zerodamage

"GERMAN HARDWARE Web site Hard Tecs 4U has published one of the first reviews of the AMD Athlon 64 3000+ processor. This new model runs at the same 2 GHz frequency as the flagship product, but does so with 512 KB of level two cache, which is half of what the 3200+ model has. Cheapest Price Watch price has it for $214, which is $156 less than the $370 3.2 GHz P4. The Athlon 64 won eight of the nine benchmarks, and one of them by 27%. For those who need superior gaming performance than a 3.2 GHz P4, but at less cost, these benchmarks indicate that the Athlon 64 3000+ is the way to go.

It was a smart move on AMD's part to release this device at the same frequency as its sibling, but with half the level two cache, as it still betters the P4 in the very important world of gaming. AMD deserves some credit here. It has brought to market a processor that has half the theoretical memory bandwidth and 37.5% less frequency than the 3.2 GHz P4, and it is still a gaming winner. For those that have been waiting for the cheaper Athlon 64s to arrive, you can now have your cake and eat it"

Source: Neowin

craig588

WOW!!!!!!

spark rain fire

but yet the kids still buy intels, because the clock speeds are higher.

__________________

----
http://www.invalidsystemdisk.vze.com

craig588

the kids? What kids have more than 50$?

people bought intels because they were faster. Now its not the case. (dont delude yourself, an overclocked intel is faster than an overclocked barton)

The_Neon_Cowboy

hah hahaaa i been telling the intel fanboys this for quite a while lol

mhz isn't everything it comes down to design and performance wich amd has the advantage

__________________

@/2ct!<

I am glad to see what relatively small impact overall the cache has, ie the next gen 754 newcastles with 512 are still gonna be pretty attractive.

__________________
A64 @ 2.45 Ghz, x800xt, l90d+, 1 Gig DDR 400 @222

Markius

from the looks of things it wasnt the P4 EE that was used...

but i agree with the general message they are saying...

my next cpu will be an AMD 64 because its great performance wise and doesnt cost an arm and a leg like the way over priced P4EE

__________________
DriverHeavens Aussie...

"Lifes tragedy is that we get old too soon and wise too late"

Optimummind

The reason I prefer to buy Intel is similar to why I prefer to buy nVIDIA GPUs. It's not about how fast the processor or GPU is but rather how well it integrates with the rest of the system and how stable it is.

For CPUs, I want stability in my chipset. For GPUs, I want stability in my drivers and compatibility with old and new games.

Intel is known throughout the world for its highly stable chipset and mobo architecture. On the AMD side, however, there are frequent chipset-related issues from VIA, SIS, and nVIDIA. Of course, for the last generation of AMD CPUs, the nFORCE have been very stable and reliable. But, it still did have up and downs. As for Intel, I haven't heard any negative reports about its chipset that is flaking out.

For the GPUs, I prefer nVIDIA because of their awesome drivers. ATI, although much, much improved, is still not at the same or above level as nVIDIA. If you want to know just how many driver-related issues plague ATI and games, go to the Rage3D forum and look for the known incompatibility thread.

Although it is still too early to how good the chipsets for the Athlon64 series will turn out to be, I will continue to buy Intel CPUs for their stability and reliability.

AlternateVirus

you do realize only 1% of users who have ati cards go to rage3d forums? I'm sorry but if you go to any nvidia forums, you'll see there a huge shitload of same threads about problems related to the nivida drivers. nvidia isnt perfect at all. same with amd chipsets, you basing everything because you hear it online but you never hear shit from system intergrators or anybody using the same motherboards. 90% of the problems are caused by n00bs.

AMD is as stable as Intel processors and ATi is as stable as Nvidia. theres nothing you can prove to me that tells me otherwise.
Intel great for overall performance, AMD great for budget and gaming. Period
ATi great for overall performance and Nvidia is great for basic gaming that most users only need.

nForcer

But sit back and ask yourself 'does one REALLY care about benchmarks' I direct that question to the open minded individuals. Those who replay 'yes i do care' are not open minded. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm a die hard Intel fan but AMD is giving Intel competition it has never seen - which is a good thing. Problem is, the two chip giants are growing in different directions. AMD is pushing 64-bit technology and Intel is working to better 32-bit. Each have thier justification but in the end, they both get the job done. To most, including myself...thats all that really matters. (I'd like to thank the Academy, my parents, .... )

craig588

64 bit is the future because, well, its...... um....bigger.


seriously, in the future 64 bit will be very important for addressing huge amounts of ram/HD space, not to mention the fact that twice as many instructions can be fit into the same space.(sorta)

in games we'll be seeing huge textures that probbably are 80-90 megs each, and each scene will probably have a few dozen of them. We all will have like 128GB of ram and 4-5TB HDs. we need 64 bit to address all this info. (and if you dont belive me think of what gates said saying we would never need more than 640K of ram, if you want a more recent one think of a dual 12M voodoo 2 setup and everyone said 24M of ram was crazy, even more recently dell released a custom GF2 with 64M of ram and people said they were crazy)

-={420}=-

Yeah I was thinking since Longhorn is gonna be 2006+ by then they'll probably only make it for 64-bit processors...I doubt they're gonna waste that time to make a 32-bit version.

__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

mainman

Dont think so bud, theres still people using win98 in our days so, im sure they will make a 32bit edition when longhorns out.

__________________

@/2ct!<

Even Intel plans to be 64 bit mass market by then though, so most likely 64 bit only OS.

__________________
A64 @ 2.45 Ghz, x800xt, l90d+, 1 Gig DDR 400 @222

WaltC

I have to say I disagree--you're wrong on both counts... I dumped Intel a couple of years ago when they pulled the WilliametteP4/Rambus fiasco, and although I initially felt at the time as you relate above, I've been pleasantly surprised to have had few, if any, reliability issues which have exceeded the reliabiity issues I had previously with Intel (When I used mostly Intel and Intel-chipset Asus motherboards.) In short, I've experienced nothing in the last couple/three years that has at any time caused me to consider going back to Intel--even once. OTOH, I've been pleasantly surprised by several things by going with AMD. Intel hasn't made anything in a long while that would cause me to switch back. In sept. '02 I owned two GF4 Ti4600's in my home machines, and at that time one was displaced by a R9700P--which frankly was as stable as anything I owned from nVidia--and which I liked so much that in May of '03 I replaced the other GF4 with a 9800P. Ditto there, too--nVidia's given me no reason to come back on the product front, and ATi has given me plenty of reasons to stay with them. So I'm afraid there are many who'd disagree with you on this topic. Good advice is not to rely on gossip and hearsay--but find out these things for yourself. Like you, I was a bit over cautious when dumping both these companies--but I've never regretted it since.

And my goodness, if you want to take a gander at people having trouble with Intel cpus and chipsets, you should check out the forums at www.intel.com ! Heh... You'll run across *thousands* who are having problems. Just like the dozens who report problems from time to time at Rage3d. The thing to remember, though, is that it's only a tiny fraction of the people having problems with these products who actually post to these forums, and you'll never hear from the many, many more who have no problems--because of course they don't post. Many more people have few problems with Intel cpus and chipsets than have a lot of problems with them, but you should give yourself some perspective and check those Intel forums out... There are several Intel-product newsgroups, too. You can try comp.sys.intel for starters--just do a newsgroup search for "intel" through your browser, and you'll find literally tens of thousands of posts by people having their share of Intel problems in various areas.