Athlon xp or p4 - fastest for ofp?

[arrobah 0]

If anyone out there knows the answer to this, let me know as Im thinking about an upgrade. I know this is a CPU limited game, but which one limits it the most?

[Mister Frag 0]

AMD processors generally get the nod for outperforming Intel processors of the same clock frequency in most computing tasks. There are a few specialized applications where Intel's SSE2 implementation shines and blows away the AMD processors, but there are few games where Intel has a significant advantage (Quake being an exception).

If you want to build a new gaming rig, I'd go with an AMD processor, because it will be less expensive. You can then either use the leftover cash and get more memory, or you could spend the same amount of money, and get a faster AMD processor.

Anyway, all of the current top-of-the-line processors can run OFP just fine, provided you have enough RAM.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

AMD would probably be better.It cheaper to.You'll pay $200 for an AMD Athlon at 1.4Ghz, while Pentium 4 at 1.4GHz is about $600, so theres a $400 savings there, which you could use to get a Geforce 4 or something.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ June 04 2002,14:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AMD would probably be better.It cheaper to.You'll pay $200 for an AMD Athlon at 1.4Ghz, while Pentium 4 at 1.4GHz is about $600, so theres a $400 savings there, which you could use to get a Geforce 4 or something. <span id='postcolor'>

I'm not sure where you came up with those prices, but you can buy an entire P4 1.4GHz system for less than US $400.

An OEM (non-retail boxed) P4 1.4GHz is about US $125. An Athlon 1.4GHz is also only about US $80-100, depending on the FSB speed.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ June 05 2002,01:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ June 04 2002,14:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AMD would probably be better.It cheaper to.You'll pay $200 for an AMD Athlon at 1.4Ghz, while Pentium 4 at 1.4GHz is about $600, so theres a $400 savings there, which you could use to get a Geforce 4 or something. <span id='postcolor'>

I'm not sure where you came up with those prices, but you can buy an entire P4 1.4GHz system for less than US $400.

An OEM (non-retail boxed) P4 1.4GHz is about US $125. An Athlon 1.4GHz is also only about US $80-100, depending on the FSB speed.<span id='postcolor'>

hmm, they where that price when they first came out.Or at least i saw it in a magazine.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ June 04 2002,16:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hmm, they where that price when they first came out.Or at least i saw it in a magazine.<span id='postcolor'>

Time moves on, and stuff gets cheaper.

Both AMD and Intel have been cutting processor prices in a price war lately, and the fact that they keep rolling out faster processors all the time also puts tremendous price pressure on the older, slower CPUs. The older processors that are in less demand get dumped for cheap, and small independent computer stores snap them up to build bare-bones systems using them.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

hehe, i guess i dont keep up with this stuff.

[Mister Frag 0]

Check out Sharky Extreme's Monthly High-end Gaming System Buyer's Guide -- you might be surprised that the two top-of-the-line systems with AMD and Intel processors are only US$ 56 apart.

The goal with their Buyer's Guide is to build top-notch gaming system for less than US$ 2500; obviously you can spend more or less, but performance-wise, the two systems should be very close.

[arrobah 0]

Thanks for this fella's but does anyone actually know which CPU is faster for OFP? Any chance of a Dev answering this as Ive a feeling they might be the only people who really know. Im sure the community which would like to know which CPU the engine is optimised for.

Id probably lean towards a XP as I dont think the engine is SSE2 optimised, the XP having much stonger general FPU performance. But then I really havnt got any facts to back that up.

[Mister Frag 0]

Exactly which processors do you want to compare?

Just asking about Intel vs. AMD is meaningless. FSB and core speeds vary widely, so unless you can tell us which processors you are considering, there is really no way to tell which will perform better.

[Darkhawk 0]

AMD

Pros:

Runs fast

Cheap

DDR Memory (cheap)

Might not need new case and power supply

Cons:

It Runs HOT

Warrenty service could be better

High failure rate (compared to intel)

256K cache

Intel

Pros:

Runs solid

Dose not run hot

512K cache

Very low Failure rate

Great Warrenty service

Cons:

-Need new case and power supply

-Depending on the Motherboard you might need to get

Rambus Memory.

-Will cost you some more for the CPU

So there are the diffrences between the two; I like AMD and Intel both of them make amzing product and I have an AMD 800MHz at my house and it is running great.

One thing to do is to research the product by checking out reviews on the net.

PS: Right now June-Augast is a good time to buy because no

one is buying and companys like AMD and Intel are

lowering there prices to sell of there invetory so they can

continue with production at a regular pace.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

I have both AMD athlon and Intel Pentium iii M-proccesor, but i like my AMD athlon, plus the Pentium iii M-proccesor is for laptops, so it doesnt run at its fullest, unless...unless it is hooked up to a power cord.But when it is running on the battery, it doenst run at its fullest.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ June 05 2002,15:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have both AMD athlon and Intel Pentium iii M-proccesor, but i like my AMD athlon, plus the Pentium iii M-proccesor is for laptops, so it doesnt run at its fullest, unless...unless it is hooked up to a power cord.But when it is running on the battery, it doenst run at its fullest.<span id='postcolor'>

Regarding the Mobile Pentium not running at full speed unless you are running on AC power, that's not a feature of the processor, but the system design.

I'm sure you can change that in the BIOS setup screen, but the faster processing speed will come at the expense of higher battery drain.

[shadow 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ June 06 2002,08:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ June 05 2002,15:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have both AMD athlon and Intel Pentium iii M-proccesor, but i like my AMD athlon, plus the Pentium iii M-proccesor is for laptops, so it doesnt run at its fullest, unless...unless it is hooked up to a power cord.But when it is running on the battery, it doenst run at its fullest.<span id='postcolor'>

Regarding the Mobile Pentium not running at full speed unless you are running on AC power, that's not a feature of the processor, but the system design.

I'm sure you can change that in the BIOS setup screen, but the faster processing speed will come at the expense of higher battery drain.<span id='postcolor'>

Yup. And it's an invention by IBM called 'Speedstep'

I work as a technician in a computer-store.

I can't say which cpu is best for OFP. Noone but BIS can tell you that. I can only tell you my experience with my own computers.

P-III 1GHz,512sdram,GF3 = runs great at 1024x768(max detail)

P-IV 1.8GHz,512RDRAM,GF3 = runs completely fluid at 1280x960(max detail)

Both machines run WinME. The P-4 uses Adaptec ASC-29160 with Seagate U160 drives. The P-3 uses a regular IBM IDE drive ATA-something

As someone said earlier in this thread: It really does'nt matter which CPU you choose. They are all great. I go for the Pentiums for a couple of simple reasons:

less heat = less fans = less noise

Today the prices for Athlons and Pentiums are practically identical. The RDRAM is almost as cheap as the DDR and SDRAM.

[arrobah 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Exactly which processors do you want to compare?

Just asking about Intel vs. AMD is meaningless. FSB and core speeds vary widely, so unless you can tell us which processors you are considering, there is really no way to tell which will perform better.

<span id='postcolor'>

Please read the subject headers.

For the XP and the P4 the bus speeds dont vary, XP is 133/266 and the P4 is still at 400. Certainly here in Europe the KT333/533 P4 Mhz chipsets arnt yet in the retail channel in any real numbers or resonable pricing. I was asking which is faster architecturally for OFP, I dont need a comparison off pricewatch. I suspect that you dont know the answer to that.

[Tales_From_Topographic_Oceans 0]

I made this decision in February. I upgraded from a Celery 400 MHZ to an Athlon XP 1600. At that time, the best XP was a 1900. Now there is a 2100. I did not worry about getting the fastest CPU since it would be outdated in a few weeks. I think a GHZ and a half will be good for 2 years. The latest games out still run on P2 but most recommend P3 at 600 MHZ. So you see, the games always lag far behind the CPUs.

The XP 1600 runs at 1.4 GHZ but is a little faster than a P4 1.6 GHZ. So they are about equal. The XP does not run hot as darkhawk says. The Athlon thunderbirds did run hot but the XPs are made out of aluminum which is cooler. I read this since I researched the hell out of both CPUs. I also have a big ass heat sink and fan that is good for CPUs up to 1.9 GHZ.

If you don't know what you are doing like me, get a barebones kit with the motherboard already installed in the ATX case (if you need a case).

I read in a report that the Athlon XPs are better for games that rely heavily on the CPU like simulators. OPF is just that type of game.

I have had no problems at all with the Athlon XP. It says it's "optimized" for Windows XP but I am running it with Windows 98. It works just fine.

I also have a GF2 Mx400 64MB graphics card. It works just fine; it has 800 million pixels. Why pay out the wazzu for the latest graphics card with 4 billion pixels? Games like I said lag behind technology. It's a waste of money. Get a GF2 or GF3 card for $60.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Q: What is Enhanced SpeedStep technology?

A: Intel Enhanced SpeedStep technology provides desktop class performance with all the benefits of mobility. This is accomplished with two dynamically switching performance modes. Maximum Performance mode provides desktop-class performance when you are connected to AC power, while Battery Optimized mode delivers maximum battery life. For example, when a system is unplugged, the mobile Pentium III processor 750MHz core automatically drops to 600 MHz from the peak frequency of 750 MHz. At the same time, the operating voltage of the processor drops to 1.35 volts from 1.6 volts. In addition, Intel SpeedStep technology software allows for automatic or user controlled performance mode switching. The software supports all the major operating systems including Microsoft's Window* 95, Windows 98, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, and Windows XP through a common code base.

<span id='postcolor'>

Thats what im talking about.

[Darkhawk 0]

Here is a nice video to watch about the heat Toms Heat test