Which CPU is better? Created 18 years ago2005-08-21 08:21:53 UTC by davideo59

Is a

AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Venice 1GHz FSB 512KB L2 Cache Socket 939 Processor

< > = than a

Intel? Pentium? 4 Processor 640 w/ HT Technology 3.2GHz 800MHz FSB 2MB

Definitely!

I'd try and get a 1MiB cache Athlon64 myself, though. I think the FX-55s have 2MiB caches, and as for the rest, some have 1M-B and some only have 512kiB (0.5MiB).

YES.

Since it was a "worse than, better than, equal to" question.. uh.. what do "definitely" and "YES" mean?

Heh, my mistake. I think SpaG and I both meant "yes", reading it as "is an Athlon64 3500+ better than a P4 3.2GHz". I certainly did. Athlon64 for the win!

I already advised davideo that, though, so he probably doesn't need my opinion again.

Is there a big difference in $$$ between the two?

I think SpaG and I both meant "yes", reading it as "is an Athlon64 3500+ better than a P4 3.2GHz". I certainly did. Athlon64 for the win!

Yep.

Both of them suck. You want a Pentium-M 760. Now I bet all of the noobs here are gonna say "but mobile procesorz sux omfg n intel suk coz dey dun hav 64 bitz omgomgomg". Pentium-M is a better gaming chip than the FX-57 in all benchmarks. In fact, it wins in everything except from MySQL benchmarks. Floating point, integer, and arithmatic functions are more accurate and have less execution time, Pentium-M also has a fuck load of cache for larger threads. You can only use this CPU on a desktop platform with the old Asus P4C800-E + an dapter right now, which doesn't give you PCI-E, I bet you noobs are all saying "but omgomgzor u ned pcie coz agp sux n it is 2 slo for 2dayz gfx", but in fact that is a pile o' BS. We've tested the difference between a PCI-E GeForce 6800 Ultra and an ATi X850 XTPE, then the AGP version in 8x and 4x. There was on performance difference between AGP 8x and PCI-E 16x, and a 2% difference between AGP 4x and 8x. So, in that case, even recent-ish cards only just saturate AGP 4x.

Wow, there is a use for that thing.

SpaG, ever heard of GOOGLE!? Why don't you use Google to work out that my little benchmark results are indeed true and stop being a little boy with his head up his ass? My ?0.02.

Give it a rest m0p, for once.

davideo asked which one of those Processors is the best, not what m0p's "expert" opinion was.

I for one, agree with 7th and SpaG

Out of those two CPU's, the A64 is better. definately. If you can afford it, though, get the San Diego core, it's quite a bit better.

Wow, there is a use for that thing.

ROFL

But seriously, m0p is right about the Pentium M. Ive seen the benchmarks for them and they dominate any other processor in gaming benchmarks. An $800 Pentium M can kick a $1,000+ FX-57 ass in gaming benchmarks. And you can complain that theres no dual PCIe, but the R520 (X900 series) will supposedly outperform two 7800GTX's in SLI - and its going to be availible for AGP. Why else has ATI taken so long on it and been so secretive about it? A Pentium M plus an X900/950XT PE will be unstoppable in games.

That is exactly the setup I am running now (with an X850XTPE), and it is 100% pwnage. Although, it sucks for audio/video encoding, and server work. Although it dominates in synthetic benchmarks, games, and everyday applications. Although, the reason it sucks in A/V encoding is the low clock speed. Some programs are faster with longer pipeline (such as prescott) and higher clock speed rather than effeciency. Which is the main reason P4 Prescott cores dominate in A/V. The Prescott has a giant 31 stage pipeline and lots of latency, but lots of raw power. The Pentium M has a 8 stage pipeline, which gives it a lower latency, but less "power". Games prefer the lower latency CPU's with low clock speeds., but background applications that just sit there crunching a predictable pattern prefer high latency and huge clock speeds.

You want a Pentium-M 760

Yay! that's what I have

Hrny: [envy]Nice M4 in your AV![/envy]

im still waiting on them to make dual LGA775 mobos. (I like raw power, what can I say, its good for compiling and rendering.)

and im now expecting 50 Billion Carbon NanoTube transistor cell processors

I heard of NanoTubes a long time ago. They were using them as RAM, and they were rather good at it iirc.