Pentium 4 presscott(3.2ghz) or AMD athlon 64 3500+???

[jorbo125]

Hey its me again, I was wondering again which would be better a Pentium 4 prescott(3.2ghz) or AMD Athlon 64 3500+? And before you say AMD like most people do, I was looking at these performance charts on some websites and they said that the P4 Prescott was better than AMD 3500+... So I don't know if most of you guys are fanboys or just people that think the Athlon name sounds cool and think its better. So just please tell me which one of these processors is better and why! :hotouch:

 

[DonNagual]

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2004.html

Use this interactive chart to see performance benchmarks between processors. You'll see that P4 beats Athlon in some, and Athlon beats P4 in some. All depends on what you use your computer for.

I mainly want performance for my gaming. And in THAT particular arena Athlon beats out P4 cleanly so if it were me, the choice would be easy. The Athlon64 3500 is a great CPU.

 

[SCHUMIinSA]

I had a Celeron 1.7Ghz and a P4 2.6Ghz and I noticed almost no difference between them. Now I have an AMD Athlon64 3700+ and there is a massive difference compared to the other two. I will never use and Intel chip again if at all possible.

So in other words I am saying get the AMD Athlon 3500+. Then P4 may sound impressive, but the Athlon is still better even though I think the Ghz will be lower, but that does not matter. The AMD name number means that it's performance is comparable to a 3.5Ghz processor.

My AMD Athlon64 3700+ flies and it's only a 2.2Ghz machine.

 

[CrossFire851]

Amd Athlon 64 3500+
2.2GHZ
1ghz Fsb
Duel-core (2 Physical Cores On One Die(cpu) ) each core is 2.2ghz
It Stays Cooler
Easy To Overclock It To 2.5ghz And With Good Cooling 2.7ghz

Overclock To 2.5ghz sorry I have been thinking some else misread something sorry people....

 

[LipsOfVenom]

the 3500 isn't dual core, it is efficient at overclocking if you plan on using the stock cooler though. Also it has been shown to run games better than the P4 prescott equivalents. If you are an IT personnel or like to run 80 processes at 1 time then Intel is better. the AMD 3500 is $219 currently and the Pentium D 820 at 2.8 Ghz is $240, so of course if you want to multitask then the 820 is a good choice. The prescott 3.2 Ghz is also good at multitasking since it has the HT technology and a large 2 MB cache (socket 775) while the 3500 has only 640 KB total cache.

 

[Sean]

Yup, it all depends on what you wish to do. As for myself, i do alot of audio/video editing, and encoding. Last time i checked, my cpu is equivillent to a amd64 3400+. Amd has a little advantage in gaming, and some app's encoded in 64bit, and for its architecture, and a ondie mem controller. And most amd mobos have good chipsets with good audio, lan, ect,ect.(compared to 478)I would chose the p4, so you have that extra power to do processor intensive applications. my 2 cents.

 

[compres]

As I said in another thread, the difference in gaming is not even close, so for gaming definetly AMD.

Another thing people don't seem to be considering is power and heat disipation. The current Pentiums run much more hotter and require bigger power suplys. The cost of a bigger power suply, bigger power bills and better cooling fan/heat sink combos have to be considered. A cool system is always more reliable.

Other than the processor itself, Intel motherboards tend to be more expensive, so total system cost can be sustantiably more expensive.

I would only consider a Pentium dual core, they seem to be a good bang for the buck right now.

A system build up with an Intel processor can be better than one with an AMD, so you have to see things as a whole. If I were looking at the CPU alone though I would take an AMD for desktop computers. Lap tops are a different story.