-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
A3400+ = equivalent speed in P4?
- Thread starter Jojo1971
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Location
- Salt Lake City
I'm assuming that the 3400+ you're referring to is a 64 bit chip...
Here's an article comparing many different chips (there's no 3.4c but the reviewed 3.2c will perform similarly).
If you're a hardcore gamer, I would go with the A64 every time, especially with that 3400+ performing so close to the FX-51. But if you're a gamer and you do a lot of high firepower desktop work , you can't beat the high clockspeed of the P4. Personally, I have gone with the Pentium this time around but you can be sure I'll have an A64 in my box when refresh time comes.
Here's an article comparing many different chips (there's no 3.4c but the reviewed 3.2c will perform similarly).
If you're a hardcore gamer, I would go with the A64 every time, especially with that 3400+ performing so close to the FX-51. But if you're a gamer and you do a lot of high firepower desktop work , you can't beat the high clockspeed of the P4. Personally, I have gone with the Pentium this time around but you can be sure I'll have an A64 in my box when refresh time comes.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Location
- Connecticut
I agree specifically with an a64 vs a p4 the pr of an a64 is extremely competitive with the clockspeed of the p4. IT all comes down to what you do. If you heavily multitask for example riping a dvd and encoding something at the same time you might want to stick with the p4 but if you play games or do office type applications frequently the a 64 is probably for you. Either way both are very competitive processors.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2004
- Location
- USA, Vermont
yeah but now with the 53 out it is ripping apart the 3.4EE chips. they can oc to around 2.6 with there stock hs and fan. then they completly SHREAD the intel 3.4EE. But like was said u r in a multi tasking enviroment then that HT of any intel makes it the prime choice for that. When AMD implements somekind of HT if they evey do then intel will be done 4 in everything.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2004
- Location
- USA, Vermont
so the 3400 @ 2.2 is about the same as an p4 3.2EE or a p4 c at around 3.6. the 53 is about a 3.5-6EE in most apps. AMD is now starting to close the gap even in HT benchmarks.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
Overall, the benchmarks I've seen support that the Athlon FX53 is faster than anything intel has out right now (including the EE), especially in gaming.
But not by much, they're pretty close.
The Intels also have much worse heat issues.
The AMD's are still mostly running in 32 bit mode, and still beating the intels. When they can run native 64 bit apps, I expect that they'll significantly outperform intel.
But not by much, they're pretty close.
The Intels also have much worse heat issues.
The AMD's are still mostly running in 32 bit mode, and still beating the intels. When they can run native 64 bit apps, I expect that they'll significantly outperform intel.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Location
- Phoenix. YOUR HAIR IS GOOD TO EAT
-If AMD ever incorporated some sort of hyperthread technology, I'm sure at the time Intel would have something to counterpart it, both companies are working on new technology as we speak.
-The FX-53 is a better chip. It's about $200 cheaper, and performs overall on par with the 3.4EE. Neither chip is significantly overpowering the other.
-The only Intel chips with serious heat issues are the Prescotts. The EE series are not part of this.
The 3.0c is a great chip. I would have gone with the 64 bit stuff just for variety, but ultimately you will be satisfied.
-The FX-53 is a better chip. It's about $200 cheaper, and performs overall on par with the 3.4EE. Neither chip is significantly overpowering the other.
-The only Intel chips with serious heat issues are the Prescotts. The EE series are not part of this.
The 3.0c is a great chip. I would have gone with the 64 bit stuff just for variety, but ultimately you will be satisfied.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
which costs more, thats the question? he may want to trade his 3400+ even though he knows his chip is MUCH faster so he can sell yours for profit and buy another 3400+ also his may be a bad overclocker. Intel p4cs are way overpriced, especially their flagship 3.4. If you want to go amd and your cpu is worth more, sell it. the a64 is not only faster, when 64 bit comes, Intel guys will be left in the dust
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2001
- Location
- Tokyo, Japan
I'd say if the guy is hitting you up for the trade then maybe it isnt a good idea, even though the AMD chip will have use far longer than the Intel ever will. If things ever go all 64 anyway.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2002
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ USA
People can make up numbers like X CPU is = to Y CPU, but it really is app specific like mentioned above. Here is another good review that includes the P4 3.4 and the 3400+ in lots of tests.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/prescott-tests.html
Sounds like you've decided already, but if you have second thoughts it really is best to see which does best in the things you will be using it for.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/prescott-tests.html
Sounds like you've decided already, but if you have second thoughts it really is best to see which does best in the things you will be using it for.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2001
- Location
- Denver, CO
It really does boil down to applications. I had an FX51 overclocked to 2600MHz. That's 200MHz faster than the FX53 people are talking about. At that speed my stock 3.0C P4 was still ripping up the FX at Seti. The FX had the best time benchmarking a single work unit, but for best daily production the P4 was doing 3-4 more per day utilizing HT.
tom10167 said:
i doubt AMD will ever use hyperthreading, its just wouldn't do anything for their design. hyperthreading is just a way to try and mask the problems of having a deep pipeline, something which the athlon does not have.
pretty interesting that the pentium-m doesn't have hyperthreading and that seems to be intels new architecture of choice.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
i had fx51 overclocked to 2400mhz and it rocked on gaming, hands down smoked my p4 3.2 overclocked at 3.6 w/2-2-2-5 cl settings
however it was slow compared with multitasking...real slow compared to what i am used to with my P4. for that reason alone i took it back...but it did make my gaming experience better.
when i refer to multi-tasking i am surfing net while defragging hard drive with outlook open and 5-6 programs in tray open
intel rocks and FX don't...very laggy switching apps
however it was slow compared with multitasking...real slow compared to what i am used to with my P4. for that reason alone i took it back...but it did make my gaming experience better.
when i refer to multi-tasking i am surfing net while defragging hard drive with outlook open and 5-6 programs in tray open
intel rocks and FX don't...very laggy switching apps
- Thread Starter
- #15
nice opinions on both sides..thx guys..
for applications im using- i usually do the following:
1.) minidv to pc videocapture which includes rendering before getting burned to DVD+-R's
2.) cd ripping (wav to mp3)
3.) photoshop for processing my/family digital photos
4.) gaming-i have a 9800XT
5.) i usually have background applications (such as AVG antivirus,ICQ, aol/yahoo/msn messenger, ventrilo) running all the time...
for applications im using- i usually do the following:
1.) minidv to pc videocapture which includes rendering before getting burned to DVD+-R's
2.) cd ripping (wav to mp3)
3.) photoshop for processing my/family digital photos
4.) gaming-i have a 9800XT
5.) i usually have background applications (such as AVG antivirus,ICQ, aol/yahoo/msn messenger, ventrilo) running all the time...
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2002
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ USA
xtrmeocr said:
Yeah and if you could prove that pentium-m is Intels new architechture of choice I and many other people (including most Intel fanboys) would give you a big hug.
Please link me, because as it stands now Intel only plans to use it for very limited desktop use.
If they had a mainstream desktop Dothan with all the goodies like 800 fsb I'd be all over that. Dothan will work over any processor clock for clock and its power usage is fantastic(PC processors).
That would rock, but I sure haven't heard any news of mainstream desktop usage so if you have please show me.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2001
- Location
- Denver, CO
Uh okayxtrmeocr said:
![]-[itman](/forums/data/avatars/m/9/9309.jpg?1650325391){kind=avatar}
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5181256.html?tag=cd_lede
You never know if they'll keep hyperthreading in there or not. The thing is, though, that hyperthreading isn't really an advantage to the Pentium-M architecture just like it wouldn't give hardly any noticeable improvements to an Athlon. Hyperthreading was really designed to work around the flaws of the P4, so you can't expect a cure to do much if you're not sick in the first place.
You never know if they'll keep hyperthreading in there or not. The thing is, though, that hyperthreading isn't really an advantage to the Pentium-M architecture just like it wouldn't give hardly any noticeable improvements to an Athlon. Hyperthreading was really designed to work around the flaws of the P4, so you can't expect a cure to do much if you're not sick in the first place.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2002
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ USA
]-[itman said:
Man, I hope thats true, but good lord, 2007! That is a long ways off and I wonder how Tejas fits into this.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
there is no way a 3GHz p4 multitasks faster than a fx51 overclocked, something is way wrong. if HT mattered that much that a stock p4 owns, then why o why doesnt amd use HT
