AMD equivelant to p4 2.4ghz c

[Chaos]

What about would be an AMD equivalent to a p4 2.4 ghz c.

[Wiggo]

Ya'd be lookin' at the Athlon64 line especially if that 2.4C is overclocked.

[Chaos]

Yeah, i am building a new system for my mom and 1,000 is about the roof of my budget. Thanx for telling me. I guess the P4C800-E Deluxe would be a good MOBO?

[amd_man2005]

Yeah, i am building a new system for my mom and 1,000 is about the roof of my budget. Thanx for telling me. I guess the P4C800-E Deluxe would be a good MOBO?

yeah, althought the P4P800 Deluxe would be just fine

[Soulburner]

What about would be an AMD equivalent to a p4 2.4 ghz c.

Stock or what?

I'd say a 2800+ Barton performs about on par to a 2.4c when both are stock.

Overclocked to their limits on air they are still pretty close but the AMD can't keep up with the Intel. Barton at 2.5Ghz is about equal to a P4 at 3.3Ghz. And some will go higher than this, up to 3.6-3.7 on air.

Until you go A64....then an A64 at 2.5Ghz is equal to a P4 at 4.0Ghz...

[Chaos]

Yeah at stock speeds, but I wasn't looking at Barton. I will have to see how pricy those are.

[amd_man2005]

All 2500+'s are Bartons, as well as 2700+?,2800+,3000+, and 3200+

[Chaos]

YEah i was tired i just meant the 400mhz bus, not the Barton.

[Soulburner]

YEah i was tired i just meant the 400mhz bus, not the Barton.

The 400mhz bus is the Barton...

[zeradul]

just go to toms hardware and find the latest CPU comparrison... that will tell you exactly whats what...

[Mista K6]

Well, I was reading one from back in the day (when the 3.2Ghz Intel came out) and a stock 2.4C seems to be between an XP 3000+ and an XP 3200+ stock. I looked of the test set up just to be sure it was fair (tomshardware screws up royally at times), and it seems to be. Anyways, check it out: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/index.html . : peace2: Mista K6

[zeradul]

Wow, well its been a while since I've seen any processor benchmarks. It appears that AMD is loosing substantial ground on Intel... I'm curious though because it doesn't appear that any of Toms hardware benchmarks are taking in to account 64 Bit mode.

That makes those benchmarks pretty un-reliable right? Because he needs an OS that is 64 Bit compatable, AND a benchmarking program that utilizes it as well.

So maybe AMD hasn't lost any ground.

What do you guys think? (Note I didn't look at the page too closely, I could be wrong)

[Wiggo]

In actual fact Tom is in a bit of bother over his A64 vs. P4 comparisons as they don't reflect what has been reported by other sites so don't take his findings as gospel.

[Soulburner]

Well, I was reading one from back in the day (when the 3.2Ghz Intel came out) and a stock 2.4C seems to be between an XP 3000+ and an XP 3200+ stock. I looked of the test set up just to be sure it was fair (tomshardware screws up royally at times), and it seems to be. Anyways, check it out: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/index.html . : peace2: Mista K6

Tom's Intel results are always a bit bloated compared to the AMD results. Actually, the AMD results are a bit lacking to be specific. Ignore them.

[b]Wow, well its been a while since I've seen any processor benchmarks. It appears that AMD is loosing substantial ground on Intel... I'm curious though because it doesn't appear that any of Toms hardware benchmarks are taking in to account 64 Bit mode.

AMD has not lost any ground, rather gained.

The new A64 processors are what I would call the fastest desktop CPU in the world right now. Intel has a lot of heat being put on them to bring out a faster chip.

And they run 32 bit mode right here, right now, just fine.