new mobo ic7-g

[markuk]

building new pc this time ic7-g, 3gig 800fsb p4, 2x 512Mb DDR RAM PC3500 Golden Dragon GeIL, the rest is the same as my sig, do you think it will be quicker or not:confused: as this is my first p4 system

[Ruantic]

Originally posted by markuk
building new pc this time ic7-g, 3gig 800fsb p4, 2x 512Mb DDR RAM PC3500 Golden Dragon GeIL, the rest is the same as my sig, do you think it will be quicker or not:confused: as this is my first p4 system


My IC7-G @ 3.9 still beats the NF7-S with 2500+ barton core running at 2.5 ghz... Let me know how the Geil Golden dragon runs for you, I've been thinking of trying some, just picked up a couple sticks of Corsair 3500 which is running quite nicely...

[mdzcpa]

If neither system is overclocked, they'll run about the same. The Intel may be a tic quicker overall, but not by much. The AMD would certainly previal in some applications.

Overclocked, the P4 will run away with it. The P4C chips are overclocking monsters...as are the new Intel chipsets. I'm also running an overclocked P4 3Ghz (aat 4.1ghz) and it handily out performed my old XP 2700 (at 2.7Ghz) on an NF7.

[Player0]

I dont agree with that. The canterwood has insane memory bandwith, the AMD cant even touch it at stock speeds. And hyperthreading makes a huge difference. Maybe not with just one application running, but it makes the system itself feel extremely responsive, and works great for multitasking.

But keep us posted on the Geil, im interested myself.

[mdzcpa]

Originally posted by Player0
I dont agree with that.

Sorry but it is true. I've recently completed more than a few builds for guys who've wanted to stick with AMD, and a head to head run with a new NF7-S/ Barton 3200+ combo vs a P4 3Ghz/IC7 is just about dead even. In fact, the AMD takes more than just a few benchmarks wins.

Most hardware reviews covering the P4C 3Ghz/Canterwood vs. Barton 3200+/NF2 reach the same conclusion. The P4 usually comes out a tick faster overall, but both systems trade blow fairly evenly. Depends on the benchmarks really.

[Player0]

Well if you've tested it, I'll have to take your word for it hehe. Maybe AMD isn't as dead as I had thought. I just couldnt beleive that the numbers I'm seeing on this IC7 here could even compare to the NF7 boards. But, I cant speak from experience here so Im sure your right Mike. In single benchmark runs. I still say that HT gives the P4 a big advantage. If you're just building a gaming system, maybe not. But for real desktop use, HT makes a huge difference. I can fold all day and it doesn't put a dent in my benchmarks with HT enabled. But with HT off, folding makes the computer slower. And I always have at least 10 applications going at once. I have Photoshop, UltraEdit, Trillian, about 8 explorer windows, FoxMail, OE and folding going right now :)

Its interesting that the barton 3200+ is more expensive than the P4C 3.0Ghz.

Sorry for speaking out of line. I thought the new P4 800mhz trounced all the AMDs.

[mdzcpa]

I don't think your speaking out of line at all:) For the most part, the P4 will indeed prevail in performance. Bandwidth sensitive apps especially so (as you've noted about the superb P4 bandwidth). But, it's hard to deny that the XP 3200 does beat the P4 back on a number of relevant benchmarks, and whether any user by the seat of thier pants would notice the AMD to be the slower system for general usage(for gaming, surfing, MP3 rippin and burning, etc).

Overclocked...well that's another matter altogether. An overclocked P4C on a new 800mhz chipset smokes the AMD competition badly. That's what is so amazing about the Intel stuff right now....so i understand where you are coming from in support of Intel offering the most performance. It's unreal right now:D

At this point, until the Athlon64 comes out, Intel will just continue to pull away.

[Player0]

I wish I had my own Intel too push hehe. AMD always has had the best x86 support, hands down. They really took that x86 core and optimized the hell out of it, while Intel was content to let it sit and just add MMX, SSE and SSE2, etc. AMD still has the better FPU, which for games can REALLY be helpful, especially with all the new physics engines coming out. The P4 is still 'brute forcing' it, but doing it quite well.

Still, I *really* need to see Athlon64 kill everything else before i even consider one. No one has answered my question yet...but does/will Server 2003 have x86-64 support? Or is there a new OS out?

I know the Athlon64 will act 'hyperthreaded' on 32bit apps, but...still wonder if it will be enough.

[mdzcpa]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Player0
No one has answered my question yet...but does/will Server 2003 have x86-64 support?

I heard this was indeed going to happen. But i think I read this as a grapevine kind of story on The Inquirer, so that's not exactly a sure thing.