intel p4 630 vs. amd 3200 venice

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Trend Fader, Dec 16, 2005.

  1. Looks like these 2 chips are comparable in price.. which one would u recommend.. I dont play any games.. the machine I am using would be for trading, charting, basic multimedia stuff and a lot of MS office.

    The p4 630 is a 3.0 ghz with 2mb l2 cache.

    The amd 3200 is the new 939 stocket coded venice.

    They are both selling for around $170 at newegg.com


    --MIKE
     
  2. Don't know the specifis.. but


    I used to be an Intel fan when buying chips until I "experiemented" with an AMD set up and I will never go back..


    but thats just me
     
  3. I hear that the amd are much better for gaming.. but they dont have hyperthreading technology... I was figuring the intel would be better at multi tasking which is the most important issue for me.
     

  4. I heard the same thing. I am faaar from a computer expert, as I just build my own for trading and for friends/relatives.


    Hopefully someone will chime in here and sort it out :)
     
  5. It is presumed that the dual core CPUs are better at multi-tasking, or so some testers claim... like the Intel Pentium D 820. The chipset supposedly directs app functions to either core and therefore spreads the load. Even it they are not great at that right now, odds are chipset driver updates will probably make them better later.

    There are even quad-cores in the works. Dual and multi-cores are the coming thing.
     
  6. Chagi

    Chagi

    AMD has come a long, long way over the past few years. I used to work in computer retail about 7-8 years ago, at which point AMD was actually a very poor choice. This wasn't due to their own chips, but was instead due to the terrible quality of the third-party chipsets that were required (the good old "Super 7" days)...

    I spent some money on computer equipment last week, nearly bought myself a new system based on an AMD Athlon 64 3200+, but decided instead to upgrade my existing box a bit (more RAM, new video card, new case, etc.). If you do look at going the AMD route, I would recommend a motherboard that is based on a variant of the Nforce 4 chipset.

    Something to keep in mind is that an AMD system will likely run cooler, quieter and draw less power overall than an Intel-based system (unless you are going the laptop route).
     
  7. AMD's desktop processor's line nowaday is far superior than Intel's offer both single core and dual core. However, Intel compensate its inferior by price. If you multitask a lot then dual core is the way to go. I've been using dual processor four years and I dont ever want to go back to single processor. In the old time, only a handful of applications can really take advantage of multi processors, but things are changing now (ex: Neoticker is multithreaded). Windows XP supports up to 2 processors, even if your applications is not multithreaded, XP will try to distribute the load among different CPUs so you still got better perfomance for multitasking.

    Well coming back to the question, I would choose the Pentium over the AMD. In the low and low mid range computers, pentium still offer better overall perfomance than AMD. One thing to consider, Pentium is hot , so consider the trade off between noise and optimal temperature.

    PS: Unless you got a specific need, build a system now is not cost effective.
    Check www.fatwallet.com/forums (hot deals) for promotion on Dell.
     
  8. For what it's worth, I have been spending a lot of time at the AnandTech forums lately, trying to put together my next system. Granted, there are a lot of gamers there, and they are all into overclocking, but most of the talk in the CPU area is about AMD processors.

    MarketMafia, I am interested in your comments re: building your own. A few people have echoed your sentiments. I always felt that building my own machine would result in a better machine for the same price. For example, I want an Opteron 146 Box, an Asus A8N-VM CSM mobo for dual monitor support, a better than average PSU (OCZ PowerStream), better than average but not top-of-the-line RAM (Crucial PC3200), 200G HD and a big external drive for backup,

    Would this represent a 'special need' as you mentioned, or do you feel I can get this type of machine cheaper by asking Dell to build it? Actually, Dell uses only Intel right? But the point is, do you think that I can get a pre-made box with close to this configuration for less $$ than I will spend to get the components and have my local guy snap it together for me? As far as I know, getting a computer builder to assemble a bunch of components isn't that expensive.

    Thanks for any comments MM

    Nik
     
  9. Farside

    Farside

    Dell SB has the 9150 desktop with a 19" (cheapee) flat panel, dual core P4, dual video card for 729 after rebates until 12/18.
     
  10. Nik I got confused with your post.
    1) Why do you want the Opteron 146. Actually, I dont understand why AMD make Opteron 1xx. The only advanatage Opteron 1xx can have over the AMD consumer line is ECC memory (greater stability).
    2) The opteron will not fit in that ASUS board (socket 939) since Opteron use socket 940.
    3) I dont like on-board video for workstation. It's only good for server or low cost computer.
    4) Just the up front cost, I dont think you can ever build a system cheaper than Dell (after promotion). Now thinking about total cost of ownership, most computer components have one year warranty. If later something fails, it would be much easier to deal with one reputation manufacturer like Dell.
    5) The labor cost of assemblying a computer is cheap. Most of the time it is between 20-50 bucks

    When you build a system, you should at least have a clear answer to these questions:

    1) What is the purpose of the system?
    2) How big is your budget?
    3) How important is time to you?

    Good luck building your system. By the way www.2cpu.com was the place I used to hang out.
     
    #10     Dec 16, 2005