Athalon vs. Intel
- Thread starter Sildo
- Start date
Any Athlon64 CPU would be adequate to run Civ4... the main consideration will be your budget.
AMD processors are almost always cheaper than their Intel counterparts, and currently have much better performance, especially for gaming. There is honestly no logical reason to buy an Intel based system at this time.
AMD processors are almost always cheaper than their Intel counterparts, and currently have much better performance, especially for gaming. There is honestly no logical reason to buy an Intel based system at this time.
Lozzy_Ozzy
Rapture
Speedo said it all really 
.
.DaEezT
Civ, Pizza, Spam, Repeat
Sildo said:
The comparison always depends on the one doing it. There are benchmarks that favour AMD and others that favour Intel so you have to reach your own conclusions.
To cut things short: AMD is better.
What do you mean exactly when you say "2.1 Athlon"? If you mean the model, an Athlon XP 2100+ is over 3 year old technology. I bought the one which was in my old comp in the summer of 2002, and it hadn't been out long at that time. If you're talking about the actual clock speed, I don't really know what you would mean... there is no Athlon64 with a 2.1Ghz clock speed. The closest thing would probably be the 3500+ with a 2.2Ghz clock speed (the 3200+ is basically comperable also, but it's slightly older technology, and for only about $10 more you're better off getting the 3500). The 3500 will most definetly be faster than a 3.1Ghz P4.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
I'm wondering, since with AMDs the sites usualy list them as 3500 etc, but rarely say if they 2.2ghz or whatever I want to know that I am not buying a processor that's the same or not mcuh faster than the one I have (2,2 P4)
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Ahhh, ok, thanks (again).
CruddyLeper
Unworshipped Deity
Yeah, the AMD model number started as a rough equivalent to a Pentium. Although Intel kind of scuppered that idea.
AMD rock for games. In theory any Athlon will run Civ 4 (with compatible graphics and sound) but in practise the ones fitted into motherboards with DDR memory are much better suited to it. Say an Athlon 1GHz or faster, with 266MHz DDR RAM or faster.
AMD rock for games. In theory any Athlon will run Civ 4 (with compatible graphics and sound) but in practise the ones fitted into motherboards with DDR memory are much better suited to it. Say an Athlon 1GHz or faster, with 266MHz DDR RAM or faster.
vbraun
Raytracing
Yep, infact the AMD would still outperform that Intel.Sildo said:
You have to realize, the AMD naming scheme was never truly meant to say "it's equivilent to an intel running at xxxx" or "it's equivilent to a CPU running at xxxxGhz." It's really just a relative naming scheme. It is true that back when they first starting using it with the AthlonXP series, they were roughly equal to the Intel CPUs of that clock speed. But as speeds have increased, the comparison really becomes less and less valid. By now Intel has hit the thermal wall, meaning that their CPUs are producing such massive amounts of heat that they just can't push the clock speed any higher. So they've realized that they'll have to find ways to improve their CPUs without simply going for clock speed.. and have switched to a naming system, rather than Mhz rating (though theirs is horrible).
The reason that processor is a 4800 is because it is a dualcore. AMD seems to rate the dualcores by doubling the clock speed (since it has two cores, obviously), then subtracting 200 from the rating if the CPU has 512KB L2 cache per core, instead of 1MB.
For example, my 4400 is running at a clock of 2200Mhz, and has 1MB L2 per core, so it gets the 4400 rating. There's another version with a 2200Mhz clock but only 512KB L2 per core, which is the 4200. If you haven't figured out by now, that 4800 runs at a 2400Mhz clock, with a 1MB L2 per core.
So how does it perform? Really the only thing to do is look at benchmarks. The 4800 generally rates right between the Athlon FX-55 and FX-57, which are high end single core CPUs running at 2.6 and 2.8Ghz, respectively. I would personally call it the best CPU that money can buy at this time, as it is only a bit behind the FX-57, is $200 cheaper, and will flatten the FX-57 when you start introducing multitasking.
Sildo
A circle
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2005
- Messages
- 279
I get what your saying, but since it has to do with bench marks then what whould an athalon 3500 equale? And chould that run Civ IV? and (anouther question) what whould be a good moutherboard to buy, I want one that I will eventualy be able to to put a faster procesor in.
vbraun
Raytracing
I have a 3500+ and a 6800GT and I can run Civ4 at the highest settings.
CruddyLeper
Unworshipped Deity
nvidia 5700 or 128MB 9600 or better - I would guess either costs less than $100.
What is RTW?
What is RTW?
Furiey
No Longer Just Lurking
RTW = Rome Total War
Anything? THe cost differance is 50$
