I was just wondering if a Athlon 64 4000+ would be better than a dual core 3.0 GHz Pentium 4.  they cost about the same so i would appreciate an answer
137784
Well, while the P4 is technically faster, the AMD has always been better at 3d graphics (for reasons unknown, or rather, for reasons too closely guarded by AMD to be known). So in games, the AMD would be slightly faster, in other applications, the P4 would be slightly faster. Unless of course, you got your hands on a 64 bit version of xp, or vista, when it comes out. The AMD cpu, being a 64 bit processor, would be able to take better advantage of it than the P4... and that's where it starts getting complicated... but let's forget that. If it's games you want, go with the AMD, the edge is slight, but it's there. Take good care of it, though, AMDs put out a lot of heat, and like to burn themselves out. Invest in a good heatsink.
64633
i looked at a website that uses your motherboard for a barebones computer system and they said you can only go up to a 1.4Ghz amd athlon thunderbird http://cgi.ebay.com/AMD-Athlon-Thunderbird-1400-MHz-Socket-A-CPU-1-4GHz-fa_W0QQitemZ6849373932QQcategoryZ15919QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem 75 dollars but you will only increase your speed by 500mhz which is not a whole lot however i suggest you get this combo from tigerdirect because this will give you alot more bang for your buck it has 512mb of DDR ram a semptron 3300+ processor and a newer motherboard with onboard sound, video and network card and has support for an agp card and has support for 333mhz and 400mhz fsb http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1819094&CatId=188 it is 220 dollars but after the rebate it is 130 dollars not bad in my opinion you will gain 1100mhz by getting the motherboard combo also that is just the speed it runs at but it is equivalant to a 3.3ghz intel so then your speed increase would be 2400mhz the difference in the 2 is 145 without the rebate and a difference of 45 dollars after the rabate so you tell me which is the better deal here but i do understand that replacing a motherboard is alot of extra work just so you can get 1 more year out of it so i understand if you go with the 1.4ghz
306646
it's not that confusing because\n- 1st and 2nd mentioned is the same\n- 3rd and 4th mentioned is also the same\n- the Turion 64 Mobile is the competitor of the Pentium M\n- another AMD 64 processor for notebooks is the AMD Mobile Athlon 64\nboth mentioned AMD 64 Mobile and the Pentium M are single core processors, while the Intel Core Duo is a dual core processor.\n\nConclusion: go for the Core Duo, this is the state of the art.
9651
We are talking about levels of cache here.  The previous post is talking about the amount of level 1 cache as compared to what the original poster is talking about which is level 2 cache.  Am I wrong?\n\n\nBottom line, the pentium is faster.  This is due to the pentium's amount of cache that is "closer" to the processor.
499729
Currently for games having a dual core will not increase the speed of the game dramatically because computer games are single threaded and thus only utilize one core.  However, the advantage of a dual core processor is that you can say; burn a CD while playing a game, or have one processor concentrate on the game while the other one handles windows and your other background programs.\n\nThe AMD x2 4200+ you are interested in is a good processor.  The 2.2 GHZ clock speed is actually way faster then your old P4 2.46 GHZ.  Because the AMD64 uses a shorter pipeline in its processor,then that of the P4. This makes the AMD64 more efficient and therefore faster.\n\nAs for the best dual core processors out now; the Intel core 2 duo is the best.  Any dual core will play better then any P4 processor.\nMy personal choice would be a AMD processor, but the Intel core 2 duo is the best for the money currently.
181994
The past 16 months or so have seen an unprecedented number of genuine breakthroughs in the field of processor design, especially from AMD. Not only did that company introduce a truly compatible 64-bit processor design which has since dominated the high-end desktop PC market, but it also pioneered the on-die memory controller which has given the Athlon 64 and Opteron chips a leg-up in performance over Intel's offerings. Intel has since adopted 64-bit compatibility also, and now both companies are releasing processors with another brand new feature, dual-cores.\n\nDual-core processors work pretty much as you'd expect them to. At their most basic, both Intel and AMD have taken two mostly (or in the case of Intel, fully) functional processor cores and joined them together in a single processor die. Each core functions and processes data independently, and the two are co-coordinated by the operating system software. \n\nIn this article, PCSTATS is going to focus on both company's versions of this technology, how it works, and the kind of performance boost you can expect from it. Currently only certain of AMD's Opteron server-class processors are available with dual cores, but very shortly AMD will release the Athlon 64 X2 line of dual-core desktop processors. Intel has taken the opposite approach, already releasing the 'Pentium Extreme Edition 840' desktop dual-core chip, while its 'Pentium D' and dual-Xeons lines are not far behind.   \n\n\nSince dual-core processors are essentially a multi-processor system in a convenient package, let's start by looking at some of the multi-processor technologies which have contributed to AMD and Intel's newest products.\n\nSMP (Symmetric Multi-Processing) \n\nSMP is the most common approach to creating a multi-processor system, in which two or more separate processors work together on the same motherboard. The processors co-ordinate and share information through the system bus, and the processors arbitrate the workload amongst themselves with the help of the motherboard chipset and the operating system. \n\nThe OS treats both processors more or less equally, assigning work as needed. Both AMD and Intel's new dual-core chips can be considered SMP capable (internally). AMD's dual-core Opteron server processors can be linked to other dual-core chips externally also, but this capability is not present in either company's desktop dual-core lines. \n\nThe major limitations of SMP have to do with software and operating system support. Many operating systems (such as Windows XP Home) are not SMP capable and will not make use of the second physical processor. Also, most modern programs are single-threaded, meaning that there is only ever one current set of linked instructions and data for them. This means that only one processor can effectively work on them at a time. Multi-threaded programs do exist, and can take better advantage of the potential power of dual- or multi-CPU configurations, but are not as common as we might like. \n\nNo other current mainstream desktop processors are SMP capable, as Intel and AMD tend to restrict cutting edge technologies to the higher-end server processors such as the Opteron and Xeon. In the past though, mainstream processors have been SMP capable, most notably the later Intel Pentium 3 processors.
587680
Listen, the best of the best, while still getting a bang for your buck is an AMD Athlon Processor. Athlons are better than Pentiums for one good reason, FSB (Front Side Bus). FSB determines how much information can be sent at one time. The bigger the FSB the more data can be transformed at one time, and vice-versa. Even though Pentuims are faster, Athlons can process more data at one time, making them best for multi-tasking. Let me help you visualize. Imagine a waterfall. The water in the river that leads to the waterfall is represented as data. Now, River A is a skinny river but its moving fast. River B is a really really wide river, so it moves slower, but dumps more water at the end of the waterfall then River A. Since River A is so skinny, it easily gets clogged up. And Since River B is so fat, it rarely gets cloged up. So, River A not only doesnt send as much data as River B, but sometimes it can get clogged up in itself. River B , on the other hand, is a little slower but dumps way more water because its so fat, and usually never clogs up. In other words, Peniums usually come with a low FSB. Thus, they can only send and process a little bit of data at a time, Thats why they have to be fast, to make up for the low data transfer. This makes Pentiums good for doing one thing at a time. Athlons, are a little bit slower, but have WAY more FSB than Pentiums (Usually 2000MHz). This makes them extremely good at tackling many processes at once. Not only that, but they are usually cheaper. Just let me give you a little guide to buying a PC. \n\nThe 4 most important things to look at when buying a PC or labtop are:\n1) Processor speed\n2) FSB \n3) RAM\n4) Memory\n\nThe Processor Speed and the FSB must have a balance. If you get a slow Processor, than you need a lot of FSB. If you get a fast Processor, than you dont need that much FSB. (A fast processor runs over 3GHz. A slow one runs under 2GHz. A lot of FSB is around 2000MHz. A little FSB is under 1000MHz.)\n\nThe RAM is very important as it also increases your computers ability to compute and store many things whenever it needs it. Thats why its called Random Acess Memory. (A lot of RAM is over 512MB. A little RAM is under 512MB.)\n\nThe regular Memory (Hardrive) is sometimes used as RAM. This is called Virtual Memory. Which is why its also very important because it helps out the RAM. (A lot of Hardrive memory for a Laptop is over 80GB. A little Hardrive memory for a Laptop is under 60GB.)\n\nSo, really, there are 3 important factors. Processor speed, FSB, and RAM. But since the Hardrive is used to help RAM, its important to get a lot of it. (they are cheap anyways, you can get them about .25 cents a GB) \n\nI Hope this helps you pick out a good labtop.
438970
Absolutely, it is a very good processor, and most importantly it is affordable.  For the stuff you have described it will be just fine.  The Core 2 Duos are better, but more expensive as well.  The Core Duos are pretty much the same, and a little bit more pricy, so I would recommend the Turion to you if you are on a budget.
436421
Out of those - go for the pentium 4 - but the new intel's - core 2 duo's are really kicking a$$ at the moment. - I'd seriously consider looking at a low end one of those even if it's a little over budget.\nhttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115005
219159
that's the test report Pentium Extreme Edition 955 versus Athlon 64 FX-60\nThe conclusion in one phrase: the test results make it clear, however, that Intel probably won't be able to catch up with AMD using processors based on the Netburst microarchitecture.\n\nhttp://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/fx60-vs-955xe/index.x?pg=1
37959
No, you can not say this. It depends on the programming of the application. In several benchmark tests a higher clocked single core CPU is still faster than a dual core CPU.\nI found a good article where the two processors Intel Pentium D 820 (dual core) and Pentium 4 670 (single core HT) are put in opposition.\nhttp://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/pentiumd-820/index.x?pg=1
549659
The Core 2 Duos are the best out right now, so you would want one with one of those in it.  If you are looking for a budget computer however, try the Dell E521 which uses the Athlon X2s, they are good, but not the best.
429204
FYI, intel is a good processor but AMD is better processor. intel is still trying to catch up to amd because the amd processor runs faster and more reliable than intel. shop around on newegg.com to get some better ideas on how you want your computer.
15522
Definitely the Athlon 64x2.  It's the best processor on the market and completely thrashes Intel in any benchmark test.  Any amount of memory over 2GB is purely academic but you could always upgrade your motherboard and processor at a later time if you really wanted to get more memory.  If you are looking for proof (though I am sure you have done your homework), http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page24.html but most of the ones at the top are single core Athlon 64 chips and the Pentium 4 is nowhere to be seen.  That being said there weren't many multithreaded applications for the dual core chips to take advantage of.  Once games and applications are enabled to take advantage of two core chips the x2's will be riding high at the very top.  Intel, you suck!
276326
There is the P4 which has many different versions such as the Pentium M (mobile cpu - centrino), the core duo, the Xeon, the standard P4 which ranges from a 400mhz bus to an 800mhz bus, and then the Pentium D which is the dual core CPU.\n\nThe very top chip I think they have on the market right now is the Intel Pentium Extreme Edition which is a dual core chip with 2x2mb of cache and a 1024 bus.\n\nAs for the AMD, there is the sempron which is AMD's answer to the celeron (but better IMHO) and then the Athlon 64, which is a pretty awesome chip, but not as awesome as the AMD Athlon 64 X2 which is the dual core version of the AMD line.  The opteron is the name of AMD's server chip line, and they do come in both single and dual core.  Then, of course, is the Turion CPU which is the mobile chip.\n\nI like both chips, I usually sell more AMD than INTEL chips.  You can pick up a dual core AMD Athlon 3800+ X2 for around $300 and it runs sweet when paired up with a gig or two of RAM.\n\nHope this helps!
382269
Usually dual-core is generally faster than single-core CPUs. But ultimately, you must consider the size of the L2 cache and the clock speed.
529761
No, not worth the expense.  The 3200 in the Athlon 64 name means that is its equivalent Intel speed.  So basically you are looking at a performance decrease from 3.2Ghz to 3.0Ghz.  The P4 does have hyperthreading, which might end up giving you a very slight advantage when all things are weighed, but certainly not enough to justify the time and expense of replacing the motherboard.