|
View Poll Results: Which one would you rather have? | |
Intel Pentium 4 3.2C
|    | 14 | 58.33% | |
AMD Athlon XP 3200+
|    | 10 | 41.67% |
August 23rd, 2003, 11:01 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Guest
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,200
|
If you had $500 to blow on just a CPU
| 
| | |
August 23rd, 2003, 11:07 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: May 2003 Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,966
|
Here's the thing ... I have circumstances for each.
Well...the 3200+ - I wouldn't buy. If I wanted 400mhz FSB I'd go with a 3000+...but I'd rather have a 2500+ or 2600+ Barton with a good nforce2 board.
I wouldn't just buy a Pentium 4 3.2 (IMO the most efficient P4 CPU yet). I'd get it for a system I plan on using Hyperthreading with...Hyperthread capable boards cost a little more...so you can't just blow all your money on a CPU.
__________________
Asus A7N8X Deluxe | AMD AthlonXP 2600+ | 512mb Corsair XMS Extreme DDR
| |
| | |
August 23rd, 2003, 11:14 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Guest
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,200
|
The P4 3.2 killed AMD in every benchmark I have ever seen, I mean pages of em. Why go AMD if its slower regardless of how much work it can do per clock cycle or the rest of that jargon.
| |
| | |
August 23rd, 2003, 11:16 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: University of Michig
Posts: 271
|
I agree. Or better yet, get a 2.4c and oc it and take advantage of the higher fsb. (Mine's running at 3.5 right now  ) | |
| | |
August 23rd, 2003, 11:16 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Si vis pacem, para bellum
Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: KBAD-Bossier City LA
Posts: 7,600
|
Wait and get neither. Get the AMD 64 bit processor that is coming. It should obliterate Intel's fastest chips. It's already out for servers I believe and should be out for smaller systems soon. | |
| | |
August 24th, 2003, 01:40 AM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Guest
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,200
|
Romours have it that the Athlon 64 wont be 64, I seen it on the front page hehe. Just another Athlon Xp core with a FINALLY better socket. | |
| | |
August 24th, 2003, 01:46 AM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: New York City
Posts: 62
|
I think 3.2 is better than AMD.. | |
| | |
August 24th, 2003, 01:47 AM
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Where's the beef?
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southwest, VA
Posts: 3,585
|
What? I thought the point of the article was to state that the future Athlon XP will actually be a detuned Athlon 64.
__________________
Where's Lunch?
| |
| | |
August 24th, 2003, 01:56 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Montana
Posts: 531
|
The scuttlebutt is that the new Athlon XP chips are just downclocked 64s. And they will keep the XP name. The Athlon 64's will run at 64. How well they work will remains to be seen. | |
| | |
August 24th, 2003, 02:04 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Spider pig
Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Lincoln City, OR
Posts: 5,314
|
If I had the cash: 3.2
If I had the patience: Athlon64 or an Opteron
What I can afford right now: 2 drinks at the local shop
It's not all about CPU power, folks. Think large quantities of RAM, a couple hundred gigs of storage space, a fast video card. If I had the extra cash, hell yeah sign me up for 2gb of memory and 4 120gb WD's in RAID 0 and a DVD burner to back all my crap up. Then stack it on my Asus nForce2 board, put a 3000+ or just keep the 2500+ and OC it like I do know, 9700/9800 Pro and I'll be slammin'. | |
| | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | 
Posting Rules
| You may post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | |   Most Active Discussions  | | | | | Recent Discussions  | | | | | 
|
hardware
prices 
