AMD 3400+ vs. P4 3.2 Overclocked... who wins?

B

BurntToast

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 14, 2003
Messages
3,677
Default the 3400+ cleans house. But what about overclocked? Is the 3.2 a better overclocker, so it will in the end go higher then the 3400+ and kick its ass? Or will the 3400+ take top honors no matter what?

Now this is just with a nice $40-50 hsf, not water cooling of liquid nitro.

what cpu is best?

BTW when is the Prescott due out?
 
Basically the best fsb the 3400 will do on current mobos is about 215-220mhz, which will get you about 2.4ghz (3600 rating) and about 23k in 3dmark 01. Note also the A64 runs very cool, about 40-44c load at stock with stock cooler, and under 50C when overclocked.

The 3.2 will do 3.5ghz or so and about 230mhz fsb, but it will run much hotter, upto 60C load with a good cooler at this speed and not perform as good as the 3400. A better bet would be to get a 2.8 or 3ghz P4 and aim for 250mhz fsb (14x250 = 3.5ghz and should be around about as fast as a 3400 @ 215mhs fsb. From the 3dmark 2001 results, stock the 3400 gets about 20,400 with a 9800pro and oc to 215fsb gets about 22,000+-. The 3.2 stock gets about 19,200 stock, but a 2.8 @ 3.5 with 250fsb should get about 22,000, but run very hot at this speed and need a good cooling system....

A safe bet would be to just get a 3ghz p4 and some 233mhz memory and be happy with 3.4ghz and 230mhz fsb at nice timings and have a system that is on par in gaming with the 3400 A64, but for a lot cheaper. But the 3400 runs very cool on stock cooling, and doesn't need super fast memory (pc 3500 will do), because even @ 210-220 fsb its super fast.

To make it simple;

3ghz p4 @ 227 fsb ( 3.4ghz) = 3400 A64 (gaming performance).

3400 A64 @ 218mhz fsb (2.4ghz) = 22,000 3dmarks (2001se) with 9800pro.
To do this with a P4 setup, you would need;

2.8 @ 250mhz fsb (3.5ghz) = roughly 22k, but very expensive memory and possibly need watercooling.

I'm going the athlon route because the memory is a lot cheaper and its very cool compared to an overclocked P4 @ 3.5ghz etc.
 
This is actually an irrelevant question. Since not all chips will hit the same overclocked speeds, there is no way to do a comparison like this.

You may get a 3400+ that won't do 10 mhz over stock speeds and you could get a 3.2 P4 that won't go 10 mhz over stock speeds either.
 
AMD 3400+ > P4 anything


You will get anywhere from 2.3-2.5 on it with aircooling. With extreme aircooling...2.6 is a huuuuge maybe, but with watercooling it is possible.

Clock a 3.2C to even 4.0Ghz, and it will have trouble even meeting the performance of a 2.4Ghz A64.
 
The chances of getting a cpu that wont overclock more than 10mhz are very slim indeed. Each batch of cpu cores has to be of a high quality to reach the clocks that the 3.2 and 3400 need, so most of the cores will overclock quite a bit. Even the 3400 will overclock at least 150mhz in most cases.

The cpu will overclock more than 50mhz, even if its a 3400 A64 with a low quality core. The voltage of these cpus is just 1.5v, so upping the voltage to an average 1.7v should get you a minimum of 100mhz oc, even on the poorest cores. Most of the time an overclocking limitation is mainly due to poor quality ram and motherboards or faulty parts. I've overclocked lots of intel and amd cpus, and the poorest clocker of them all was a 2100XP that had a default clock of 1.73ghz. and went all the way to 2.2ghz on low voltage increases. The best overclocker was my current cpu, a 2500 barton that went from 1.83ghz to 2.42ghz....

Its mainly about getting the best ram and motherboard, and then see what the cpu will do. But it will overclock quite a bit, even if its just 300mhz on a P4 or 100mhz on a 3400, thats still a fair increase in system performance.
 
It's not a fair comparison.

The 64bit processor is the current model line of the Intel and relatively new technology. The 800mhz "C" is based on technology of awhile ago.

Wait till the Pentium Prescotts come out, or the Tejas. That'd be a better comparison.

AMD and Intel are not on a "equal" release basis. Infact, they're both heading down opposite roads in two totally different directions. Intel hasn't even released their counter-act to the 64-bit. All they have out is a release of the P4 which is equal to the XP based chips.

Intel: High ghz, lots of power, low heat.

AMD: Low ghz, equals the power of high ghz Intel products, lots of heat.

Comparing an A64 with a P4 3.2ghz (which has been out for quite a long while, mind you) is like comparing a GeForce5950U to a Radeon 9500 Pro. Old technology not directly related to be in competition with what's currently out.

It's not like 3dcards in a sense that you can count on both companies releasing the new generations around the same time. Intel & AMD are very random release times. If they released new technology at the same time, they'd be equal, but they don't. They're very staggered when it comes to R&D. Right now, AMD has the big guy on the block. Give Intel a year as AMD begins to start on some new ground-breaking R&D and Intel will probably have stolen that crown from AMD. It's this staggered formation which prevents this type of comparison.
 
I'm also on the market to buy a complete new system.
I'm getting a very good watercooling setup and I plan to wait for the upcoming prescott from intel BUT... I'm realy wondering if I should wait or go directly with AMD64 3400+ right now..

the 3.4ghz Prescott from the rumors will cost about the same or a little more than the 3400+ . I have no choice than to wait for the prescotts to hit the shelves, otherwise I might want to shoot myself if they outperform the 3400+ by a good margin
 
I'd wait 4-5 months for the new AMD64 cores for socket (939?)

better dual channel memory controllers that will handle higher FSBs and new chipsets that will handle ddr2 pci-E and much better FSB overclocks.
 
4-5 months is pretty far fetched in my opinion
x86-secret says the 939 socket is scheduled for 29mars 2004.
But we never know..you might be right

Anyways it's realy not a good time to upgrade.
socket 754 (current AMD64 cpu line) are going to be left behind
Intel is supposed to released their LGA/Grantsdale 29mars 2004 also.

while we're at it, ATI/Nvidia will surely release their new 3D Cards in early Q2 2004.

best thing would be to wait until spring to buy a new system,
awfully long but so close eheh..so tired of my computer
 
Originally posted by Unoid
I'd wait 4-5 months for the new AMD64 cores for socket (939?)

better dual channel memory controllers that will handle higher FSBs and new chipsets that will handle ddr2 pci-E and much better FSB overclocks.
Click to expand...

Who can ever wait!!!!
 
I'll echo what some other people said already:

The Athlon 64 3400+ would win. But it isnt really a good comparison, wait for the 3.4GHz+ P4E's (Prescott; yes the newest letter is now E, gonna get confusing with the frigging Extreme Edition around, that "EE" BS. lol)

If you were to OC the 3400+ A64 to say... 2.4, then you'd have yourself a 3700+, which they plan to release in April anyway under socket-939.
 
Originally posted by Spidey329

Intel: High ghz, lots of power, low heat.

AMD: Low ghz, equals the power of high ghz Intel products, lots of heat.
Click to expand...

Better update your stereotypes bud. The heat thing has totally flipflopped.

Also, I think it is a valid comparison, because it is comparing chips that are currently on the market. Invalid is attempting to say it is comparable to Prescott before the chip is even available.
 
And while we are on the subject of wanting to wait for Intel to release thier Prescott for a "fair" comparison. Intel has said that the release date is Feb 2, but it will not be until late April/Early May that some chips will be available for mass transition.

While I don't know exactly what that means, it does sound like a pseudo-paper launch to me.
 
Also, I think it is a valid comparison, because it is comparing chips that are currently on the market. Invalid is attempting to say it is comparable to Prescott before the chip is even available.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I was also kinda shocked to see that this is called "irrelevant" too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top