New/Upgrade System Q's: Pentium4 or D?

[Yusaku Jon III]

To start off, my mind's more or less set on upgrading to the latest Intel system available within my limited budget. I'm not really looking at AMD in part because of the price, but also because of the fact that I've been satisfied with my existing Pentium 4 system after finding some limits to the previous AMD one. My main questions concern whether I should stick with existing hyperthreading Pentium 4 systems of go for the available dual-core Pentium D. Another question involves whether I should get a whole new system or to swap the guts out of my current ATX case for a compatible P4HT or PD motherboard.

For starters, these are the existing system's specs:

Pentium4 2.53 GHz
Socket 478 ATX motherboard, 400 MHz fsb, 4x AGP, USB 1.0 ports
512 MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM
60 GB UDMA 100 hard drive
16x DVD-ROM drive
48x24x48x CD-R drive
standard 1.44 MB floppy drive
64 MB Nvidia GeForce MX440 graphics accelerator
SoundBlaster Live! audio card
generic 56K v.90 modem​

The above system was great with games current in 2001-2004 such as Rise of Nations, Madden 2005 and NASCAR Racing Season 2004, but "just enough" for more recent games like Rome: Total War and NASCAR Sim Racing. It was in these latter two games that I discovered that my existing specs wouldn't allow me to enjoy stable graphics animations beyond a certain threshold (say, when a real-time battle gets more than 3,500 units involved, or when the graphics options are increased to maximum on more than a few background options). Therfore, I'm going with a new system before the next generation of games becomes available.

For general purposes, my PC would be used on casual gaming with some Internet play, but more often for non-gaming Internet activity and image scanning and editing. For the most part, the gaming would involve the existing R:TW and NASCAR sim, plus upcoming versions of those games, Civilization IV and a few new games which might improve on the basic elements of auto racing simulations and turn-based or real-time strategy (or combine the latter two).

And this is basically what I'm aiming for:

Pentium4 3.2 GHz (w/ hyperthreading), or Pentium D 3.0 GHz (dual-core)
compatible ATX motherboard (supports DDR2 RAM, 16x PCI-express graphics and USB 2.0)
1 GB dual-channel (DDR2) SDRAM (533 MHz PC3200/4200)
80 GB 7200 rpm SATA hard drive (preferred, will bump to 120 or 160 if necessary)
16x DVD/52x CD-R combo drive
standard 1.44 MB floppy
256 MB Nvidia GeForce (or Radeon) graphics accelerator
SoundBlaster Audigy 2.ZS audio card
56K v.92 modem (prefer the best available make)​

At present, I see Pentium D systems going for less than (US) $1,500, but I'd prefer to go to a third party to get the system built rather than buy a store brand PC that can't really be upgraded. For swapping motherboards, one local dealer even offered a 1st-time price below $700, but on that same day, another dealer was telling me to take a hyperthreading Pentium 4 because of the D system being new enough to have some bugs in it. I put the option of a slightly faster 4 processor with the Pentium D 830 (3.0 GHz) as a price comparison, but I want to know which would be better with the gaming (hyperthreading or dual-core processing?).

Also, what are the best compatible motherboards with each processsor? I'm aware from the one dealer that there are only two available for Pentium D, but there seems to be at least a half-dozen options for the Pentium 4. All are relatively inexpensive (for instance, the Intel 925X runs between $125 and $190, depending on the source).

The type of PC RAM is another question. Would PC4200 SDRAM be combatible with any of the motherboards you'd recommend above? What advantages would PC4200 have over PC3200?

In graphics accelerators, I'm willing to spend up to $300 on available 256-megabyte PCIe cards. The 6600 and 6800 Nvidia models seem to fall within this range. However, what differences are there between GeForce and Radeon cards today?

The audio card, I've pretty much made up my mind about. So is the modem (I'm holding out on DSL/cable until the subscription rates are lowered to within $40-50 per month). The only thing I'm going to have to do here is ensure that the dealer installs a v.92 (v.90s are apparently susceptible to dropout errors).

If it's possible, would anyone tell me the advantages that a BTX case would have over the ATX? There's said to be an airflow advantage, but if motherboards are made for the ATX, I'd be willing to forego that if I can.

I think this is plenty to say for one message. I appreciate any feedback I can get here.

 

[Zakharov]

If I was in your position, I would keep most of the existing rig and just upgrade some of it. For example, that graphics card is the main reason why you are struggling with recent games. Something like a GeForce 6600GT will boost gaming performance by a long way. You could also add another 512MB of RAM and maybe add a second hard drive (depending on how full your current one is). This should last you another 12 to 18 months by which time 64 bit software and use of dual core will be far more widespread than at the moment.

 

[Dida]

get GF 6800 GT

 

[dannyevilcat]

To start off, my mind's more or less set on upgrading to the latest Intel system available within my limited budget. I'm not really looking at AMD in part because of the price, but also because of the fact that I've been satisfied with my existing Pentium 4 system after finding some limits to the previous AMD one.

But Intel is the one charging consumers more money (about $100 Cdn difference between P4 3.2 and Athlon 64 3000+) for equal performance on single core CPU's... and I'm not sure what limits you think an Athlon64 will hit as opposed to a P4, either.

Sorry to criticise you're preferences, but your reasons for staying with Intel seem weak.

Unless you do decide to go dual core, that is.

but I want to know which would be better with the gaming (hyperthreading or dual-core processing?).

Neither will make a difference in gaming for probably as long as you use that processor, but having two actual cores is superior to two virtual cores.

In graphics accelerators, I'm willing to spend up to $300 on available 256-megabyte PCIe cards. The 6600 and 6800 Nvidia models seem to fall within this range. However, what differences are there between GeForce and Radeon cards today?

The biggest difference is nVidia features shader model 3.0 on their cards and ATI doesn't. Personally, in your price range I'd recommend a radeon X800XL. It's ATI's equivalent to the 6800GT, only it's considerably cheaper.
It doesn't have SM3.0, and some people will say you'll need that for future games, but IMHO, the only cards that will really be able to take advantage of it for future games are the 7800GTX and beyond, anyway.

 

[Strider]

Intel Processers have always been cheaper than AMD for me.

 

[Zelig]

Strider: You must be getting some kind of special discount for Intel processors.

Yusaku Jon III: Bear in mind that Pentium Ds still have hyperthreading, so they show up as 4 logical cores to Windows.

 

[dannyevilcat]

Yusaku Jon III: Bear in mind that Pentium Ds still have hyperthreading, so they show up as 4 logical cores to Windows.

Not all of them. I'm think only the "Extreme Edition" does.

And Strider: are you part of Intel's Retail Edge program or something?

 

[Yusaku Jon III]

Okay, let's talk about the AMDs. My experience with the old AMD (866 MHz Compaq brought back in 1999, lasted until 2003) was pretty good. I could get a graphics card upgrade for it (from in-house 16 MB type to the 32MB Nvidia GeForce2), which helped me when I was playing then-current versions of Papyrus's NASCAR sims, so I know that it can be worth getting. Yet it seems that AMD has fallen behind Intel in the GHz race.

One thing that confuses me about AMDs is that they stopped using the GHz rating and went with a numbering system (3000+, 4000+). It seems that a lot of people recommended the 3000x series, yet it still rates at below the speed of my current Pentium 4. The word is that these are dual-core processors. Is that true?

If so, I may revise my decision if there is actual corraboration from local dealers saying that the AMDs are still better than faster-rated Intel chips. I'd still go for something at least a fraction faster than the current 2.53 GHz Intel in my PC, but I'm still swapping the motherboard to take advantage of DDR2 RAM and PCIe graphics port. If I get an AMD, the is another dealer offering the 3400+ 64-bit system for under $1,500.

I'll continue shopping around, though...

 

[Dida]

Athlon64 are not dual-core, however, Athlon64 X2 are dual core.
I personally have had the following chips:
Athlon TBird 900 Mhz
Pentium4 Northwood 2.4 Ghz
Athlon64 Venice 3000+ at 1.8 Ghz
I can tell you that there is not significant speed difference between the P4 and my old Athlon TBird, even though the P4 is supposed to be over 2 times faster than the TBird. My newest machine, the Athlon64 3000+ is rated at lower clockspeed than the P4, however, it is much, much faster. My personal experience is, definitely stay away from Intel stuff, and get the Athlon64. As far as those dual core stuffs are concerned, I am personally skeptical of the whole parallel processing idea. I was a mater student on computer engineering, my personal knowledge on this issue tells me that parallel processing is not worth it, the speed up achieved is not proportional to the cost. Instead of spending 400 on a dual core cpu that is rated at 2.5 ghz, for example, you would be better off spending the same amount, but instead, get a chip that is rated faster.

 

[Zelig]

There is no GHz race anymore, it's been over for a while. Intel has also stopped using their GHz rating, and have moved on to a model number system which I haven't been able to keep track of. (haven't put much effort into it though)

Dual core AMDs run from 3800+ (2.0 GHz, 512Kb L2) to 4800+ (2.4 GHz, 1Mb L2).

AMDs rating numbers don't (and were never meant to) correspond with Intel GHz ratings, your best bet is to check some sites for benchmarks and reviews to see how the cpus fare against each other.

The 3400+ is only socket 754, which has neither dual channel ram nor dual core cpu support, you're better off getting a socket 939 system if you're going with AMD.

AMD doesn't support DDR2 yet BTW, that's set to be implemented in 2006. However, due to the decreased latencies and ondie memory controller, I expect there will be much less of a performance increase with AMD/DDR2 than there was with Intel/DDR2.

 

[Dida]

Since AMD's memory controller is intergrated on the chip, the cpu actually has more memory bandwidth than it can use. moving over to DDR2 won't improve the performance much. that kind of explains why AMD has not implemented DDR2 yet.

 

[Yusaku Jon III]

Since AMD's memory controller is intergrated on the chip, the cpu actually has more memory bandwidth than it can use. moving over to DDR2 won't improve the performance much. that kind of explains why AMD has not implemented DDR2 yet.

So, if I get this right, the integrated memory controller also allows AMD to clock their chips slower than those being put out by Intel, right? In which case, it's similar to what I've heard about the Apple computers' Motorola processors, which tend to run comparable to an Intel rated at twice their speed. As my old AMD Compaq was running well enough to last me nearly four years before I needed an component upgrade (RAM + graphics accelerator), I'm keeping this in mind for when I'm ready to get the new system.

Still, I'd want to consider getting the best possible system for my price range. In this case, I'd aim for a 2.8 GHz AMD64 with a motherboard that does support the DDR2 RAM and PCI express graphics port. If I just get all the components swapped into the ATX case that I bring, it'd still be a lot less expensive than getting everything brand new.

I still remain set on getting the 256-megabyte graphics accelerator, though, just to have it there in case the next version of a game proves to be a bit much even for popular 128 MB models...

 

[Zelig]

There's a bunch of things that allow AMD to clock their chips lower than Intel's high clocked ones. GHz simply can not be compared between them, check reviews for benchmarks that compare performance in various programs.

A 2.8 GHz Athlon is not the best system for your pricerange, unless you're price-range has no real upper limit. A 2.8 GHz Athlon FX is much more comparable to a 3.8 GHz P4, a 3.2 GHz P4 like you posted in your first post would get completely slaughtered by it.

Make sure you get a good PSU, cheap/inadequate PSUs cause many problems.

256Mb video cards aren't all that important... generally, if you can find 2 of the same card with different amounts of memory, the card with the greater amount of memory will *not* be worth getting over the cheaper one. Anything slower than a 6800 gt is not worth getting over 128Mb of memory with.

 

[dannyevilcat]

AMD Athlon CPU's are more efficiently designed than Intel's. They do more work per clock, so an AMD clocked at 2.0Ghz will best a 3.2GHz P4. No wonder you thought AMD was so pricey...

Plus they run cooler and overclock far better, if you want to squeeze as much value for your money as possible.

EDIT: An AMD 2.8GHz processor (FX-57) is the fastest processor on the market right now... and it's only nearly $1400 Cdn

Also, if you're maybe interested in overclocking, many people buying 3000+ venice cores have reached 2.6GHz from 1.8, with better heatsinks than what comes stock.

 

[Yusaku Jon III]

AMD Athlon CPU's are more efficiently designed than Intel's. They do more work per clock, so an AMD clocked at 2.0Ghz will best a 3.2GHz P4. No wonder you thought AMD was so pricey...

I guess my mind is stuck back at that time when the processor wars were first starting up and AMD and Intel both used the GHz rating. I didn't really pay any attention since buying the P4 back in January '03, so I wasn't really aware of AMD doing anything, so when I went to the Falcon and Alienware sites and saw no Intel chips, I was thinking "Man, these are pricey PCs", and it kind of stuck in my mind.

For information, if the AMD 3000+ is rated at 1.8 GHz, then the 3200+ would be that 2-Gig chip that outran the big P4, I think both of the local dealers that I touched base with a couple of weeks ago carry AMD systems. I'll be checking with these people real soon.

I'm planning on making the purchase at some point late in September or early October, so that gives me plenty of time to check things out.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

here are the specks of my current system which runs great-
P4 3.2 Ghz with HT
Socket 478 Mb, 800mhz fsb, 2x Agp 3x PCIe16 and 1x PCIe1, USBx 2, 4 RAM slots
1536mb DDR2 Dual channel SDRAM
400gb SATA HD, 16mb cache 7200 rpm
DVD-R/W 16x drive
CD-R/W 52x drive
GeForce 6600 GT 128 mb, 500 mhz
Soundblaster Audigy 2.zs sound card
17in LCD display with 8ms refresh rate
a tad costly but will run great for another 2 or so years

 

[Yusaku Jon III]

Since we've more or less started outlining whatever specs our systems have, this is what I've decided to aim for:

AMD Athlon64 3800+ processor
AMD Socket 939 motherboard with dual-channel RAM, PCI express and USB 2.0
1 GB PC3200 DDR2 SDRAM
80 GB 7200-rpm SATA hard drive
16x DVD/52x CD+R combo drive
1.44 MB floppy drive
56K v.92 modem (I ain't getting broadband until it's cheap!)
Nvidia GeForce 6600 GT (overclock) graphics accelerator
SoundBlaster Audigy 2.ZS sound card​

All of this should fall near the upper limit of what I'm willing to spend ($1500 ~ $1700), especially if I'm going the 3rd party route. However, the price may
come down a bit for me, as I'm putting this off until the end of October... or by early next year, depending on the work situation and whether or not something else comes up.

Anyway, at this point, I'm sold on AMD because of its reputation amongst gamers.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

From what I know, buck for buck, AMD 64 is stronger with it's dual-core. Penntium D is faster, but if you are running many applications at once. If you want to play games, run graphical apps (ray-tracing, 3d modelling, 2D modelling) AMD is perfect.

 

[dannyevilcat]

Since we've more or less started outlining whatever specs our systems have, this is what I've decided to aim for:

AMD Athlon64 3800+ processor
AMD Socket 939 motherboard with dual-channel RAM, PCI express and USB 2.0
1 GB PC3200 DDR2 SDRAM
80 GB 7200-rpm SATA hard drive
16x DVD/52x CD+R combo drive
1.44 MB floppy drive
56K v.92 modem (I ain't getting broadband until it's cheap!)
Nvidia GeForce 6600 GT (overclock) graphics accelerator
SoundBlaster Audigy 2.ZS sound card​

Might I suggest an A64 3500+ instead, and use the money saved for a better video card? I have an overclocked 6600GT myself, and I very much regret that I didn't just spend a little more for an X800XL or 6800.

Also, AMD doesn't use DDR2 RAM, and won't until the M2 comes out.

 

[GenMarshall]

Right now, I am planning on saving my pennies for a new laptop when I get my own place or after I graduate, which ever comes first .