If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Motherboard recommendation
What is the best board for the P4 550 3.4GHZ LGA775:
ABIT AG8 915P LGA775 ASUS P5GD1 LGA775 915P INTEL D925XCVLK P4 LGA775 925X or MSI 915P NEO2 PLATINUM LGA775 Plan to have a gig of ram and a PCIe vid card in addition to the above Perhaps there are others but looking for plus and minuses of above boards. I will be using the computer for games and image processing and hope to get a little futureproofing out of my choice. Ron |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Rockin Ronnie wrote: What is the best board for the P4 550 3.4GHZ LGA775: Why get a P4? Why not an Athlon 64 instead? ABIT AG8 915P LGA775 ASUS P5GD1 LGA775 915P INTEL D925XCVLK P4 LGA775 925X or MSI 915P NEO2 PLATINUM LGA775 Plan to have a gig of ram and a PCIe vid card in addition to the above Perhaps there are others but looking for plus and minuses of above boards. I will be using the computer for games Do you want to play Doom 3? A $150 Athlon 64 3000+(socket 754) beats an $815 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE in Doom 3. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7 Athlon 64 processors are great performers overall. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6 and image processing and hope to get a little futureproofing Futureproofing? Then why do you want a 32 bit processor? Buy a 64 bit processor instead. In a few months when 64 bit Windows for X86-64 is released, all 32 bit processors will seem very old. Many people who buy a 32 bit processor in '04 will regret not buying a 64 bit processor instead. out of my choice. Ron |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be:
P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+ Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest of their system combined. So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who has the best bang for buck, at the moment. Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel. So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and one tie. GAMING OVERALL: TIED Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide. Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both *CPU* and memory benchmarks Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8, it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting is, the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz P4 processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors are pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD being faster on others. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2038&p=1 Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about the 3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great comparison of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be careful, as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And on some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks, you will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD faster on some and Intel faster on others. http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_3329681__1 Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
You post the same thing over and over, however many things you claim
aren't true. Look at the benchmarks. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6 "Dave C." wrote: According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be: P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+ Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest of their system combined. So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who has the best bang for buck, at the moment. Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel. So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and one tie. GAMING OVERALL: TIED Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide. Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both *CPU* and memory benchmarks Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8, it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting is, the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz P4 processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors are pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD being faster on others. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2038&p=1 Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about the 3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great comparison of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be careful, as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And on some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks, you will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD faster on some and Intel faster on others. http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_3329681__1 Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave C." wrote: According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be: P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+ Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest of their system combined. So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who has the best bang for buck, at the moment. Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster Not quite. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2065&p=10 Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel. So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and one tie. GAMING OVERALL: TIED Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Penntium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6 Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away Not quite. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6 Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away Not quite. Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Penntium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6 Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide. Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide Can you provide any evidence of this? Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both *CPU* and memory benchmarks Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8, it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting is, the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz P4 processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors are pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD being faster on others. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2038&p=1 Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about the 3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great comparison of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be careful, as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And on some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks, you will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD faster on some and Intel faster on others. http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_3329681__1 Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"JK" wrote in message ... You post the same thing over and over, however many things you claim aren't true. Look at the benchmarks. BULL****!!! Everything I write is based on the benchmarks. Call the benchmarks inaccurate, if you wish. But if you claim I'm posting inaccurate information, you are going to end up looking really stupid to anyone who can READ. Intel is better than AMD at the moment. That's a proven fact. Yeah, I know that really ****es you off. Get over it. -Dave According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be: P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+ Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest of their system combined. So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who has the best bang for buck, at the moment. Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel. So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and one tie. GAMING OVERALL: TIED Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide. Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both *CPU* and memory benchmarks Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8, it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting is, the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz P4 processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors are pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD being faster on others. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2038&p=1 Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about the 3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great comparison of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be careful, as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And on some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks, you will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD faster on some and Intel faster on others. http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_3329681__1 Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
JK wrote:
"Dave C." wrote: According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be: P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+ Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest of their system combined. So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who has the best bang for buck, at the moment. Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster Not quite. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2065&p=10 Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel. So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and one tie. GAMING OVERALL: TIED Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Penntium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6 Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away Not quite. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6 Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away Not quite. Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Penntium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6 Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide. Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide Can you provide any evidence of this? Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both *CPU* and memory benchmarks Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8, it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting is, the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz P4 processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors are pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD being faster on others. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2038&p=1 Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about the 3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great comparison of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be careful, as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And on some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks, you will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD faster on some and Intel faster on others. http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_3329681__1 Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04 And my original post? Ron |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
http://techny.com/articles.cfm?getar...&go=0.53769656
Rockin Ronnie wrote: JK wrote: "Dave C." wrote: According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be: P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+ Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest of their system combined. So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who has the best bang for buck, at the moment. Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster Not quite. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2065&p=10 Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel. So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and one tie. GAMING OVERALL: TIED Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Penntium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6 Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away Not quite. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6 Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away Not quite. Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Penntium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6 Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide. Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide Can you provide any evidence of this? Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both *CPU* and memory benchmarks Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8, it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting is, the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz P4 processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors are pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD being faster on others. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2038&p=1 Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about the 3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great comparison of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be careful, as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And on some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks, you will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD faster on some and Intel faster on others. http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_3329681__1 Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04 And my original post? Ron |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Help: Determining motherboard form factor | Darren Harris | General | 3 | July 2nd 04 02:26 AM |
Motherboard recommendation | jeffc | Homebuilt PC's | 18 | October 12th 03 10:27 PM |
No POST & no video signal - Broken motherboard? | Paul Mc | Homebuilt PC's | 6 | September 30th 03 07:43 PM |
Where can I find this Asus motherboard? | Pccomputerdr | Homebuilt PC's | 22 | September 30th 03 08:19 AM |
Motherboard Monitor Settings | MiniDisc_2k2 | General | 1 | June 25th 03 01:44 AM |