First off: I want unbiased opinions. I don't want you Intel fanatics or you AMD fanatics in here! I need a pretty multi-purpose chip. Gaming, of course. Lots of Photoshop and other imaging stuff. Some programming. Occasional video editing. Good overclocking. And the usual web browsing, email, movies, music, etc. On the Intel side, I'm looking at the 2.8C (or 3.0C) On the AMD side, I'm looking at the A64 2800+ (or 3000+) Is it worth getting the 3.0 over 2.8 or 3000+ over 2800+? I'd also be grateful if you'd recommend a motherboard along with the cpu you recommend.
im not biased i have an intel and an amd soooo.imo it all depends on your budget...how much ya got??? and also for teh mobo ne features u need eg.sata , firewire......
Not too sure about the A64 roundup on gaming, but i know the p4's are good. Tbh, its not worth paying the extra for a 3.0 over a 2.8, unless you want a few 100mhz... P4 motherboards, look at the DFI 865/875 boards, The Abit IS7 range, and IC7 range and Asus P4P800S (i think thats what its called!). Hope i was a bit of help...
It seems Intel chips are better for multimedia type things(video editing etc.) and AMD's are better for gaming. This is not from personal experience...just from looking at benches from Tom's Hardware(Yeah...I know, some of you don't trust Tom's Hardware.) If gaming was the thing you'd do most often, I'd say go AMD. You could wait for a couple months and see what happens when the new chips come out.
Am i right in saying that you probably wouldnt notice the speed difference? Althougth, i think right now you'd be better off with a P4, i think for the future, the A64 might be worth a shot.
There is no perfect, one-size-fits-all processor. For some tasks, Intel will be better, for some AMD; and for others even a VIA or a Mac. If you were to buy both; you would find that both the 2.8 and the 2800+ have similar performance. In most games, the A64 will be better; and in most encoding applications - the P4, be it stock or overclocked. There are of course, exceptions to this, such as Quake III which loves P4's memory bandwidth. Go with whichever chip you find cheaper. If you decide to go with the A64, you should get an Abit KV8 Pro, it will have a new BIOS release that implements bus locks. If you want to go with the P4, get ASUS p4c800-e Deluxe, or the Abit IC7-MAX3; both are really good boards; also, go with whichever you find cheaper.
Understatement of the year AMDs are generally better for gaming, whilst intels hyperthreading helps more in general multimedia. Basically you wont tell much difference with either - go for one whos mobo and price suits you most. I like my p4 2.8C, its uber stable, pretty damn fast and is nice and smooth doing general work.
For a p4, the real choices are the abit ic7 series and the asus p4c800 for performance, and the asus p4p800 for a good, but cheaper board. As for the best chip for your needs: toss a coin, theres a small difference on every task, the a64 and the p4 are about level. I know everybody says wait, but s939 and socket-t and btx are just round the corner, as are the 6800's and the x800's this time i really would wait.
with a bootblock mod the P4P800 is actually faster than the P4C800/IC7 and other 875 boards (and a load cheaper) however it limits you to 1:1 memory ratios (something to think about if buying ram for it) if you are going to need memory dividers then the P4C800E, DFI lanparty 875 or abit IC7 will be your best bet. if you fancy something to have fun with and overclock you will be better off getting a P4 than an A64 tbh, a 2.8M0 would be just the ticket, or a 2.4M0 could be even more fun, but tough to find and the 2.4 tends to be the same price as the 2.8 anyway. the PR ratings for A64 cpus compared to P4s are pretty spot on though when it comes to performance, each of them obviously has their strong points i like intel myself, but either will give you a nippy little system
P4C processors, as a general rule, love being overclocked youll never match the memory bandwidth though
D'oh! I typed about 5 paragraphs and hit reply, but lost it all b/c internet wasn't working. I'm not looking to spend $200 on a mobo and don't need all those features. I'd like to spend around $110 or cheaper. I need firewire for my iPod and DV Camera, USB 2.0, SATA, ethernet (gb ethernet not required).
asus P4P800 has all of those on it except for firewire the P4P800 deluxe has firewire on it along with a lod of other extra stuff, and is $110 from newegg
screw it. im gonna get a P4 or next gen intel proc for my next system. hmmm.... what could you get a reasonable P4C800 and 2.8c setup for? (using second hand parts other than the mobo, and 9500pro/9700pro/5900 for gfx)
Athlon 64s are awesome gaming CPUs. They perform very nicely, and are relatively cheap. Athlon XPs are also quite good. Intel's CPUs are better at video editing because high CPU speeds are necessary... But when it comes to gaming, Pentium 4s dont quite compare with Athlon 64s. They will beat Athlon XPs when you get into the 3.2+ range when comparing with Athlon XP 3000 and 3200+s. However, due to the significantly lower cost of AMD CPUs, they beat Intel's price performance ratio any day. The best value processer right now to the gamer though has to be the Athlon 64 3000+. Thus ends my statements.
With Socket 939 just around the corner... like days rather than weeks, I would be tempted to wait around for a little while. The current Athlon 64 doesn't offer comparable performance in terms of memory bandwidth in direct comparison with a Pentium 4; but then the fact that the memory controller is onboard the processor makes the architecture a little bit faster; still not comparable to the Pentium 4. The Prescott core isn't too bad; apart from the heat, its gaming performance isn't great, but then its multimedia performance is absolutely fantastic - better than a Northwood core by a considerable margin. If you wanted to go with a Pentium 4 with the needs that you have suggested, I would go for the 2.8/3.0C as they will offer you better 3d performance. Looking from the other side of the fence; AMD have always been great for gaming and the Athlon 64 is no different, it's gaming performance is fantastic PR-to-Intel clockspeed and I would place it above that of anything intel have to offer, apart from the Pentium 4 Expensive Edition... which is about on par with the Athlon 64 FX series of processors. I would say it all depends on how MUCH you're going to be gaming, because if you are going to be gaming, I don't think there is another choice over the Athlon 64, simply because it is better in terms of gaming performance. I would also like to argue the point that someone made about Quake3, check out the second graph on this page. Image editing and content creation has always been fairly good on an AMD platform, it's also fairly sharp on intel, I can't seem to find any benchmark results for photoshop at the moment though For your needs, I would say that the A64 3000+ would suit you pretty well. edit: I forgot to make any mention of Hyperthreading... It's something that is well worth looking at, and once you start to use a HT CPU, you probably wouldn't want to change, having said that, the Athlon 64 doesn't really need Hyperthreading, it has performed well in every aspect of testing that I've conducted, and I've never had Hyperthreading in my own system, so I don't really miss it
I was going to say this, but didn't bother to after I lost my post: I care more about multimedia stuff than gaming. The Prescott runs very hot and the reviews I've read say that the Prescott hardly beats the Northwood in many of the benchmarks. If I wanted (read: could afford) top of the line, I would be looking at a P4 EE or FX-53. Even if socket 939 and socket T are coming out soon, they're out of my price range; the mobo and procs will no doubt be even more expensive.
