Pentium 4 3.4 Ghz (northwood) or Athlon 64 3400+? - Page 2

gram_vaz · *Last edited by gram_vaz; 10-12-2004 at 15:49.*

i say amd for the price/performance ratio. and then there's always some oc'ing.

Nerm · 10-13-2004, 01:57 | posts: 943 | Location: MadTown, IN

I say the 3400+ because I have one and know how they perform. my 3400+ is out benching and basicly out performing Intel's with the same PR(eg. P4 3.2 and 3.4).

Woodmasterfox · 10-13-2004, 03:34 | posts: 3,071 | Location: Austin, Texas

I would go with the 3500+. It is basically a 3400+ on the 939 platform, which performs like crazy because of the dual channel memory. Also later if you wanted to you could upgrade to a nice FX-55...but then again who has the money for that....

10-13-2004, 16:56 | posts: n/a

Athlon 64 3500+=2.2ghz
Athlon 64 3400+=2.4ghz
So, Dual Channel memory really helps?

G L · 10-13-2004, 18:12 | posts: 10,261 | Location: San Ramon, California

Here's some benchmarks:

http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20...html#directx_8

The 3400+ here is the 2.2 GHz/1024k cache version, but the 2.4 GHz/512k cache should be roughly the same. So, no, not really, if saving money is important to you. You won't get the great memory scores, and your CPU's socket with become obsolete a bit quicker, but nothing so terrible.

10-13-2004, 18:24 | posts: n/a

Interesting, 3400+ beats 3500+ in some tests... Pentium 4's seems to be really good encoding/packing things (maybe HT and some SSE trix).

G L · *Last edited by G L; 10-13-2004 at 18:45.*

Dual-channel is nice, but nowhere near a huge boost, so go for it you like nice sandra scores, otherwise no big deal. As for P4s, encoding/decoding and professional 3d apps are definately where it comes ahead.

Zandor · 10-13-2004, 19:16 | posts: 113

It's not the duel channel that makes the 3400+ perform the same as the 3500+ it's the processor and socket.

The 3500+ is a 2.2GHz 512KB on a 939-pin socket and the 3400+ is a 2.4GHz 512KB on a 754-pin socket. The 3400+ is actually a higher Ghz speed then the 3500+, however even with the higher Ghz rating on the 3400+ it performs the same as the 3500+ running at only 2.2GHz on a 939 socket. More performance from a lesser Ghz CPU... now that's impressive and says a lot for the 939 socket.

Here is AMD's list to back up my info (click here)

G L · 10-13-2004, 19:22 | posts: 10,261 | Location: San Ramon, California

Sockets don't increase performance, they just allow changes that do. Socket 939 was needed for a dual-channel memory controller. Formerly (Athlon XP, P4) changes to memory configuration would not require a new socket, but as the Athlon 64's memory controller is on-die it is a different case. Sometimes dual-channel is better then an extra 200 MHz, sometimes not.

Zandor · 10-13-2004, 19:27 | posts: 113

Hmm... Check out this review.. (click here) It is comparing Sockets 939 vs. 940 vs. 754. This shows there is a performance difference in sockets.

I just saying the socket is the high level to look at. Basicly we are saying the same thing.

G L · 10-13-2004, 19:50 | posts: 10,261 | Location: San Ramon, California

In that case all 3 were 2.2 GHz with 1024k. The socket 754 was the slowest because it was single-channel. Socket 940 was next fastest because it was dual-channel, but used registered ram, which is higher latency then standard unbuffered. The 939 was the fastest because it was dual-channel and used normal unbuffered ram. Its not the sockets, its the memory controllers.

If you were look at the same model (say 3200+) in both 754 and 939, then the 754 will be running at a higher MHz stock. So 939 may well not run faster, which is why they both have the same rating.

10-15-2004, 19:50 | posts: n/a

Well, both are good CPU's

stoner · 10-17-2004, 06:53 | posts: 656 | Location: EAST 1999

well i got a free p4 ht 3.2. my question is should i keep it, get a new mobo and use the 3.2?

or should i sell it, and build a amd64 3000 (maybe 3200+)?

huge difference between them?

priority
1.GAMES
2.dvd ripping and burning
3. downloads.

10-18-2004, 22:15 | posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally posted by Zandor
It's not the duel channel that makes the 3400+ perform the same as the 3500+ it's the processor and socket.

The 3500+ is a 2.2GHz 512KB on a 939-pin socket and the 3400+ is a 2.4GHz 512KB on a 754-pin socket. The 3400+ is actually a higher Ghz speed then the 3500+, however even with the higher Ghz rating on the 3400+ it performs the same as the 3500+ running at only 2.2GHz on a 939 socket. More performance from a lesser Ghz CPU... now that's impressive and says a lot for the 939 socket.

Here is AMD's list to back up my info (click here)

http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20...html#directx_8

Actually the benches you are refering to here, the 3400 is at 2.2ghz with a 1Mb cache, ie... a clawhammer core.... so the 1Mb cache is making up the difference as it has no D/C and it is at 2.2Ghz. the 2.4Ghz 3400 is a newcastle core and it has a 512Mb cache, this cpu is not in that test.

10-19-2004, 19:59 | posts: n/a

I decided to go for Athlon 64 3400+ (ordered).