Processor recommendations please

[GordRocks]

I could use some advice about the processor for a computer I wish to build. I thought I had it all figured out, I was going to get the Intel Pentium 4 3.2 GHz chip but now I've learned that AMD has a chip which uses 64 bit processing which I understand will be great for 64 bit-specific software which will no doubt be coming out soon. The Athlon 64 FX-51 is way out of my price range but if the Athlon 64 3200+ is any good maybe that's the way I should go. I've never had an AMD processor and don't know anything about their history of reliability. Can anyone advise me as to which way I should go? Any input would be appreciated.
................Thanks!

.....Gord

[Solarjetman]

I sense an Intel vs. AMD debate brewing here.

I am going to stay neutral on the subject for that though. I have long been an AMD man, but I am less of one now than three years ago.

As for the 64 bit processor, unless you have a specific program in mind, I would not even bring that part into consideration. By the time 64 bit becomes standard, the processor will be slow compared to others. And by the time consumer products come, it will be average at best.

Stick strictly with 32bit concerns

[gmatov]

AMD says it will handle 32 bit at full speed. True or no, I don't know.

They are expensive, however.

Cheers,

George

[pixel]

I do not wish to start a debate on it either, so I'll try not to start leaning towards my Intel preferences . Just kidding.

Intel processors are pretty reliable and will last you a long time, the downside is usually to get a pretty good one you have to delve deep into your pocket.

AMD's on the other hand offer a very good price to performance ratio, and if you build a lot of PC's in a short space of time and do not want to be out of pocket, AMD's are good.

There is really nothing wrong with whatever you pick, it's all what you need it for, so probably the best idea is to read some benchmarks on the processors in the area you plan to use them in (eg. gaming, video editing applications etc.) Although benchmarks are not always true to life they will hopefully give you some idea of what you want. I have happily used 3 different Pentium 4's in this PC and have had no problems, I think people just stick to what they are most experienced with.

As for the AMD 64bit processors, stay away from them IMO. There are 64bit programs coming, but not soon and by the time they do come out you will probably be wanting a new processor anyway. The fact they say it can run 32bit and 64bit at full speed must definitely mean a handicap somewhere down the line. Not to mention the fact, as Solarjetman did, that by the time 64bit programs come out this processor will be very slow in comparison to the processors out then.

[Piccoro]

Both are good picks.
They are both stable and work well. I might not consider an Athlon XP for video editing but both Pentium 4s (Do not bother with the 533FSB versions since the 800FSB models are out) and Athlon 64s will do video great.
The price/performance ratio of the Athlon 64 3000+ can't be ignored but the across the board (in audio/video creation) from a P4 800FSB can't be ignored either.
Again, really look into benchmarks from the exact types of programs you are going to use.
I've seen benchmarks where a P4 leads a Athlon 64 doing divx while another benchmark I've seen encoding a VOB to another format (forgot which format) the Athlon 64 did a bit better.
Single channel vs Dual channel memory doesnt make that much of a difference on the Athlon 64. Look at the 3400+ vs the FX51. Almost matching scores yet for 404$ instead of 720$.

There is no performance loss from the CPU being able to do 32bit and 64bit. If you are not going to use 64bit then simply ignore it rather than having doubt about it.
WinXP 64bit has said to have a 1-3 percent drop running 32bit apps on a 64bit OS but the gains using 64bit memory access on a 32bit application would be greater than 1-3 percent.
On a 32bit OS, it performs awesome and is no different than a 32bit CPU.

Your budget and performance in specific programs might be what is best to go by. Fitting into budget, look at the cost of the motherboard and other components that will be used with the different systems, add it all up to get your cost.

[elmotheteapot]

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/index.html

compares the 3.2ghz intel and the 64 3200+ AMD btw its the regular intel 3.2ghz w/ 800mhz fsb, not the Extreme Edition which is in FX51 type price range.

[Cobra]

I always use AMD chips in the PCs I build to keep the cost down. They are good, fast, reliable chips. Intel's chips are probably more sophisticated and more reliable than AMDs are, but I have no experience with them so I can't really say much.

Just one thing: never skimp on the cooling! It's vital, especially with chips that fast, that the cooling is both adequate and reliable. If there's one thing I have learned about making PCs, it's that a cool PC is a reliable PC.

I think the AMD would be your best choice, purely from a financial point of view.

Good luck with the new PC, whatever you use.

CobraDMX

[maestro5050]

I think everyone touched the basics of the various processors. Personally I would go for the AMD as it is cheaper and performance is about the same (there will be variances between the two depending on what you are doing.) I have always used AMD and they have not failed me yet.

Good luck and let us know what you decide on.

[gmatov]

Just one other thing about the 64 bit Athlons.

There is a 700+ pin version and a 900+ pin version. They released the 700 first, I forget why, but it may indicate a rather short lifespan for that line.

Buying a board/CPU combo now might have you buying a new combo sooner than you would have wanted to.

I'll have to check into it. Wasn't all that interested when I read the article, so the specifics escape me.

Cheers,

George