| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LinuxDolt
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 104
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 9:49 pm Post subject: athlon xp 3200+ vs. p4 3.2 GHz |
 |
|
| the p4 has finally won, and i think they have done so for good... they have more money to pump than amd does. so what i'm wondering is, what mobo chipset should i go with for this sucker? i know that for the AXP it has always and will probably always be one amongst the nForce family, but what is the best and most compatible with linux mobo for the intel p4 3.2 GHz? does anyone have any clue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ragnoroc
n00b
Joined: 08 May 2003
Posts: 49
Location: Columbus, OH
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am glad such a post was made. It is need since it like many other posts has no real information to back it up.
Also if your looking to stay a leg up on the processor race why are you still on 32-bit? 64-bit is available and has been proven to be a stable platform? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zakl
n00b
Joined: 09 May 2003
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Get the i875 Canterwood Chipset, it's Intel's latest and greatest chipset for the P4, and if your going to blow money on their latest and greatest CPU you might as well match it with their chipset. To date the canterwood still out performs all it's competitors, but it's a bit expensive. The low end boards will run you about $125. ASUS and DFI have the top performance/feature rich Canterwood boards out right now so check them out.
I would suggest checking out Anandtech and read up their reviews on the latest P4 chipsets and see the performance comparisons yourself before making a choice. But I can tell you this from experience, you can NEVER go wrong with ASUS.
Hope this helps
_________________
Zak
Gentoo Linux * EPoX 8KHA+ * Athlon XP 1700+ * 768MB PC2100 * IBM 40GB for OS's, WD 120GB for storage * SB Audigy Platinum on emu10k1-cvs drivers * Radeon 8500 64MB on latest XFree-DRM driver |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LinuxDolt
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 104
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2003 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
to rag: i don't want to be a leg up necessarily, i believe these will probably be the last of the 32 bits before they take it to the 64 bit range, therefore the prices should fall tremendously once intel releases whatever it is they plan to use against amd's opteron and A64...
to zak: thanks, i'll take a look at the asus and dfi boards then |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malakin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Apr 2002
Posts: 1692
Location: Victoria BC Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
P4 3.2Ghz costs almost 7 times more then an XP2500 and performance wise it's only about 22% faster.
Buy an XP2500, skip the 22% extra performance and donate the extra money to charity or something if you've got that much extra money weighing you down.
(reference for performance difference)
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-28.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zakl
n00b
Joined: 09 May 2003
Posts: 73
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Malakin wrote: | P4 3.2Ghz costs almost 7 times more then an XP2500 and performance wise it's only about 22% faster.
|
Since this thread was a request for a Chipset, and not asking advice on which CPU to get, the above is very irrelevant, but I'm going to chip in my 2 cents anyway...
My reference: http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834
Read that article and decide for yourself. While I do think getting the 3.2 is extreme, there is no way I would go with a 2500+ over an 800MHz FSB P4. Personally I would strongly suggest the P4 2.8C GHz, as it is a less than half the price of the 3.2C, and the performance differrence is hardly worth an extra $350. I don't know about you, but I can think of a lot of other things I can put in my system for a cool $350, like a kick ass video card, or 1.5GB of memory. OR, wait for the P4 3.2GHz Extreme Edition CPU to drop, the performance tests show that the EE CPU rivals the new Athlon64 CPU's in every area, even outperforming it in some. If you have to go Intel, and you want the best, you'd probably be wise to wait for the P4 EE CPU
But, like I said, read the article above and decide for yourself, it's your money, spend it how you want 
_________________
Zak
Gentoo Linux * EPoX 8KHA+ * Athlon XP 1700+ * 768MB PC2100 * IBM 40GB for OS's, WD 120GB for storage * SB Audigy Platinum on emu10k1-cvs drivers * Radeon 8500 64MB on latest XFree-DRM driver |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NitroPye
Apprentice
Joined: 12 May 2003
Posts: 152
Location: Wish I was in England
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The P4 EE beat the Athlon64 in horrible benchmarks, Hell I don't call them benchmarks I call them a pissing match. In almost all cases they used the beta of Windows XP 64, yea great. And on top of that to do some benchmarks they ran a time-demo of ut2003, which is not built for a 64bit proc. Personally I would get a 64proc and run a properly optimized gentoo on it. Best bang for the buck by far.
_________________
waka waka
me and my fun work |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sumin k'adra
n00b
Joined: 20 Sep 2003
Posts: 65
Location: santa fe, nm
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NitroPye wrote: | | The P4 EE beat the Athlon64 in horrible benchmarks, Hell I don't call them benchmarks I call them a pissing match. In almost all cases they used the beta of Windows XP 64, yea great. And on top of that to do some benchmarks they ran a time-demo of ut2003, which is not built for a 64bit proc. Personally I would get a 64proc and run a properly optimized gentoo on it. Best bang for the buck by far. |
Bang for the buck, eh? My $90 2500+, which at default voltage does 2.25 Ghz, has a _slight_ edge on the P4 and AMD64 in terms of 'bang for the buck' : ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
col
l33t
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 820
Location: Melbourne - Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AMD XP 2600 = best speed/cost ratio |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NitroPye
Apprentice
Joined: 12 May 2003
Posts: 152
Location: Wish I was in England
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sumin k'adra wrote: |
Bang for the buck, eh? My $90 2500+, which at default voltage does 2.25 Ghz, has a _slight_ edge on the P4 and AMD64 in terms of 'bang for the buck' : ) |
True true, but it is 32bit, look at longevity and depreciation. IMO 32bit workstations should be depreciating. Don't get me wrong, my 1.3ghz athlon workstation just died and instead of waiting the few months so I could afford an opteron or athlon64 I am going to buy a 2600+. I would still say 64bit now or in the next few months is the way to go because it is where the industry is going.
_________________
waka waka
me and my fun work |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Atom Smasher
n00b
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 64
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a 2700 running at 2300mhz and here's my thoughts.
OK the p4 3.2g runs faster then the 3200+ close margin in most things. But don't forget that the 3200+ is running at what, around 2.2ghz or 2.3ghz ??? So amd gives intel a run for its money with a cpu that is about 900-1ghz slower.
Give me a AMD chip running at 3.2ghz, oh baby. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fizz
Guru
Joined: 31 Aug 2003
Posts: 309
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2003 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AMD = Performance
INTEL = Clock Speed
nuff said 
_________________
Athlon 64 3200, MSI NEO NForce 3, 1Gig PC3700, EVGA Geforce 6800 GT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Kernel & Hardware
