Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:51 am
I need your opinions on two computers my brothers have...
P4 2.8 w/HyperThreading
80GB SATA and 160GB PATA
GeForce FX 5600
LG DVD+-R/W (No DL)
Athlon FX 3400+ (hypertransport?)
GeForce FX 6200
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.
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:31 pm
The P4 is more powerful but that doesn't necessarily make it better.
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:36 am
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
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:40 am
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
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:15 pm
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?
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:57 pm
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.
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 9:34 pm
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+.
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 9:53 pm
lol your f**kd in da head man
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:29 am
I wrote:Well the P4 is 2.8GHz and from what I can find on Google the Athalon is either 2.2 or 2.4GHz.
Kazer0 wrote:Whoever said the P4 was more powerful, never pretend you know what your talking about please.
How was I pretending? I specifically said "from what I could find on Google".
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:19 pm
Kazer0, my rival,
Did he say he was god?
No, he used google and found those results.
If anything you didnt read it properly
Ah the debates...
Im going with intel, Seeing apple went with them. AMDS just cook.
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:09 pm
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.
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:35 pm
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
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:38 pm
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.
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:39 am
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.
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.
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:46 pm
Plus the AMD was using the FX chip. That is an insanely fast and expensive chip. FX Athlon 64bit 3200+ is about 250 CAN.
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:47 am
Not for long!!
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:14 pm
I'm with the AMD crowd. While the P4 is 2.8 GH and the AMD is about 2.2 gh that's deceiving. The model number is roughly a guide to what Intel chip it's comparable to so the 3400 is more a match for a 3.4 GH. The architecture for both chips is very different meaning that AMD can toast the P4 in gaming. Take a look at the front Side Bus for each. For a P4 I think it's around 800 mhz, for the Athlon it should be about 2000 MH.
If you were using the computer for multi-tasking, then the Intel, with the hyperthreading, might be preferable.
But boy, I'd give an arm for an Athlon 64FX!
I'm on a Sempron 3400 myself...A S939 Sempron with a FSB of 2000mhz. Something I never knew existed before we bought this computer.