basically planning my new computer. i ain't into amd  so no trying to covert me!

basically, is £5 more expensive with 1mb cache.

and is £5 cheaper, with 2mb cache, and 64bit tech

which one would u suggest?

i don't know why the one without 64bit and 1mb cache is more expensive....
Posted on 2005-10-21 04:16:28 by Damnation
The first one is out of stock, when its back in they'll probably reprice it.
Posted on 2005-10-21 06:56:04 by Eóin
which do u think is better?
Posted on 2005-10-21 07:03:58 by Damnation
The cheaper one seems to be going on specs, but I'm no expert. Try searching for some benchmarks with include it.
Posted on 2005-10-21 12:26:06 by Eóin
You don't want Intel. Trust me. They might retake the pole position with their next generation of chips, but as it currently is, they run hotter (use more power) and don't perform better. Get an AMD64, preferably a dual-core if you have the money to burn.

I just replaced my (nice and speedy) AMD64 3500+ with a (even nicer and speedier) AMD64x2 4400+, and SLI asus board. Vrooom! - and that using a LOT less power and generating a LOT less heat than an intel system. And with a stock cooler that's a lot less noisier.
Posted on 2005-10-21 15:44:00 by f0dder
I used to be Intel only, right up to the AMD 64. I've noticed that the Pentium IVs run much hotter, and seem poorly designed (everything but the kitchen sink). Before the Pentium IV, Intel was doing great. They need to shift their focus into the "powerful, yet simple" approach (true RISC).

I know it sucks that AMD uses the XXXX+ (mine is 3400+), and in reality it is only 2.4GHz. The up-shot is that there is more done in that clock cycle. Never let clock speeds fool you, CPU efficiency is more important.
Posted on 2005-10-21 16:46:02 by SpooK
Well, Pentium4 was good around northwood/northwood2... then prescott came around and fscked everything up. I've never been an "whatever-only" kind of guy, I go for the hardware that provides the best bang for the buck (and is stable). Which means I've had an assortment of both AMD and Intel boxes... as well as NVidia and ATi graphics cards.

At least AMDs "xxxx+" says something comparative about speeds, intels new naming scheme sucks.

But really, Damnation, go read some reviews and benchmarks. Even one of the larger Danish computer magazine that is usually pretty biased towards intel ended up recommending AMD after a review/bench of 8 AMD and intel processors. Conclusion? AMDs are at least as fast, use less energy, and run cooler.
Posted on 2005-10-21 16:55:06 by f0dder
cooling isn't an issue.
as the system will run fans+water cooling.
i'm getting a thermatech (i think thats the name)
such a sweet case *drools*

i am very biased towards pent.
but i will look at reviews and tomshardware etc.
see if it can shake me into amd.
i know they fast, cause when i was at college (damn now i feel old)
i had to build 8 computers using an amd, also had to overclock them.
very fast i must admin they where running at 1.6ghz overclocked
and some how beat my p4 2.0ghz on the boot.

well once i've gone through all my emails i'll get reading.

thanx for the info!
Posted on 2005-10-21 23:49:03 by Damnation
Well... with an AMD64 you won't have to watercool to avoid melting down your house :P

My last Pentium4 is a NorthWood2 at 2.53GHz. Runs idle at 32C, max load at 53C. That's one of the last reasonable Pentium4's... good performance, acceptable heat profile. With later-model P4s, intel requires that casings have air ducts in the side in order to be a "certified solution" or whatever.

Even if you don't worry about power bills either, consider that the higher power usage of the P4 requires more of your power supply - this can affect stability.

But again, read reviews. What I've been digging through place the performance of the P4 and AMD64 CPUs very close - the AMD being a bit better in general, and the P4 having a few special usages where it's slightly better. Considering that the P4 runs hotter (and, in my area, is more expensive), the choice naturally falls on AMD64.

After the Athlon700, I had a lot of bad experiences with AMD, by the way. A lot of the chipsets were junky, performance wasn't all that great compared to P4, et cetera. But with AMD64 vs. Prescott and later P4s, and with the introduction of the NForce4 chipset... AMD is on top.

It'll be interesting to see the next-gen intel chips, though... learning from the failures of the P4, but backporting some of the microarchitecture to their P6 core. Might end up kicking AMD again.

Never lock yourself into zealotism - pick the winning brand(s) :)
Posted on 2005-10-22 00:59:10 by f0dder
Btw, here I had posted some code, optimized for AMD (which is a very easy task!), which effectively runs at 6.5 instructions per cycle on my AthlonXP 2000+ , thus actually performing 11 billion operations/second. Furthermore, AMD has a 32-stage optimization block for the internal RISC instructions - in other words, optimizes all poorly-written or imperfectly optimized code (mostly generated by compilers like VC++ 6.0).
AMD doesn't make performance compromises over marketing issues (remember P4's missing/degraded barrel shifter, in order to achieve higher clockrate, that end-users will look into).
Posted on 2005-10-22 04:51:46 by Ultrano
Funny enough I run a 2.8 gig Prescott and it behaves perfectly running at about 32C even in the climate in Sydney. On a very hot day I have seen it up to about 38C but you don't do much work if the day is that hot. With the difference in clock and the 800 meg FSB, its about twice as fast on test to my earlier PIV, a 1.5 gig version with slow sdram in it so it is reasonably consistent.

The only AMD I have in the place a the moment is a Sempron 2.4 which I use to run my printer and scanner and for an entry level cost machine it runs very well. I run it with a gig of DDR400 and two 160 gig disks and there are unusual overlaps between it and the later PIV. On some occasions it is as fast or faster when testing a algo but at other times, te PIV is more than twice as fast but the Sempron is useful in that it appears to be reasonably typical of later AMD hardware so its useful for timings of algos.

I am deliberately holding off buying 64 bit hardware as it is changing too fast and the support is not yet there in terms of low cost memory. 1 Gig simms are cheap enough now but to properly capitalise on 64 bit hardware, you need far more than 8 gig of ram and few boards support any more than that at the moment and the cost is prohibitive. My young brother has a 64 bit AMD box and it appears the main advantage is that they run 32 bit software faster than 32 bit processors and I gather this is some to do with internal 64 bit data transfer where even using 64 or 128 bit instructions on a 32 bit box, you still get 32 bit internal data movements.
Posted on 2005-10-22 05:38:07 by hutch--