Another tired question about P4 vs Athlon 64
- Thread starter dmbpettit
- Start date
The AThlon will outperform the P4 in darned near every scenario. AMD has really come along ways in the past 4 years. Not only that, but the chipset manufactureres seem to have fixed any problems that for audio might be a reason to not consider AMD. They have also gotten MUCH better at keeping their processors cooler
bennychico11
...
i'd go with the 64 too. runs very smooth.
unless you can afford the P4s with the 800 or 1600MHz FSB....although the 1600 runs $1000 alone.
unless you can afford the P4s with the 800 or 1600MHz FSB....although the 1600 runs $1000 alone.
sile2001
_|_
Short answer: There's very little freaking difference. People will argue this and that over floating point operations or chipsets or FSB's or whatever, but at that speed, you won't really notice the difference. My desktop at home is an AMD XP 2100. When I upgrade it, it will go to an AMD 64. My notebook is a P4 2.8. Doesn't really matter, I don't notice the P4 being 700MHz faster...
xstatic said:The AThlon will outperform the P4 in darned near every scenario. AMD has really come along ways in the past 4 years. Not only that, but the chipset manufactureres seem to have fixed any problems that for audio might be a reason to not consider AMD. They have also gotten MUCH better at keeping their processors cooler
Well you don't have to take my word for it.
Go check out some benchmarks.
Here's one http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/roundupmobo/pentium4-32ghz-ee.html
For the record, of the 10 categories measured, the score was P4 6, AMD64 4, with the P4 on average 6% faster
JazzMang
He's Junktastic!
I wouldnt trust 1 review. there are a slough of them out there.
www.anandtech.com
www.tomshardware.com
dont limit your view on reality.
www.anandtech.com
www.tomshardware.com
dont limit your view on reality.
Sorry if there are other tests that show otherwise. The tests that made my mind up when I purchased my AMD64 was done by NASA. I tend to trust that.
As to hard drive striping.... When you stripe a hard drive in a raid 0 configuration it takes 2 hard drives and treats them as 1. In this config to 120 gig drives would be recognized by windows as 1 240 gig drive. The problem is that when it writes data, it physically writes data split between the two drives. In order for this to work it reserves a small portion of the master drivefor a sort of table of contents so the CPU knows where all the files are and can access them. What you end up with are files that are partly on one drive, and partly on the other. In principle there is nothing wrong with this at all. In reality, you are always one drive crash away from losing every file on BOTH drives. If the master drive of the two goes bad, then there is a good chance that no files on either drive can be recovered without considerable expense. Not only that, but if you do manage to recover files after that TOC goes bad they will all be renamed in a random fashion. Try putting those back together. A mirror is a different story. It writes all data to both drives exactly the same. This means windows see's 2 120 gig drives as a single drive. This is nice because if one drive goes down, the other drive already has the exact same data. You can even run off that single drive until you repair or replace the bad drive, and it will even warn you when one drive goes down. This way you always have a backup. Not only that, but for typical audio applications, a striped drive does not really increase your capabilities in any noticable or usable way. It does however greatly increase the chance of losing a lot of data. I understand that a hard drive can go bad whether it be in a raid array or not. That risk is always there and certainly sucks if you have not backed up important stuff. We all hate it if our "f" drive goes down. However, how much more pissed would you be if when your "f" drive went down you also lost your "g" drive data just because a differnt drive went down?
As to hard drive striping.... When you stripe a hard drive in a raid 0 configuration it takes 2 hard drives and treats them as 1. In this config to 120 gig drives would be recognized by windows as 1 240 gig drive. The problem is that when it writes data, it physically writes data split between the two drives. In order for this to work it reserves a small portion of the master drivefor a sort of table of contents so the CPU knows where all the files are and can access them. What you end up with are files that are partly on one drive, and partly on the other. In principle there is nothing wrong with this at all. In reality, you are always one drive crash away from losing every file on BOTH drives. If the master drive of the two goes bad, then there is a good chance that no files on either drive can be recovered without considerable expense. Not only that, but if you do manage to recover files after that TOC goes bad they will all be renamed in a random fashion. Try putting those back together. A mirror is a different story. It writes all data to both drives exactly the same. This means windows see's 2 120 gig drives as a single drive. This is nice because if one drive goes down, the other drive already has the exact same data. You can even run off that single drive until you repair or replace the bad drive, and it will even warn you when one drive goes down. This way you always have a backup. Not only that, but for typical audio applications, a striped drive does not really increase your capabilities in any noticable or usable way. It does however greatly increase the chance of losing a lot of data. I understand that a hard drive can go bad whether it be in a raid array or not. That risk is always there and certainly sucks if you have not backed up important stuff. We all hate it if our "f" drive goes down. However, how much more pissed would you be if when your "f" drive went down you also lost your "g" drive data just because a differnt drive went down?
distortedrumble
all up in yo grill!
ok here it is man.....take a quarter....heads its p4 and tails its AMD... i flipped it and i landed on tails and havent looked back. recording is doing good playback of 22 tracks at once was smooth....havent really needed to record anything above that. on another note, gaming is also quite enjoyable..amd 64 3000+ overclocked
xstatic said:The AThlon will outperform the P4 in darned near every scenario. AMD has really come along ways in the past 4 years. Not only that, but the chipset manufactureres seem to have fixed any problems that for audio might be a reason to not consider AMD. They have also gotten MUCH better at keeping their processors cooler
I agree after years of being a Pentium-head. My studio computer is new with the latest AMD (over 3ghz-compatable) and it screams with no burdon at all. DFH, Gigastudio, Calewalk etc. Handles it all perfectly.
xstatic said:
They're the guys with the space shuttle right?
The same guys that crashed the Mars lander because they did the calculations in feet instead of metres?
Fact is there's stuff-all difference between the 2 chips now - it's really down to personal preference. Yours is amd, mine is pentium
altiris
New member
I dont believe anyone one this forume has an AMD and a Pentium both configured the same running at the same speed. If you bought a Pentium processor four years ago then you buy an AMD today of course the peformance will be better. They are both competitive. Gaming and recording are not the same thing. Gaming depends hevily on Graphics boards. and AMDs were maid to perfome well with intense graphics. So games are not the best benchmarcks for recording. AMD has been cheaper but with its new flagship processors its begining to be around the same price line as Intel. The only true way to know is to benchmark them yourself. Of course no one will want to buy them both and pay restocking fees or shipping for the one youll be returning.