Re: Amd Athlon Vs. Pentium

**Steel_Penguin** · 11-08-2005, 01:06 AM

I have a 3500+ venice. I think it should last me the two years. I might have to run games on "looks like mud" but at least i hope i can run them.

**RGM-79N_GM_CUstom** · 11-08-2005, 01:14 AM

^^^Turbo I edited my post also go for the Venice core its newer and is on 90nm process as opposed to 130nm. However if you can spend the money try to get the 4400+. Based on what I know about the Venice core 4000+ the 4400+ compares to it the most. While the 4800+ is just a dual core 4000+. If you can get the 4400+ and overclock it the extra 200Mhz you can get the single core preformance of the 4000+.

Athlon 64 processors are solid overclockers. Using stock cooling and the 4 extra fans I managed to get a whole 200Mhz out of my 3500+ Clawhammer. I didn't even need to mess around with the voltages. If you can get an aftermarket heatsink you might be able to get more out of it then 200Mhz.

The only problem with overclocking Athlon 64s is that only the FX series has an unlocked multiplier.

Your clock speed is taken by multiplying your multiplier by the Front Side Bus of your motherboard.

**CingularDuality** · 11-08-2005, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by RGM-79N_GM_CUstom

the 4000+ has 1MB of cache while the 4200+ has 512MB on each core.

Wow, only one meg on one, but over five hundred meg on each core for the other CPU? Amazing!

**Bubba** · 11-08-2005, 10:36 AM

What about the San Diego. I have the venise now and was thinking of upgrading.

**Vulcan** · 11-08-2005, 10:47 AM

Turbo you should start a new thread bud :P

I'll hook you up with info.

I definately Prefer amd as it i'm mostly into 3-d and 2-d processing which apparently AMD is much better at doing.

**marstein** · 11-08-2005, 11:29 AM

Take a look at these pages: http://firingsquad.com/hardware/fear...ance/page5.asp

and then get a better graphics card ;-)

**Turbo** · 11-08-2005, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Turbo you should start a new thread bud :P

Ya, sorry about that hijack Anubis_Maximus. My mind just started rolling, for once.

**RGM-79N_GM_CUstom** · 11-08-2005, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by TG_Bubba

What about the San Diego. I have the venise now and was thinking of upgrading.

San Diego is the core that the FX-55 and FX-57 use. There are some of the regular Athlon 64s that use that core. In theory if you buy a 4000+ San Diego and overclock it the extra 200Mhz you should have an FX-55. The 57 would need you to reach 2.8Ghz.

However I recommend going dual core if you can. When buying a dual core though remeber the 3800+, 4200+, and 4600+ have 512KB on each core for cache. The 4400+ and 4800+ both have 1MB on each core.

**Spyder** · 11-08-2005, 04:11 PM

It's been my experience that AMD are better gamer processors than Intel, but Intel tends to work much better in high-end application work because it's a bit more stable.

**marstein** · 11-08-2005, 05:50 PM

I would love to have a dual-core processor, but from what I hear they don't give you any more performance in games. The latest nvidia drivers are supposed to take advantage of dual core processors, so this may have changed.
In the long run dual-core will be great because your PC does many things simoultanously: checking viruses, the firewall and your new multi-threaded games.
I think in the next 1-2 years going multicore will be the thing today. Right now for me to pricy.

**wildcat2000** · 11-08-2005, 08:51 PM

Intel P4 here, I've had both AMD and P4 basically the P4 is your typical business applications processor and it is more stable than AMD. I can render graphics with desktop publishing programs faster on P4 than AMD. AMD is a excellent gaming processor, but not very versatile for anything else. I have a P4 3.4 Prescott.

Thread Tools

Display