Ford Automobiles Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
MEG Sergeant
Joined
·
1,667 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm looking at upgrading my PC soon and would like to know what processor to use i would never use a Pentium processor as i'm an AMD man.

What is the best The AMD Athlon 64 or the AMD Sempron 64?
 

·
Yo
Joined
·
3,632 Posts
The athlon 64 is best. The sempron is the equivilant of a duron / celeron.
 

·
TDDI Buff
Joined
·
37,060 Posts
get a dual core if you can afford it the 4400 is a good one over 300 quid tho!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
716 Posts
I have 4 desktops and 2 notebooks, using a mix of processors, Pentium 3, 4, Celeron, Celeron M, Sempron and Athlon 64. I have found that for my type of computing (office, video and photo work) that the Intel chips perform better and are more stable. However I believe that the AMD chips are better for gaming.
 

·
AWOL
Joined
·
19,522 Posts
Athlon 64 chips are still relatively new and there are driver issues. Just search back a bit to find my problems. It's all working ok now, and I don't regret buying it, although I did at the time! :}
 

·
TDDI Buff
Joined
·
37,060 Posts
amd chips are good allrounder chips i do alsorts on my pc i dont like intel because theyre slow and cost a lot more and at the end of the day if you upgrade your own pc or build your own ewhy pay more for intel when in a few yrs or sooner your going to upgrade.
 

·
MEG Admiral
Joined
·
1,956 Posts
Depends what you're after, if you just use the PC for general use then my Athlon 1400 will do, it can do everything except...

play modern games

and for that the current best price/performance compromise seems to be the Athlon 64 range 3000+ to 3800+
 

·
MEG Sergeant
Joined
·
1,308 Posts
If you gonna get a single core chip then get the 3700 san diego they are great performers :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
716 Posts
totalguy said:
amd chips are good allrounder chips i do alsorts on my pc i dont like intel because theyre slow and cost a lot more and at the end of the day if you upgrade your own pc or build your own ewhy pay more for intel when in a few yrs or sooner your going to upgrade.
Intel P4s may look slow on paper compared with AMD chips but in the real world that just does not seem to hold true. I have 2 machines in my office, one based on a P4 2.8Mhz, with 512mb ram and 160GB HDD, this is a standard Dell box. The other is a custom built PC with an Athlon 64 3200+ with branded ram (1Gb) and a 250GB HDD. The P4 has onboard graphics while the AMD based machine has a 256MB Radeon graphics card.

The MD machine should be much faster than the Dell P4 machine but it isn't, and while the p4 machine is as close to 100% stable that you can get with anything running Windows, the AMD based system will usually crash 3 or 4 times a week. All in all despite the AMD chips looking better value, I personally prefer genuine Intel processors.

Oh and Oz, I have updated all the MB drivers, graphics drivers, netwrok drivers etc and even had the RAM tested in the AMD machine with out solving the instability problem. The strange thing is the system is more stable when you over clock it by about 10% than when running at its 'proper' speed!
 

·
TDDI Buff
Joined
·
37,060 Posts
the athlon would only be faster if running entirely on 64 bit software so what your saying is not a true test if you want to call it that. yes 64 bit processors will run 32 bit apps but your comparing it with a 32 bit processor as far as i know a P4 2.8ghz is a 32 bit processor.

plus in my opinion the 3200 aint that great anyway i have one here and before this one i had 2X athlon 1800mp dual processors now theoretically you would think the 64 bit 3200 would be faster but its not its slower!!

also id say my old duals would have give your p4 a very good run.

Also in the "real world" as you say ive built computers for many yrs and amd have been better since the first athlons used to be a pentium fan but got put off by a 600mhz athlon running a lot better than a p3 733!! good quality machines i build none of this crap you usually get from a shop like pc world and al lthe other companies.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
716 Posts
I have only AMD experience with the machine I mention, altough I have ran machines with other non Intel chips in the past (IBM Blue lightening 486 DX2 alternative, and a Cyrix 400MHz PII alternative). I have been building and upgrading computers since I was about 12. I have found the AMD Athlon 64 machine to be very frustrating due to the blue screen crashes. I can not be sure if it is a motherboard issue or a processor issue. As I say I had the RAM tested and it is fine. Certainly the AMD chips are good value price wise, but I think that to really see any performance advantages you need to really be doing something that is biased towards the AMD (there are certain processes that the AMD chip greatly out performs the P4 and other ones that the P4 is better at). To be honest if you have 256MB of RAM or more virtually any processor, Celeron, Duron, Athlon, Pentium, Sempron, Athlon 64 etc of 1.8GHz or faster handle office and basic image handling so easily that it is hard as a mere human to notice much difference. Even this 1.4GHz Celeron based notebook seems more or less as fast as the P4 2.8 or Athlon 64 3200+ to my human perception for running Word/PowerPoint/Firefox etc (but is slower at DVD authoring).
 

·
TDDI Buff
Joined
·
37,060 Posts
i cant say ive had blue screen issues well i have but that was early days of xp not the hardware's fault i stick to quality boards like asus and abit
 

·
MEG Admiral
Joined
·
1,956 Posts
I can't comment on the 64's stability, but my 6 year old Athlon has been super stable (not sure if thats relevant in comparison to todays architechture but I'll say it nonetheless). It's had a few crashes sure, put far less than my brothers 2 year old P4 3ghz. Usually the only problems are due to my overclocking exploits. Both are more stable than my old PII though.
 

·
TDDI Buff
Joined
·
37,060 Posts
p2''s had a flaw ssending summat to microsoft apparently? i forget what it was.
 

·
MEG Sergeant
Joined
·
1,308 Posts
i have been using amd chips since the orignal athlon came out and they have all been perfectly stable. but the chipset they where used with was abit hit and miss especially VIA chipsets damn nasty things. when the Nforce chipsets came out the was the end of most stablity problems on the AMD side. :)
 

·
TDDI Buff
Joined
·
37,060 Posts
mines a nforce 4 not had any problems with it so far
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top