amdxp or pentium4
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,951
Likes: 0
From: Lurkin Somewhere
Im hunting around for another PC to build in January.
Ive asked on hardcore overclocking sites, they've all said DDR + P4.
the best board so far is the Abit It7 Max 2 + P4 2.8 + 512MB DDR400
try komplett.co.uk the P4 i £326 which is very cheap compared to most places.
Just to add the new P4 supports hyper threading, but most people have told me for an extra £200 that hardly any apps support isnt justifiable!!
Si
[Edited by super_si - 11/10/2002 10:14:35 PM]
Ive asked on hardcore overclocking sites, they've all said DDR + P4.
the best board so far is the Abit It7 Max 2 + P4 2.8 + 512MB DDR400
try komplett.co.uk the P4 i £326 which is very cheap compared to most places.
Just to add the new P4 supports hyper threading, but most people have told me for an extra £200 that hardly any apps support isnt justifiable!!
Si
[Edited by super_si - 11/10/2002 10:14:35 PM]
anyone know which is the best ???going to upgrade before chritmas but dont know which to go for. have always had pentiums but there is a lot of good reviews on amd
which would be best
amd xp cheap
amd mp dearest
pentiun 4 only dear with rambus
which would be best
amd xp cheap
amd mp dearest
pentiun 4 only dear with rambus
the hardest thing at the moment is trying to find a motherboard thatll allow for future processor upgrades just trying to find out if anyone knows fisrt hand which is the better option before i waste my cash
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
intel and amd are essentailly just as good only amd are cheaper
personally i would wait until q12003 when amd have a completely new chip out adn completely new motherboard format rather than socketA
Or if you cant wait ensure than any amd motherboard has 266 bus support
personally i would wait until q12003 when amd have a completely new chip out adn completely new motherboard format rather than socketA
Or if you cant wait ensure than any amd motherboard has 266 bus support
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,462
Likes: 0
IMHO, the way CPUs technology is moving, whatever motherboard you get now will be old technology. the ideal of upgrading to a faster CPU as they come out is good but in practice never really that simple. newer CPUs need newer motherboard to support them!
if you looking for the intel route, get a motherboard with the intel 845PE chipset. amd route would be the VIA or SiS chipset supporting DDR400.
if you looking for the intel route, get a motherboard with the intel 845PE chipset. amd route would be the VIA or SiS chipset supporting DDR400.
Trending Topics
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 17,497
Likes: 0
From: Just passing through...
Internally, the P4 is less efficient than the P3, taking more clock ticks to perform the same tasks. It compensates for this by running the clock faster. Intel seem obsessed with headline clock speed (3GHz coming soon) rather than what goes on inside the chip.
AMD, on the other hand, have a fantastic core inside their Athlon chips.
AMD, on the other hand, have a fantastic core inside their Athlon chips.
Moderator
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 23,573
Likes: 0
From: Staffs
Other thing to remember you can order a P4 2.8Ghz today and have it delivered tomorrow.
I've seen nothing faster than an XP 2400+ in stock anywhere.
Generally less agro with Intel chipsets.
My choice would be an 845PE motherboard (Asus P4PE) and a 533Mhz FSB P4 (2.4Ghz or faster).
I've seen nothing faster than an XP 2400+ in stock anywhere.
Generally less agro with Intel chipsets.
My choice would be an 845PE motherboard (Asus P4PE) and a 533Mhz FSB P4 (2.4Ghz or faster).
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
From: Plymouth
Chris, you keep mentioning intel is less agro. I have built several AMD based systems and have not had any problems. I am interested to know in what areas and with what hardware you have had agro?
cheers
cheers
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Chances are whatever you go for now you are unlikely to upgrade in future. If you're going for 2ghz+ then by the time you find something that won't run on it the P4 and XP will be obsolete and something much faster needing a new motherboard will be out.
Whatever you're thinking of upgrading for, remember it's not just about the processor. You may be better going for a processor that isn't the latest and fastest and using the money you saved by not getting it go for a better graphics card or extra or faster memory.
If you have a specific requirement then aim to ensure the spec you come up with meets it.
Whatever you're thinking of upgrading for, remember it's not just about the processor. You may be better going for a processor that isn't the latest and fastest and using the money you saved by not getting it go for a better graphics card or extra or faster memory.
If you have a specific requirement then aim to ensure the spec you come up with meets it.
upgrading for new doom game , also giving daughter a computer for christmas so she is getting a nice new case with all my p3 933 bits in and im getting the new system stuck in my old tower. so one thing i think everyone is sure of is pentium is good and amd is good, so its just personal prefference then i thnk i might just go witth two 2gig amd mps that should be quick enough
Guest
Posts: n/a
Eagle7 - the pros and cons of multi-processing systems are not as straightforward as you state in your post. You are correct for a single application that is multi-threaded. BUT if you are running several copies of the same application, or multiple applications then having more than one CPU will work wonders. I speak as someone who used to work for a computer company that made multi-CPU systems for many years (SGI) and was also involved in writing some myself. Some even worked .... :-)
I have a dual-PIII system at home (HP Kayak) running W2K. Part of the process I use for putting vinyl to CD is to run the recorded *vinyl* thorugh some software that removes all the static hiss, crackles etc. That is just straightforward number crunching. I record several sides of records then set off (usually) 4 jobs when I go to bed. Although they only take an hour or so ayway ... One job takes the same time (ish) as two.
So horses for courses ..... what do you want to do with a multi-CPU system first. Then, does your application take advantage of multi-CPUs. If not can you run more than one copy, etc etc ..
Good info on the MP/XP though. MY next move was (maybe - but by the time I've got the dosh something elase wil be out ...) to get a dual_MP system - that's saved me a few bob ... ta.
Dave
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
From: Plymouth
yes i agree, of course there is more to it than i mentioned.
I was trying to put it from the perspective of a normal windows user ie. one main application in foreground, be it photoshop,word or unreal tournament 2003.
It really depends on whether you want to run several main programs at the same time for number cruching or server applications, or if you just want great games performance
I used to run an SGI Irix box for my work, and that gave great performance as i could lock one of the processors up doing my number crunching, and use the other for desktop related stuff. The thing is, if you are not interested in number crunching or having 2 intensive apps running at same time (or one very well written multithreaded app) then you will not get near to twice the performance of a single chip.
In normal office use, your processor is idle most of the time. It is only when you run something intensive(a game, video/audio coding,numerical processing) that the speed really matters.
According to many sources with windows XP and windows software, in most circumstances you are better off with a 1.5GHz chip than 2 x 1Ghz etc.
all IMHO
I was trying to put it from the perspective of a normal windows user ie. one main application in foreground, be it photoshop,word or unreal tournament 2003.
It really depends on whether you want to run several main programs at the same time for number cruching or server applications, or if you just want great games performance
I used to run an SGI Irix box for my work, and that gave great performance as i could lock one of the processors up doing my number crunching, and use the other for desktop related stuff. The thing is, if you are not interested in number crunching or having 2 intensive apps running at same time (or one very well written multithreaded app) then you will not get near to twice the performance of a single chip.
In normal office use, your processor is idle most of the time. It is only when you run something intensive(a game, video/audio coding,numerical processing) that the speed really matters.
According to many sources with windows XP and windows software, in most circumstances you are better off with a 1.5GHz chip than 2 x 1Ghz etc.
all IMHO
