AMD 64 3500 Versus P4 equivalent

  DongQuyCao 20:34 13 Feb 2005

I'm looking to purchase a new PC to replace my long serving Gateway P2 450mhz of 6 years. The system wil have:

AMD 64 3500
1024mb DDR 3200 Ram
300GB HD
Geforce 6600 GT graphics

I was just wondering about the AMD processor. I know these chips are well proven, but how does it compare with the equivalent P4 chips. I take it the 3500 has at least the performance of a 3.5ghz P4? But I've heard P4 chips use a lot more power and are therefore noisier? Also, does the AMD 3800 chip have a significant performance advantage over the AMD 3500? I ask because this particular 3500 system has been advertised for a while now and I'm worried that it may be upgraded to the 3800 soon after I've purchased.

  woodchip 20:37 13 Feb 2005

64 Better

  gudgulf 20:45 13 Feb 2005

It depends what you want to do with it.If you want to encode video or are often running more than one program at once then the P4 will have the edge but for everything else then the Athlon64 is the faster chip.

Looking at your graphics card choice it's going to be gaming so definitely the Athlon.

  Bleep 20:55 13 Feb 2005

Without a doubt the AMD64 3500, It beats the P4 in everything bar video encoding and even then its not that far behind, and in gaming it stamps all over it..... click here

  easyrider 20:59 13 Feb 2005

My vote goes with the Athlon.

  DongQuyCao 21:13 13 Feb 2005

Thanks to everyone for their input. It is reassuring to know. I'm still opting for the AMD 64 but if Pentium is better for multi-tasking and video encoding, then it doesn't leave the AMD better at much else other than gaming, does it? :-)

  gudgulf 21:53 13 Feb 2005

The difference is not as clear cut as it was a short while ago but the Athlon will outperform the P4 overall. I doubt if you would really notice much difference in normal use here is a good place to start comparing the two makes.

  josie mayhem 22:01 13 Feb 2005

Until I can afford my AMD 64 chip, I'm running a sempron 3100+ on my motherboard Abit kv8 pro which can use either.

Even though it's shows cpu speed of only 1800ghz, it seems faster than mmy P4 2ghz computer, durning my rebuild I was using the graphic card from my other computer on this set-up. I was quite suprised.

  DongQuyCao 22:30 13 Feb 2005

The attraction of the AMD chip for me is

1) better value (?)
2) uses less mhz for the same performance (compared to P4)
3) better overall performance (now confirmed on this forum!)

  THE TERMINATOR 00:15 14 Feb 2005

Yes but remember the AMD 3500 is only eqivalent to 2.8Ghz. A P4 at 3.5Ghz as you mention, will be the better. As always AMD boast about their "new chips" by comparing them with Intels "old ones"....TT

  Bleep 12:21 14 Feb 2005

That’s not how it works with AMD64 I’m afraid mate, that’s that old system relating to Athlons and Thunderbirds.

Properly one of the most incorrect and 'Intel Fan Boy' statement I’ve ever seen on this forum.

AMD 64 Chips architecture is far more productive than the Intel Prescott Chips and I’m afraid that a lot more now determines performance than MHz, the only Intel Chips that can Stand up to AMD64 chips at the moment are P4 EE that cost £500+ which in turn are soundly beaten by the AMD FX chips. click here

The fact that Intel have pulled their 4Ghz chip and the 3.8ghz is the end of the line for the tired and outclassed now P4 chip says it all I’m afraid: click here

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5T review: Hands-on

Illustrator Andrés Lozano on his improv line work, brazen use of colours & hand sketching

iPhone X review

Comment envoyer gratuitement des gros fichiers ?