD have ever sold 64-bit Processors. I've yet to see 6xx Benchmarks but I think we've all seen the details on CNet; there is nothing between the two except price, and even that is not what AMD would like us to think from its XP days when it was made of polystyrene and little ants carried the numbers around the processor written on leaves.

Oh here we go again with the nonsense spree.. you need to be kept in line. AMD is growing its sizable lead. It has not been destroyed. Just accept the reality. Intel sold more EM64T processors then AMD sold 64-bit processors? You are so full of yourself. You need to study economics. Simply put, AMD sold more Athlon 64s then Intel will ever sell of the 6xx.

There will never be an overall best as WinterFresh said but there will always be somebody ahead By however much, AMD fans have been playing the Gamer Card for far too long waving the ties on everything else off. It will be nice to see what the 6xx does for the ties to make them matter again.[/color]

The 6xx is junk.

 

[Giancarlo]

I'm not sure what Benchmarks you're looking at but they're not those I have seen. It would be interesting to see a link?

Benchmarks on DirectX 9.0

I presume from the RAM you're after Games so while I dislike that the AMDs have the top stops for one of the few times they get it it does show the Celeron D 2.8 (lower versions of the D aren't on here) beats the Sempron by a few points of a Frame Per Second - pretty useless it has to be said but the rest of the benchmarks show the same story in greater clarity with larger margins. Here. In the DivX encoding the Celeron D 2.8 comes out 30 seconds faster than the Sempron 3000+. I do also like, not directly effecting this point but how a 2.4Ghz Intel Northwood beats an FX-55 Clawhammer High End Processor in the SiSoft Sandra Whetstone CPU Bench.

And its not as if you cannot overclock a Celeron D If you're into that kind of cheating scummery.

If you guys were smart you would not get the Celeron D. Tomshardware has the tendency of skewing results.