# Intel Pentium 4 3.4GHzE vs. AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 939 pin processor



## johnnyboyyy409 (Jun 24, 2005)

I am looking to buy a new processor and mother board and was wondering which one of these two I should get. I generally use my computer for gaming and music producing.

*Intel Pentium 4 3.4GHz E* , 1MB 800 FSB Socket 478 Prescott Hyper Threading  Processor w/ *Abit IS7* i865PE "Springdale" Motherboard and Microsoft *Windows XP home edition* vs  *AMD Athlon 64 3200+* 939 pin processor w/ *Asus A8N-E* Socket 939 motherboard and Microsoft *Windows XP x64 Edition*

Also I would like to know why I should choose that particular one, and why a *3.4 GHz pentium* processor is even compared to a *2.2 GHz AMD processor*.

Thanks for your help!


----------



## bOOgi mAn (Jun 24, 2005)

i dunno i got AMD  and it runs vry well id go with the intel though ask the moderators i dont have too much info on CPU s and mother bords but the intel sounds better


----------



## Geoff (Jun 24, 2005)

As posted in a previous post, AMD does 9 cycles per clock, where Intel does 6 cycles per clock.  Which roughly makes an Intel 2.8Ghz equivalent to an AMD 2800+.  

I would go with the intel 3.4Ghz over the AMD 3200+, although the AMD has 64-bit, then intel is faster, and the intel would be a much better choice for music producing.  ALthough both processors are very good, i would go with the Intel for your needs.


----------



## xsjado-reign (Jun 24, 2005)

would go with amd , amd is truley better than p4 in gaming. A amd 3200+ is just likea P4 3.2 so you will not loose out on much.


----------



## johnnyboyyy409 (Jun 24, 2005)

Well if I am then looking at a 3.2 Ghz AMD vs. a 3.4 Ghz Intel then should i just get the AMD for the 64-bits... It's coming with Windows x64 edition... so how much better is 64 bit vs 32 bit? 
Does the program have to be made for 64 bit in order to run faster then 32 bit even if my OS is 64 bit?


----------



## LittleHoov (Jun 24, 2005)

unless the program is made for 64 bit processors it will still run at 32 bit....i would assume that 32 bit programs still work on Windows XP 64...but im not 100% sure about that..

but if your chief task it music producting and media apps and stuff like that i would say go with the Intel, that P4 should still have plenty of grunt to run games anyway, just get a good video card, thats what alot of it boils down too anyway, i would say that rarely is a system bottleneck by its cpu, unless it older of course...


----------



## flame1117 (Jun 24, 2005)

For gaming i would go AMD, the music stuff i would go INTEL, if you are doing all the new games on high setting then i would go for AMD, if they area a little older and you don;t mind running them a little less settings then go with INTEL, and then you can do you music stuff faster.


----------



## Praetor (Jun 24, 2005)

> I generally use my computer for gaming and music producing.


Well what specifically do you use it for? Both AMD and Intel will suit those tasks (AMD will excell in the gaming and Intel will excell in the production)



> Also I would like to know why I should choose that particular one


For this specific pair, dont get the Intel one unless you're ready for heat issues



> and why a 3.4 GHz pentium processor is even compared to a 2.2 GHz AMD processor.


Its compared because people want to compare it (thats like asking "Why people compare Porsrche and Ferrari or GM and Ford" etc



> though ask the moderators I dont have too much info on CPU s and mother bords but the intel sounds better


Being a Mod doesnt mean you know all ... it just means you have an open mind and enforce forum policies.



> As posted in a previous post, AMD does 9 cycles per clock, where Intel does 6 cycles per clock. Which roughly makes an Intel 2.8Ghz equivalent to an AMD 2800+.


Oh god not this crap again. (1) Get the terminology right: a cycle IS a clock. (2) Just because AMD has more decoder units doesnt mean its a better platform (just like 'because intel has more clocks doesnt make it a better platform'). For the full disseration on this 9 vs 6 silliness, have a look at http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?p=96867#post96867 from post 13 onwards -- while clockspeed doesnt make or break a chip ... neither does the number of decoder units.



> A amd 3200+ is just likea P4 3.2 so you will not loose out on much.


Hehe yet another sucessful marketing victim for AMD hehe



> Well if I am then looking at a 3.2 Ghz AMD vs. a 3.4 Ghz Intel then should I just get the AMD for the 64-bits... It's coming with Windows x64 edition... so how much better is 64 bit vs 32 bit?


A few things:
1. Socket478 is dead. If you buy a socket478 platform you will be buying the "leftovers"
2. If you have to buy a S478 platform, avoid Prescott (i.e., anything with 1MB L2 Cache). Why? S478 Prescotts are stupid hot. If you must get a S478 setup, try and get a NorthwoodC (512K L2 cache -- but the amount of cache doesnt dictate net performance as some might have you think)
3. Since the entire S478 lineup is on its phase-out stage, if you buy Intel you should consider the "Pentium 4 5xx" and "Pentium 4 6xx" (where xx is a numeric) series. The difference is that the 6xx lineup has 2MB L2 cache and is a 64bit platform while the 5xx setup has 1MB L2 and is a 32bit platform (again, the comment about the amount of L2 cache applies). Note the naming convention -- Intel doesnt use "GHz" anymore. So if "64bit platforms" is a selling point for you -- Intel does have a product line
4. Read up *CPU 101*.
5. I dont know why people get the silly bloody notion that Intel silicon cant play games or that you'll have to drop your settings (for comparable systems of course) if you go Intel. I guess a lot of people voted for Bush too. In any case, the realworld difference between AMD and Intel is that if you choose to go the AMD route and have a strong enough video subsystem (i.e., 6800/X800 class or better and 1GB+ of fast RAM) then the AMD will clearly pull ahead -- but anyone who thinks they are going to notice a difference between 90fps and 120fps is either (a) not playing the game (b) playing very poorly coded games or (c) cant think outside of the marketing-box



> Does the program have to be made for 64 bit in order to run faster then 32 bit even if my OS is 64 bit?


Being "64bit" doesnt mean jack about "faster". All it means is that it is able to access more memory and has a larger stackspace than 32bit programs.



> i would assume that 32 bit programs still work on Windows XP 64...but im not 100% sure about that..


I assume you mean "Windows XP x64" (as opposed to Windows XP 64bit Edition which are two totally different products) and yes 32bit programs for the most part will work perfectly fine in a 64bit environment



> i would say that rarely is a system bottleneck by its cpu, unless it older of course...


To a degree thats true although freak programming occasional surprises us all (i.e., Halflife2)


----------



## Cromewell (Jun 24, 2005)

> the 5xx setup has 1MB L2 and is a 32bit platform


Intel is going to be shipping 5xx chips with EM64T enabled soon (if they aren't shipping already) a P4 5X1 will designate a EM64T processor.


----------



## Praetor (Jun 24, 2005)

Oi yeah forgot about the 5x1s ... yea those have been shipping already


----------



## r53s (Jun 24, 2005)

And now Pentium D's are Budget processors, and Athlon X2's are for the wealthier...


----------

