DOS Games Discussion

pedersencato · Member Joined: 19 May 2004 Posts: 43

I need your opinions on two computers my brothers have...
First:
P4 2.8 w/HyperThreading
1.5GB ram
80GB SATA and 160GB PATA
GeForce FX 5600
LG DVD+-R/W (No DL)

Next:
Athlon FX 3400+ (hypertransport?)
512mb Ram
300GB PATA
GeForce FX 6200
HP DVD+-R/W/DL

So first I'd like to know which processor is better then a full comparison of which is the more powerful machine... and when my brother brings his computer home from college I'm going to run benchmarks on both of them.

The_Sinister_Mastermind · Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:31 pm Post subject:

The P4 is more powerful but that doesn't necessarily make it better.

pedersencato · Member Joined: 19 May 2004 Posts: 43

that's a comparison of the complete systems right? Oh, and I was told that the athlon's numbner (the 3400+) was how fast the processor is in comparison to a intel... Is this right was is that pperson a jerk? thanks

franpa · Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:40 am Post subject:

that person is a jerk (whoever he/she is) the number on the athlon is a model number (well sorta) while the number on the p4 is its speed in mhz/ghz

The_Sinister_Mastermind · Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject:

Well the P4 is 2.8GHz and from what I can find on Google the Athalon is either 2.2 or 2.4GHz.

What is it exactly that you're trying to find out about these 2 computers?

pedersencato · Member Joined: 19 May 2004 Posts: 43

I'm just debating with my one brother that the athlon was the better rig... and I was hoping you guys could settle it for us. BTW, thanks for the help I've gotten from you guys.

Kazer0 · Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject:

...

Whoever said the P4 was more powerful, never pretend you know what your talking about please.

The approximation is that every AMD point (Ex: 2400+ = 2400 points) is approximatly equal to a pentium MHZ. Therefore, P42800 < AMD3400+.

franpa · Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 9:53 pm Post subject:

lol your f**kd in da head man

The_Sinister_Mastermind · Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:29 am Post subject:

Wally*Won_Kenobie · Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:19 pm Post subject:

Kazer0, my rival,

Did he say he was god?

No, he used google and found those results.

If anything you didnt read it properly Happy

Ah the debates...
Im going with intel, Seeing apple went with them. AMDS just cook.

Kazer0 · Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject:

Oh man Wally, your just sad. Apple went with Intel because Intel is a larger company, not because they are better. It is well known that in the desktop PC marker, Intel is far behind AMD (Mobile on the other hand is the opposite). Not to mention the 2.8ghz Intel chip is outdated by years, and the FX series is among AMDs top-of-the-line products, AMD is a load better in this case.

As well, ghz doesnt mean anything really. ghz is a frequency, not a speed.

Wally*Won_Kenobie · Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject:

Apple didnt go AMD for several Reasons

1) The chips arent low powered enough to fit apples specifications
2) Celeron chips will not be released for apple.
3) AMD may come into the game soon enough as soon as the chips are low powered

This was taken from a Macworld magazine and all rights are reserved

Kazer0 · Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:38 pm Post subject:

If all rights are reserved, then why did you just use it? Excatly.

It is a well known fact that todays AMD processors use less power than todays pentiums.

johpower · Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:39 am Post subject:

I gotta go with Kazer0 on this. The AMD is generally = to a 3.4 ghz P4 in PERFORMANCE and runs at a lower core speed, using less power (in most cases) and reducing demands on the motherboard. So, I say the Athlon would be prefered. Congratulatory

I'd like to up the Athlon's RAM since that's the only comparative bottleneck. With 1.5 gb in each, the Athlon should be 20-30% faster in benchmarks.

Apple's (sellout?) deal with Intel is really a resignation the Motorola can't come up with the performance Macs need due to various factors both tech and legal. Mac fans don't like it but their machines will run faster in the long run and likely cost less. AMD versions may be forthcoming. Blissful

HappyHarvick29 · Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:46 pm Post subject:

Plus the AMD was using the FX chip. That is an insanely fast and expensive chip. FX Athlon 64bit 3200+ is about 250 CAN.