Upgrade from P4 to AMD 64

My current setup:

P4 2.8Ghz 533FSB
Gigabyte AGP 8x sis chipset motherboard

I wana upgrade to:

AMD 64 3200+ Winchester
Abit AV8


My other specs:

Radeon X800Pro vivo flashed to 16pipe with Pro bios
Soundblaster Live 5.1 digital
7200rmp 8mb cache HDD
1GB 400mhz DDR Ram


My question is: would this upgrade increase its performance in 3D gaming like FPS increacse in games like Doom3 and half life 2?

That would be a nice upgrade for gaming, you'll certainly see an overall gain in all areas. The older P4's weren't all that great, plus they don't have HT, so you're not losing much on this one. Might i suggest the MSI K8N Neo2 for your board though, without a doubt the most overclocker freindly 939 board. Either way, the A64's really shine in gaming.

actually my budget is about tight atm, how about this one:

GIGABYTE K8NS

ATHLON 64 3200+ Newcastle

You would be well served to move to a Athlon 64 from the P4. If you look at all of the tests, the Athlon is better for gaming in all aspects. Also, the Athlon 64 has native support for 64bit OS'es (you can get a 64bit beta of Windows XP through Microsoft right now) and of course...AMD is still cheaper! On top of all of that, AMD runs cooler and uses less power than the newer Intel CPU's. Also, if you wait until the 2nd or 3rd quarter in '05 you should be able to get DDR2 in the chipset. Waiting it out is not a bad idea since DDR2 is still expensive and doesn't run any faster than DDR right now. PCI Express is out for the Athlon 64's now as you can see from this board that I will be picking up soon. Hope this helps your decision.

certainly well served since it is only a 533 FSB chip :d you will be quiet happy.

Reyn said:

actually my budget is about tight atm, how about this one:

GIGABYTE K8NS

ATHLON 64 3200+ Newcastle

Click to expand...

Really since no one has brought this up. Your 2.8 even only running at 533 will be better then the 754 you picked. The 754 does not support dual channel memory. So you wont really see a perfomance gain, and possible a loss (just depending on if your chipset supports DC).

It would really be better to just save up for a 939 setup (or if can wait, a 939/PCI-E setup). Then you will definetly see a big performance gain.

glock19owner said:

Really since no one has brought this up. Your 2.8 even only running at 533 will be better then the 754 you picked. The 754 does not support dual channel memory. So you wont really see a perfomance gain, and possible a loss (just depending on if your chipset supports DC).

It would really be better to just save up for a 939 setup (or if can wait, a 939/PCI-E setup). Then you will definetly see a big performance gain.

Click to expand...

so i take it i should stick to

AMD 64 3200+ Winchester
Abit AV8

?

Personally I'd try to overclock your CPU and make up the difference. Ive seen people with 2.8s overclock well past 3.2ghz, which would be equally as fast, when combinded with better RAM

glock19owner said:

Really since no one has brought this up. Your 2.8 even only running at 533 will be better then the 754 you picked. The 754 does not support dual channel memory. So you wont really see a perfomance gain, and possible a loss (just depending on if your chipset supports DC).

It would really be better to just save up for a 939 setup (or if can wait, a 939/PCI-E setup). Then you will definetly see a big performance gain.

Click to expand...

While it is true that a s939 system is in his best interests, it is an error to assume that a 533 Mhz non-HyperThreading P4 will outperform a s754 chip. As most of us already know, dual channel accounts for no more than a 5% boost when moving from s754 to s939, and this can be easily forgotten when working with DTR/Mobile s754's that provide such goodies as a 1MB Cache. So I agree that s939 is the way to go, but any s754 chip will be better than his current Intel.

deception``

Sentential said:

Personally I'd try to overclock your CPU and make up the difference. Ive seen people with 2.8s overclock well past 3.2ghz, which would be equally as fast, when combinded with better RAM

Click to expand...

I'd recommend an attempt to overclock, too. Unfortunately, he does not possess a HT Northwood that we find most common. Because his chip is outdated even in Intel's eyes, it's probably best to upgrade (whether it be to AMD or another Intel).

deception``

"It would really be better to just save up for a 939 setup (or if can wait, a 939/PCI-E setup). Then you will definetly see a big performance gain.

Also, if you wait until the 2nd or 3rd quarter in '05 you should be able to get DDR2 in the chipset. Waiting it out is not a bad idea since DDR2 is still expensive and doesn't run any faster than DDR right now."

Where are you guys getting this info? I'm thinking about upgrading from Athlon XP 2400+ to at least Athlon 64 3200+. Right now I can get 3200+ w/ ECS Mboard and SiS chipset for $200. Or I can get 3400 w/ Asus Mboard and Via chipset for $320. I don't need it really soon because I'm going to finish GTA San Andreas on the PS2 before I start HL-2 on the PC. I've got a couple months. Are these too good of deals to pass up? Will waiting 2 months make a big difference in price of better stuff?

Click to expand...

Ed has definitly had a lot to say in his articles on the front page about the various new tech out and coming soon as well. I am currently building a s939 system because I could care less about DDR2 and because we need a new system. Waiting usually will bring down prices expecially since the new chipsets from nVidia, Via and of course ATI are either out now or coming out soon. If you are going to be waiting a few monthes anyway, it really can't hurt since the prices that you have found right now should only get sweeter w/ time.

Also bear in mind that commonly accepted internet-gumbo may not tell the whole story. The places where you wait on a cpu, like rendering, encoding, and min fps in gameplay, can be superior with a P4. Here is the sort of thing I am talking about:

Conclusion
So we can draw two points from our today’s tests. First, the standard test method that measures the average fps rate when playing a demo cannot be used for a correct comparison of CPU performance in Doom 3. More precise results can be achieved in real gaming environment only. Second, our tests don’t reveal a clear performance leader among the topmost models of the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 series. It would be imprudent to claim that a particular CPU architecture suits better for playing Doom 3: the Athlon 64 FX-53 is about as fast as the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition and the Athlon 64 3800+ equals the Pentium 4 560. We could continue drawing parallels longer, though.

Click to expand...

The entire article can be read here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/doom3-cpu.html

Everyone wants to think that performance evaluation is as simple as running this test or that one, with the highest number winning. And A64s dominate by that sort of (almost uselessly superficial) analysis. As your understanding of PC performance and measurment matures, you will understand that the situation is not as represented by the masses; truth and understanding being a little more rare commodities.

That being said, an A64 like you have proposed will give you a goodly performance boost in most games. But the point is so would a more advanced P4. Sometimes it takes more than just a few numbers to comprehend a situation as complex and inter-dependant as PC performance is.

thank you deception for setting him straight! The mere though of a p4 533mhz non-ht outperfroming ANY amd64 is outrageous to say the least.

That chart would be even better if had used the top two CPU's though. Intel's EE is now at 3.46GHz and the A64 is the FX-55; I think running at 2600MHz. The the most recent benchmark between these 2 show a revese of what was seen in the XBitLabs test, but it would be cool to see them update that test since it seemed like they were very detailed and checked every little thing that they had questions about.

It has long been shown that in the new generation of CPU's are each good in their own right. P4's are great at office apps, some encoding & apps like photoshop since they have longer code extensions. The HT P4's are good for these apps because they have the extra transistors and in some cases as much as 2MB of cache.

The only real question anyone thinking of upgrading right now should be asking themselves is this; "will I be running the above mentioned apps or gaming more?" If yes to the first, then buy a P4 HT and you will not be disappointed. If the second, then get an A64 and you will be happy.

In either case, you really can't complain about where CPU's are right now especially since the future looks like speed is out for the time being

While it would be ideal to have the 3.46 and FX-55 included, it does not materially alter the comparison. The points raised in article are still entirely valid, and you can bet it won't be long before Xbitlabs publishes new articles that will both cover all processor options then available and in most cases provide more of the sincerly unique performance evaluation breakthroughs represented in the article I linked. IMO these guys have no true peers at present.