Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4

JK wrote:
kony wrote:
JK wrote:

Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system.

Nonsense
There are instable o'c systems but instable non-o'c systems too.

If someone is ignorant of how to o'c, then of course they
shouldn't... same goes for driving a car but it's not an
argument against someone else driving a car.

It is an argument for not driving a car above the speed limit.
Keeping with the specs. adds to safety and avoids problems.
There are speed limits for a reason, and processors have rated
speeds for a reason. As you go further outside the
specifications, you increase the risk for problems.

It is also desirable to not o'c because it gives you someone to
yell at when things don't work. It also produces that extra
margin of safety that protects your data.

--
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA

For crying out loud Kony get a life. JK just mention the points to the
user. Those are the facts. If you still want to over clock you CPU by all
mean do it.

Of course there are system that are unstable without over clock but that the
exception not the norm.
You can certainly drive you cpu until it crash and burn, it's your money.
The fact that overclock will reduce CPU life remains. Whether that life is
within the next upgrade is not the point. Info were given so that
individual can make decision. No one said don't do it.

Just because you muck around with the damm PC does not mean you know
everything about it. Get a life.


"kony" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:17:10 -0400, JK
wrote:



kony wrote:

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:18:12 -0400, JK
wrote:

Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system.

Nonsense
There are instable o'c systems but instable non-o'c systems too.

If someone is ignorant of how to o'c, then of course they
shouldn't... same goes for driving a car but it's not an argument
against someone else driving a car.

It is an argument for not driving a car above the speed limit. Keeping
with the specs. adds to safety and avoids problems. There are
speed limits for a reason, and processors have rated speeds
for a reason. As you go further outside the specifications, you
increase the risk for problems.


Almost everyone DOES drive above speed limit, at least on THIS
planet. It may increase risk for problems IF the specifics of
the o'c aren't considered, how they effect system. "Safety" is
random nonsense, life is inherantly unsafe and there's nothing
particular to overclocked CPU that's unsafe, if done correctly.


In other words, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with
overclocking, rather that someone should known what they're doing
if they start making *any* kind of hardware configuration
changes.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:17:31 -0500, "noone"
wrote:

For crying out loud Kony get a life. JK just mention the points to the
user. Those are the facts. If you still want to over clock you CPU by all
mean do it.

Not the facts, more of his biased marketing spiel towards
consumers sending AMD a boatload of cash for their high-end part
at the moment. Perhaps you have not witnessed or realized his
promotion of AMD, and only AMD, hundreds of times if not more
only considering the "Jeffrey Karp" handle alone?

JK ~ Jeffrey Karp

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Jeffrey+Karp+buy+AMD


Of course there are system that are unstable without over clock but that the
exception not the norm.
You can certainly drive you cpu until it crash and burn, it's your money.
The fact that overclock will reduce CPU life remains. Whether that life is
within the next upgrade is not the point. Info were given so that
individual can make decision. No one said don't do it.

It certainly IS the point. When system is retired before CPU
dies, who cares when it would've died? To put things in
perspective, those Celeron 300 I menitoned previously are already
8 years old, and still run fine... how many years do you expect
to get from them? Since CPU lifespan reduction is known, like
other variables it can be considered when overclocking, which was
the point all along, that overclocking when you are aware of the
impact is not an unsafe thing.... according to theory that CPU
will die, also it would die anyway eventually. Likewise it would
die sooner if using low-end OEM heatsink instead of better 'sink
that keeps it cooler, yet OEM still chooses cheaper heatsink.



Just because you muck around with the damm PC does not mean you know
everything about it. Get a life.

Do you always try to stoop so low when you don't have an
argument? I doubt anyone would take you seriously if that is the
case.

Perhaps it's just ego, that you personally aren't good at
overclocking and instead of just accepting it or becoming more
educated, you prefer to assume it MUST be problematic? It is a
choice, not a mandate to do so... your choices need not be same
as anyone elses but get over yourself if you feel everyone should
make same choice as you.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:50:42 GMT, CBFalconer
wrote:



It is also desirable to not o'c because it gives you someone to
yell at when things don't work. It also produces that extra
margin of safety that protects your data.

You're right that a non-o'c system can provide more of a margin,
and yet typical user is not aggressively testing stability of
their non-o'c system so they have no idea if data is protected.
You also witness lack of support for ECC memory for the same
reason, that a user will assume something without testing it.
Going the opposite way, a system could have even larger margin
for error if it were underclocked, yet we see none underclocked
for this reason.

With any o'c, testing is mandatory. Risk must be assessed,
system qualified for it's intended purpose.

Well, to tell you the truth. I am a computer engineer and mainly deal with
asic. These memory timing is just greek to me. All my computers never OC.
Never seem to needed being the peripheral is the bottle neck. LOL. If life
were just as simple as turn up the clock and you get great result ........

Read all the bench marks if you like but the result are always subjective.
beside the CPU the platform are never the same motherboard etc. So being
so inform and astute as you are how can you slam a person when they trying
to express their opinion.

So what if he pro AMD do you not have a mind to reject it? Info were
given to you to process who to say that you have to accept it. What make
you think that you are right and that he is wrong or vice versa?


"kony" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:17:31 -0500, "noone"
wrote:

For crying out loud Kony get a life. JK just mention the points to the
user. Those are the facts. If you still want to over clock you CPU by
all
mean do it.

Not the facts, more of his biased marketing spiel towards
consumers sending AMD a boatload of cash for their high-end part
at the moment. Perhaps you have not witnessed or realized his
promotion of AMD, and only AMD, hundreds of times if not more
only considering the "Jeffrey Karp" handle alone?

JK ~ Jeffrey Karp

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Jeffrey+Karp+buy+AMD


Of course there are system that are unstable without over clock but that
the
exception not the norm.
You can certainly drive you cpu until it crash and burn, it's your money.
The fact that overclock will reduce CPU life remains. Whether that life
is
within the next upgrade is not the point. Info were given so that
individual can make decision. No one said don't do it.

It certainly IS the point. When system is retired before CPU
dies, who cares when it would've died? To put things in
perspective, those Celeron 300 I menitoned previously are already
8 years old, and still run fine... how many years do you expect
to get from them? Since CPU lifespan reduction is known, like
other variables it can be considered when overclocking, which was
the point all along, that overclocking when you are aware of the
impact is not an unsafe thing.... according to theory that CPU
will die, also it would die anyway eventually. Likewise it would
die sooner if using low-end OEM heatsink instead of better 'sink
that keeps it cooler, yet OEM still chooses cheaper heatsink.



Just because you muck around with the damm PC does not mean you know
everything about it. Get a life.

Do you always try to stoop so low when you don't have an
argument? I doubt anyone would take you seriously if that is the
case.

Perhaps it's just ego, that you personally aren't good at
overclocking and instead of just accepting it or becoming more
educated, you prefer to assume it MUST be problematic? It is a
choice, not a mandate to do so... your choices need not be same
as anyone elses but get over yourself if you feel everyone should
make same choice as you.

"JK" wrote in message
...


man wrote:

This has probably been talked about before here...

I'm building a new system...the goal is to avoid building a new system
for the longest possible time. It's come down to getting an AMD Athlon
64 3200+ with 1MB cache, or a Pentium 4 (Prescott) 3.0 GHZ with 1MB
cache.

In my research I've found that a prescott will beat the Athlon in most
benches.

That is not true. The Athlon 64 3200+ will beat the P4 3ghz Prescott
in most benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=1

Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor to a
32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric hybrid
car and a regular combustion engine. When Intel comes out with their own 64
bit processor, than you can start with the whole benchmark thing.

MC

"Stephen Gordon" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I had a look at those benchmarks and it seems as soon as you put the
resolution up the Athlon 64s drop nearly 20fps while the Intel ones seem
to drop a much smaller amount.

This seems to indicate that the Athlon 64s don't perform very well when
you put them under any real pressure.

-Steve

Bingo, I said that in another post. He ended up disputing something else I
said...

MC

Not the facts, more of his biased marketing spiel towards
consumers sending AMD a boatload of cash for their high-end part
at the moment. Perhaps you have not witnessed or realized his
promotion of AMD, and only AMD, hundreds of times if not more
only considering the "Jeffrey Karp" handle alone?

JK ~ Jeffrey Karp

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Jeffrey+Karp+buy+AMD

Hehe. I was going to say something about it. I see JK post in several
groups which I read and post in. I don't think I've seen a post yet where
he fails to place a link to a CPU benchmark site and tout AMD.

Moderately Confused wrote:

"JK" wrote in message
...


man wrote:

This has probably been talked about before here...

I'm building a new system...the goal is to avoid building a new system
for the longest possible time. It's come down to getting an AMD Athlon
64 3200+ with 1MB cache, or a Pentium 4 (Prescott) 3.0 GHZ with 1MB
cache.

In my research I've found that a prescott will beat the Athlon in most
benches.

That is not true. The Athlon 64 3200+ will beat the P4 3ghz Prescott
in most benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=1

Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor to a
32 bit processor.

Of course you can, provided you are running the same 32 bit OS and 32 bit
software in each. Of course the Athlon 64 will probably be much faster
in its 64 bit mode with 64 bit software and a 64 bit OS than with 32 bit
software and a 32 bit OS. It is very reasonable to compare a P4 3ghz
Prescott to an Athlon 64 3200+, since they are very close in price.

It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric hybrid
car and a regular combustion engine. When Intel comes out with their own 64
bit processor, than you can start with the whole benchmark thing.



MC

"Moderately Confused" wrote...

Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor to
a
32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric
hybrid
car and a regular combustion engine.

Actually, it is fair to compare the Athlon 64 to the Pentium 4 when both are
marketed to the Win32 market as the 'latest' in high-performance processors
for home use.

Also, the OP cited 2 similarly priced variants.

Also, why can't you compare gas mileage in the Civic gas to the Civic
hybrid, or any other comparable car?