Re: Choice of two boards and CPUs



On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:56:58 GMT, nospam@xxxxxxxxxx (Paul) wrote:

>In article <438c6fc0$0$25858$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "nospam"
><nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a couple of Asus motherboards with their respective CPUs. One of
>> the boards is an Asus P4C800E Deluxe with an Intel P4 3.0 GHZ CPU. The
>> other board is an Asus A8V Deluxe with an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (Newcastle
>> core). I would like to build a system for home use (gaming and some video
>> editing) from one of these boards. Which would be the better performer (the
>> AMD board or the Intel one) to base the new PC on?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shane
>
>In terms of memory driving capabilities at stock speeds, the Intel
>board will likely be less cranky. Specifically, driving four sticks
>of memory on the Intel will cause fewer headaches than on the Athlon64.
>(The Intel side, relies on the Northbridge on the motherboard to
>drive memory. The Athlon64 processor drives the memory itself.)
>
>There are plenty of benchmarks around the net. This one is not
>as complete as it could be (I don't see Venice here - Venice has
>SSE3 support), but it is very easy to use. Try the different tasks,
>from the right hand menu. For some things the Athlon64 will be
>faster, and depending on the application, the Intel might win
>(it depends on how an application is coded, and whether the
>extensions the Athlon64 offers, are used by the software).
>More recent benchmarks on the web, are showing more wins for
>the Athlon64, but you should keep an open mind about this,
>and find benchmarks representative of the applications that
>you use. (A fanboi site will only use apps where the Athlon64
>is a big winner.)
>
>http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html?modelx=33&model1=14&model2=62&chart=21
>
>To put it another way, I own the P4C800E, and if I was
>purchasing now, would buy the Athlon64 plus 2x1GB of memory.
>(The 1GB sticks might be cheaper after New Years day.) I
>would buy memory with the 64Mx8 chips on it, and not the
>super-cheap memory. By buying two sticks, I would be hoping to
>avoid problems that might happen with four sticks (if you
>consider running command rate 2T to be a problem or not).
>A purchase of 2x512MB will be even less hassle, as there is only
>one practical way to make the 512MB DDR modules, and so you won't
>have to guess at whether the module uses "nice" chips or not.
>
>To consider pathological cases, the Athlon64 runs at 2.2GHz. The
>P4 in your example at 3.0GHz. Someone here had a scientific application,
>and found the Athlon64 behaved more like its 2.2Ghz clock
>speed, than its "AMD 3500+ P.R." rating. If a particular piece
>of code does things that don't agree with the Athlon64, then it
>becomes slower than the P4. If you are a gamer, there is no
>contest, and for games the Athlon64 will blow the doors off the
>P4. All I can honestly say, is if your main purpose is gaming,
>the Athlon64 is the way to go. For any other usage, you had
>better find more benchmarks on the web, to help you make a
>decision.
>
>HTH,
> Paul

I've been running 4 sticks of 1GB Samsung memory on a P4C800E Deluxe
for a couple of months with no problem. So far the system has been
very stable but I'm keeping my fingers crossed since this particular
board appears to be a bit quirky.
.