XP vs P4, what to get?
#1
Posted 12 April 2004 - 03:15 PM
After finally getting a DVD burner and doing some encoding, it was a painful experience which tells me it's about time for an upgrade.
How are the Athlon XP's? Are they stable? Do they have heat related issues?? (summer is coming soon!) I'd rather opt for Intel this time around, but the prices are so ridiculous.
Welp, thanks for reading and would appreciate any replies!
#2
Posted 12 April 2004 - 08:26 PM
I own an asus P4P800 with a celeron (out of cost reasons)
P4's are really expensive here in Europe.
But the board is stable and no problems so far.
On the other hand I'm thinking my next comp might be an amd, but just for gaming not for "serious" work.
If you do get a P4 stay away from prescotts (P4E) they tend to get quite hot.
#3
Posted 13 April 2004 - 02:25 AM
man, what happened to ntcompatible?? after 100+ views, only one reply?
#4
Posted 13 April 2004 - 08:24 AM
My processor temp: 38 c constant
My system temp: 37 c constant
this is with the cooler/heatsink that came with my P4 2.8 HT ready.
I have no experience with AMD but my step-fathers is a devotee.
#5
Posted 14 April 2004 - 03:16 AM
Athlon chips are best for Office type applications, and are much faster with programs of this type. Athlon XP chips are only average for gaming, Athlon 64 chips are currently best for gaming.
Intel P4 chips perform best with gaming and video editing. P4 was best chip for gaming until Athlon 64 was released. Performance wise, Prescott chips are not worth buying until they hit at least 3.6GHz. At the same speed, Northwood chips beat Prescott chips (this reverses at about 3.6Ghz, assuming you can get a Northwood to run that fast).
#6
Posted 14 April 2004 - 03:31 AM
I started off with an XP 2500+ Barton Core on a dual channel nForce2 ultra board. 1.0GB of DDR400MHz. RAID drives the whole "10" yards. That wasn't enough power for Adobe Premiere Pro to render the speed at which i would be happy with.
So now i have an P4 3.0GHz HT 800MHz BUS, Intel based board, SATA drives, same GIG of memory dual channel, yada yada. THe P4 setup screams through Premiere with HT enabled!!! I love it! Oh yeah I overclocked both chips, the 2500+ i got up to 2.3GHz, and the P4 i can get to 3.4GHz easily, no need to though.
Go with the Intel setup, it's the closet you'll get to a MAC if you are into video editing and media creation. MACs suck for anything other than media IMO.
#7
Posted 14 April 2004 - 04:26 AM
Having said that, for the Intel side, Abit's IS7 series boards are nice and cheap. If you want to splurge go for Abit's IC7 or Asus P4C800 series boards. I've also been hearing great things about DFI's LANParty and Infinity lines, but haven't ever worked extensively with DFI before.
AMD: nForce 2 all the way. I picked up Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe recently and it's an excellent board.
Either way is good, and the issues AMD has had in the past are sorted out by now. For Intel...keep with an Intel chipset and stay the hell away from Prescott for now.
#8
Posted 14 April 2004 - 07:16 AM
BUT! In some recent articles I have read, and helped me deicide to go AMD 64, as well as maybe spells the death of the P4:
Microsoft will only make ONE 64 bit Windows XP - the AMD one. They feel it would be too much of a waste of effort to build 2 different x86 64 bit versions, so as AMD was first, they win. The article also went on to say that if Intel wants to jump on the 64 bit bandwagon, then they will have to eat crow and beg AMD for the 64 bit code. (but recently there was a blurb about Intel doing some reverse engineering on the AMD 64 bit chips . . . . could be nasty soon)
Also, many game companies (Far Cry comes to mind that I am drooling over at the moment!!!!!!!!!) are now going to start compiling in 64 bit code! Using that, they can create larger maps, better graphics, better AI, and many other neat stuff.
So with that in mind, it might not be bad either to think AMD
#9
Posted 14 April 2004 - 10:51 AM
man, from what you guys are all advising, it's gonna cost a bit to upgrade.
i hate it that even though i'm in taiwan, prices are still so high as compared to the states.
I have done some price checks and basically the P4 and the 64bit Athlons are the same price. about a $60 difference. This is with 512MBDDR 400, SATA 120GB HD. But it's gonna be in the price range of $580~$650 for the upgrade. That's more than my budget is allowing me to spend.
I wonder if I could get away with just buying a mpeg card?? I have never bought one but would it get the job done? Do these cards actually improve encoding/decoding times?? It would be a much cheaper alternative and I could spend the money on a larger HD and a stick of ram (pc133
#10
Posted 14 April 2004 - 10:54 AM
AMD 3000+ 64bit
Gigabyte GA-K8VT800
Transcend 512MB DDR 400
Seagate 80GB 7200 SATA150
US$558.00
#11
Posted 15 April 2004 - 02:16 AM
Thanks for the info. From what I read about those cards, they only mentioned playback (or de-coding). I don't really have a problem with that. The part I'm wondering is the encoding part. It takes me about 15-20 minutes to encode a *.vob track (or a dvd track of a song) to mpeg1/2 format. It took me over 6hrs to encode The Eagles DVD to VCD format! I want something that'll make it go faster so I was wondering if the new generation mpeg cards would help. Again, it's the encoding that I'm after.
Thanks
btw, I'm running a Athlon 1G T-Bird with 256mb ram (the other 256stick burnt out
#12
Posted 15 April 2004 - 02:27 AM
Thanks for the info. From what I read about those cards, they only mentioned playback (or de-coding). I don't really have a problem with that. The part I'm wondering is the encoding part. It takes me about 15-20 minutes to encode a *.vob track (or a dvd track of a song) to mpeg1/2 format. It took me over 6hrs to encode The Eagles DVD to VCD format! I want something that'll make it go faster so I was wondering if the new generation mpeg cards would help. Again, it's the encoding that I'm after.
Thanks
btw, I'm running a Athlon 1G T-Bird with 256mb ram (the other 256stick burnt out
*edit* forgot to mention the DVD Burner I just bought as well for $100. So that's a total of $630 already spent. I'm not looking forward to adding another $600 for the upgrade
#13
Posted 15 April 2004 - 04:13 AM

Help










