# AMD-64 3000+ VS Intel P4 3.0 E (prescott)

## froke

I'm looking to buy a new processor (and ram/mb).  It's a toss up between an AMD 64 3000+ and an Intel P4 3.0 E (with the prescott core).  The prices are pretty much the same, so that is not an issue.  I'm looking to dual boot between Windows XP and Gentoo.  

Right now, the 1MB L2 cache of the P4 is looking very attractive.  As is hyper-threading and the fast clock speed.  I'm aware clock speed isn't everything, but it should not be ignored nonetheless.

The AMD seems more like an "upgrade" because it is 64-bit and will serve better for future use (that is, assuming 64 bit software is going to be more widely available before I have to upgrade my CPU again).  But it also has half the L2 cache as the P4 and 1GHz less clock.

What do you think I should go for?

----------

## soccerplayer

the athlon is by far the better of those processors. not to mention that the 3000+ is a great chip, but the prescott has some heat issues for sure, also it doesnt even perform as well as an equally clocked northwood core in most things. overall, not only is the athlon faster, but like you said, its probably more a wave of the future type thing seing as how 64 bit software continually trickles out more and more for it. go with the athlon! and really, im not and amd or intel fanboy, its just the better choice in my opinion

----------

## danone

dont buy the Prescott ...i have it..and i don't want it anymore..107W los in idle..and holy 65°C damn its like hell..AMD perfroms better then the intel prescott it was a bad choice of mine to buy a Intel P4 E 2,8GHz

----------

## ripperken

Athlon is  faster  and cheaper  atm. 

The socket 939 has  dual band ddr and should be  in the shops allready (i think).754 is only single channel memory.

Only go for  intel if you realy  realy want the hyperthreading,  also buy  a Northwood.(same price , .. not as warm as the prescot)

----------

## Nate_S

heck, if you were thinking of spending the extra $50 for a northwood, you'd still prolly do better to get an Athlon 64 3200, which also has 1MB L2 cache.

----------

## cybrjackle

I'm running a dual xeon 2.8 here and I like it a lot, it does get hot, but i have a lot of fans. I haven't ran a AMD64 yet, but here are some good benchmarks to factor in:

http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030422/opteron-23.html#3drendering

Just scroll down and you will see more benchmarks

Here is another one with athlon64 instead of opteron:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/index.html

----------

## froke

Thanks to everyone that replied.  I ordered an AMD-64 3200+ today. I can't wait for it to be delivered this week  :Smile: 

----------

## Clansman

hi everyone.

excelent choice. i have been studying the 64bit Athlon and some comparisons between the 32bit athlon and the p4. my conclusions don't surprise me.

intel's quest is for MHz, and it reflects negatively in efficiency. the athlons are faster at much lower clockspeeds.

but that's not the point. what i want is to ask if someone can tell me the differences between all the athlon 64 versions out.

i know the most recent is the socket 939 which has 512K of L2 cache, can use unregistered RAM (YES!) and has a dual bus memory controller. where does this fit in all the marketed names? is this athlon64 FX is this like opteron? is this athlon64?

thanks.

[]

----------

## edudlive

The A64 3000+ BEAT the 3.2C in everything just about, and since the Prescotts usually can't even stack up to the Cs...its pretty obvious.

I'm not a fanboy either, I have an Athlon-XP in my desktop and a Pentium-M in my notebook, both great chips.

----------

## edudlive

 *Clansman wrote:*   

> hi everyone.
> 
> excelent choice. i have been studying the 64bit Athlon and some comparisons between the 32bit athlon and the p4. my conclusions don't surprise me.
> 
> intel's quest is for MHz, and it reflects negatively in efficiency. the athlons are faster at much lower clockspeeds.
> ...

 

Only some of the new 939 chips have 512k of L2..some still have 1mb.  I think the FX series are basically rebadged Opterons (kinda like Intel's EEs are rebadged Xeons).

All of the FXs are 939 (as far as I remember) and the regular A64s are 754 (excecpt the new 3700 and 3800+ I'm pretty sure).

----------

## Clansman

 *edudlive wrote:*   

>  *Clansman wrote:*   ... 
> 
> Only some of the new 939 chips have 512k of L2..some still have 1mb.  I think the FX series are basically rebadged Opterons (kinda like Intel's EEs are rebadged Xeons).
> 
> All of the FXs are 939 (as far as I remember) and the regular A64s are 754 (excecpt the new 3700 and 3800+ I'm pretty sure).

 

allow me to disagree:

. some chips on the FX series, the onew with the 940 package, are the same as opterons, but not all of them. with the new newcastle core, i think opterons will cease to exist as different processors, simply because they are no longer different.

. all of the FXs up until a few weeks ago were 940, not 754. now FXs can be either 939 or 940.

. the 754 chips are the current stock athlon64 (the ones with the "hole" in the middle)

. from the information i have gathered, today we have basically 3 kinds of 64 athlon cores:

- 754 - old and some current stock athlon 64s. single channel memory controller, no registered memory necessary, no Cool&Quiet technology, 1Mb L2 cache, clawhammer core;

- 940 - opterons and current athlon FXs. double channel memory controller, ECC registered memory ONLY, no Cool&quiet technology, 1Mb L2 cache, sledgehammer core;

- 939 - new athlon FXs and some new stock athlon64s. double channel memory controller, no registered memory necessary, Cool&Quiet, 1Mb L2 cache for FXs and 512K L2 cache for stock 64s, newcastle core.

notice that 939s are very simmilar to 940, but now have Cool&quiet which seems to be very well accepted by the reviewers. now we have Athlon64, Athlon FX and opterons almost sharing the same core.

[]

----------

## ramninja

 *danone wrote:*   

> dont buy the Prescott ...i have it..and i don't want it anymore..107W los in idle..and holy 65°C damn its like hell..AMD perfroms better then the intel prescott it was a bad choice of mine to buy a Intel P4 E 2,8GHz

  Whilst i agree with this i still belive this chip is good though the northwood is prob a better buy this time

----------

## wmartino

 *Clansman wrote:*   

> 
> 
> - 754 - old and some current stock athlon 64s. single channel memory controller, no registered memory necessary, no Cool&Quiet technology, 1Mb L2 cache, clawhammer core;
> 
> 

 

I have a 3400+, 754 chip and it does support Cool&Quiet.

----------

## Clansman

 *wmartino wrote:*   

>  *Clansman wrote:*   
> 
> - 754 - old and some current stock athlon 64s. single channel memory controller, no registered memory necessary, no Cool&Quiet technology, 1Mb L2 cache, clawhammer core;
> 
>  
> ...

 

ok, i had wrong information then.

thanks for the update!

----------

## danone

BTW: The Intel Xeon with EMT64 is coming this week with AMD64 technology..well will see how the AMD64 performs than against the cheap Xeon with 3GHZ better architectur 64Bit and 1MB L2..the Xeon also get bump to 200x4 (QuadPumped) and also HT is enabled..muha..this is the cpu i would compare to the amd64 .the little xeon of 3ghz and EMT64 will cost about $316

----------

## Clansman

uhhh 3GHz impressive.

with intel's policy, clock frequency is actually forcing lower performances in their cpus.

no flames intended.

[]

----------

## danone

Nevermind they use EMT64 from AMD64,aso the XEON are not slower than AMD64 all benchmarks I've seen was about Prescott crap and AMD64..so AMD bought the EV6 from Alpha which i think is very powerful and they still use it and the EV6 is not at the end....so it will be an better cpu than prescott or something else what intel throw on the market..the prescott core is a bit buggy a but thats the way it is...i playing with the mind to buy AMD64 3500+ SO939 or Xeon 3GHz with 64Bit and HT 1MB l2 and the Xeon is cheaper than the AMD64 3500+ or 3800+ ..once more the Memoryinterfce on AMD is imho slower than the Intel Memory Controller. But maybe AMD will get this issue...also the the NX execution is interessting but  Intel also implement it in the XEON..and XEON get not so bad tempered as Prescotts..all in all...its a question how convinced you are or I, but i think back to K6-2 350/400 times big troubles..than the Thunderbrid K7 all this problems  i never got/get with Intel.

Since I using INTEL and AMD systems I don't like Intel ore then AMD but Intel   

is Intel and AMD is AMD..

----------

## Gentii

http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-50.html

The athlon 64 doesn't seem to be so great, or maybe I misunderstand something in these benchmarks.

----------

## SB

Thats because they're from Toms Hardware, and they are synthetic benchmarks  :Laughing: 

----------

## danone

I think this benchmark is bit out of date also i dont believe thoese benchmarks ..there are advantages of the AMD64 that i never get from Intel ATM C'n'Q also the 64bit technology that amd uses seems very interessting since intel cover it ..they got a threadment..SSE2,SS3 against EMT64 also Microsoft said only AMD64 technology will be used..so intel has to pass..mircosoft only can make this borders to Intel either OS for Intel Cpu or lost in space:-)well i only use linux #..8years of mircosoft was enough..any nearly all kind of hardware is supported by linux

and better optimized

----------

## CompaqDrew

Basically, AMD, as a general rule, outperforms Intel in almost every area.  My only complaint is that AMDs chips tend to perform pretty poorly in mobile devices (e.g., require big, noisy fans) and in addition, a lot of the AMD-based mobileboard manufacturers don't do anything "cool" with their boards (like built-in subwoofers, or widescreen) like you see pretty often on intel mobileboards.

I prefer AMD when I can get it (in my experiance, it runs *any* OS, even Windows, *much* faster than the Intel equivalent), but in many cases, it's simply not the tool of choice for a laptop.  Maybe if they write some new power standards...  Or just create an Athlon M chip... with wi-fi... 

Drew

----------

## sindre

Prescott is a failure, at least for now. It might be worth noting that both the athlon xp processors and especially the athlon 64 processors are a lot faster on compiling than their pentium equivalents, something that's very welcome on any gentoo-box I'd say.

----------

## danone

In my expirence the intel perfoms even better reliable and stable

the xp processors had temp issues also the power eat of them was enorm at this time okay intel makes new records now but beside this i saw some benchmarks

so the amd64 perfroms better on games at on real world work like me

so if you have many multitasking jobs then the intel is the better choice..will see if you can compile,encode and browse in the net with good speed without hicks..i cant here with may amd64 3200 i get from my neighbour..my intel perfroms better on that..the compile time..mh..dont see any increase against my Intel...its all the way you see benchmarks and read..on every page the amd64 perfroms on the same discipline different ..why?dont know but..i know that i stay at intel for a longer time...i had AMD CPUs from the 486 5x86 K62 K7 K´Thunderbird XP-Thoughbread and also test now AMD64..that enough too. I can say that Intel perfroms better in my expirience, opinion..

----------

## LynZ

 *danone wrote:*   

> 
> 
> I can say that Intel perfroms better in my expirience, opinion..

 

You  are wrong my friend. AMD get's better, allowing you to use the power of 64 bit at home. Intel is running after Mhz, without making any sufficient difference. Prescotts are just a piece of very hot (100 Watt vs 75 on my Barton) bullshit, they don''t perform so good... 

Athlon 64 is the best choice of theese two. I don't know about compilation time, but

 Intel pro's:

1. many MHz

2. Hypertreading

3. Fast cpu-memory bandwith

Intel contra's:

1. many bucks =)

2. Not so good performance

3. They're just HOT

AMD pro's:

1. New technology

2. Cheap

3. cool

4. Fast ( IMHO)

----------

## danone

Cheap?in which world you life lokk to the reality the AMD cpus are more expensiv then the intel pandants

...give it a huge laugh

----------

## LynZ

[BOX] Socket 478 1024k FSB 800 Pentium IV 3.2 Ghz =  270.90 

I've got my Athlon for about ~$85

----------

## LynZ

oops 4got bout the topic....

Oka $220 for bullshut vs $230 for 64 bit CPU...

How much do the intel CPU 64 bit cost? ha?

And price compair:

   	[BOX] Socket 478 1024k FSB 800 Pentium IV 3.0 Ghz  	221  	        [BOX] AMD Athlon XP 3000+ Barton SoÓket A (333MHz, 512k) 156.5 

I'm not blind =)

----------

## danone

BTW: Compare the 3GHZ P4 with a XP3000 is funny..give me a big scratching weasle Ha..look and feel the pain about the prices: so the Intel are more reliable for me then the amd64..and since the  has higer exchange value the intel will more cheaper then amd...the Xeon will shipped on 28.06.04

Xeon 3,6 GHz                                                    

EM64T 	800MHz 	1 MByte      851 USD ~830

 Xeon 3,4 GHz

EM64T 	800 	1 MByte 	690 USD ~675

 Xeon 3,2 GHz

EM64T 	800 	1 MByte 	455 USD ~ 430

 Xeon 3,0 GHz

EM64T 	800 	1 MByte 	316 USD ~ 300

 Xeon 2,8 GHz

EM64T 	800 	1 MByte 	206ESD ~ 195

AMD64 So939 FX-53 2,4GHz 799 USD

AMD64 So939 3800+ 2,4GHz 512kb L2720 USD

AMD64 So754 3700+ 2,4GHz 1MB L2 710 USD

AMD64 So939 3500+ 2,2GHz 512kb L2 500 USD

----------

## LynZ

What do u want me to compare? Athlon 3200 and p100? You're intel fan... I can't do anything with you... but be objective plz... How much does your system in benchmarks? mean Sandra 2004 && PCMArk2002 (Must install windows 4 that

I don't think it's much more than 8300 MIPS in arithmetic

http://ixbt.com/cpu/intel-prescott.shtml

Intel kinda sux...

----------

## LynZ

U 4got to say that the PR reiting by AMD is quite objective....

Much more objective than extra Mhz's by intel

----------

## danone

lol you didnt read anything?..and btw use real words instead of 4U and so...i'm not an intel fan..did you read?..i said that i have had AMDs from early 4x86 times over 5x86 K62 K7 Thunderbird XPs and AMd64 ..the PR rating is crap...well buy a nforce2 mobo cry about the lookups..if you had read the posts before you should know that im objective in judge because i have both Intel and AMd did you got intels?can you say anything from your own expirience..not the benchmark results on toms hardware,or Hard#OCP or something..I mean real world exprience about that processors you talking about like Intel Prescott?no ?

I hate those people who say you are intel fan or amd fan..and to make clear..i like Intel and AMD both are good Processor Vendors..but the price arguemnt take away..AMD is not and will not cheaper than Intel..AMD64 is luxus thats also an AMD Spokeman said...*grrr* ...*rödel*

----------

## Clansman

this is childish.

go read useful literature, learn about computer arquitecture, compare both arquitectures using real benchmark software and draw your conclusions.

marketing does a pretty good job on you guys.

this is my last post here. also, remember that 

1. you are off topic. personal fights are allways off-topic;

2. the user that started the topic has made up his mind and ordered his athlon64 weeks ago. (jun/7)

[]

----------

## eagle_cz

 *Gentii wrote:*   

> http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-50.html
> 
> The athlon 64 doesn't seem to be so great, or maybe I misunderstand something in these benchmarks.

 

well testing 64 bit CPU on 32bit widlows is quite odd  :Smile: 

----------

## unsolo2

Hi everyone i finally got my hands on the intel xeon nocona.

I bought just 1 cpu for starters the next i will get in a week or two

The mobo is an iwill DN800

pictures can be found at 

http://bilder.sysrq.no/view_album.php?set_albumName=album10

pictures of my system i get the correct ram tomorrow got the non registered (which does not work) so ECC here i come.

I will try installing gentoo on it hopefully with sucsess.

And for the record not all EM64T are LGA 775 because the xeon EM64T is int-mpga socket 604.

----------

## MrApples

it has been my experience that equivalent-power amds are far less expensive than intels

----------

## Clansman

only one processor??

:-p

nice rig! are those memories ECC protected?

----------

## unsolo2

yea but im ordering the second one tomorrow  :Smile: 

----------

## Gentii

Well, I bought a intel p4 3.2 E some weeks ago for a new box, because I only had amd before, and wanted to see how intel was. And I'm very happy with. I really don't understand all these anti intel guys. And 64 bit is maybe a good thing, but if you have to run into 32 bits, I don't really see the point. (afaik ppl have to run in 32bit mode in some cases because of troubles). So I'll just wait  until I get a new proc in one or two years, when 64 bit will be fully supported.

Btw, I had a good experience with amd too, and I don't prefer intel at all. I just don't think one is FAR better than the other.

----------

