AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by sgroulx, Jun 23, 2005.

  1. sgroulx

    sgroulx Guest

    Hi,
    I need to change my computer.
    I use my computer for Video editing and Gaming .
    What is best, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540???

    Thanks
    sorry for my english.

    Sébas
    sgroulx, Jun 23, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. sgroulx

    NNBXX Guest

    P4 540 is MUCH better :)

    "sgroulx" <sgroulx@nospam.9bit.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    > I need to change my computer.
    > I use my computer for Video editing and Gaming .
    > What is best, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540???
    >
    > Thanks
    > sorry for my english.
    >
    > Sébas
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    NNBXX, Jun 23, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. NNBXX <> wrote:
    > P4 540 is MUCH better :)
    >
    > "sgroulx" <sgroulx@nospam.9bit.com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hi,
    >> I need to change my computer.
    >> I use my computer for Video editing and Gaming .
    >> What is best, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540???
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >> sorry for my english.
    >>
    >> Sébas


    I like my AMD +3500 ;)




    --
    Christian Hougardy (MS XP MVP)
    Johannesburg - South Africa
    http://msmvps.com/xpditif
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    Christian Hougardy, Jun 23, 2005
    #3
  4. Christian Hougardy got up from the bar and shouted: :
    > NNBXX <> wrote:
    >> P4 540 is MUCH better :)
    >>
    >> "sgroulx" <sgroulx@nospam.9bit.com> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Hi,
    >>> I need to change my computer.
    >>> I use my computer for Video editing and Gaming .
    >>> What is best, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540???
    >>>
    >>> Thanks
    >>> sorry for my english.
    >>>
    >>> Sébas

    >
    > I like my AMD +3500 ;)
    >


    For the video editing, I would go for the Intel P4 540...
    Mark Gillespie, Jun 23, 2005
    #4
  5. "sgroulx" <sgroulx@nospam.9bit.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    > I need to change my computer.
    > I use my computer for Video editing and Gaming .
    > What is best, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540???
    >
    > Thanks
    > sorry for my english.
    >
    > Sébas
    >


    Never ever buy an Inhell, I mean Intel based computer. Always go AMD. You
    get much better performance with an AMD for less money, and they run cooler.


    Wayne
    Wayne Wastier, Jun 23, 2005
    #5
  6. "NNBXX" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > P4 540 is MUCH better :)
    >


    Troll
    Wayne Wastier, Jun 23, 2005
    #6
  7. sgroulx

    DKI Guest

    Intel better at Multimedia like video editing, encoding and decoding

    AMD better for gaming

    AMD performance might be more per buck and the 3200 might be clock at 2 or
    2.2Ghz compaired to the 3.2Ghz P4 but both will be simular in performance
    just intels is less performance for clock speed but the gaming performacne
    is about equal. but intel in the multimedia department so far is ahead of
    AMD so far but the newer FX is suppose to of bridged the gap a little.

    If you spend alot of time on both video editing and gaming then Intel would
    be the better option overall.

    (this is only based on your posting in an x64 forum) On a small note to
    consider if you are looking at the new windows xp x64 in the near future or
    decide to move to the new OS then the P4 will not support it as since the P4
    is 32bit only and would recommend looking at all your options encluding a P4
    with ETM which will support the new operating system otherwise if not then
    the P4 540 will do fine.

    "sgroulx" <sgroulx@nospam.9bit.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    > I need to change my computer.
    > I use my computer for Video editing and Gaming .
    > What is best, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540???
    >
    > Thanks
    > sorry for my english.
    >
    > Sébas
    >
    DKI, Jun 23, 2005
    #7
  8. sgroulx

    NNBXX Guest

    Why troll ? No troll at all, but short answer.

    For video editing, P4 is more efficient than Athlon 64, google a little and
    you'll figure out what I mean.

    "Wayne Wastier" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "NNBXX" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> P4 540 is MUCH better :)
    >>

    >
    > Troll
    >
    >
    >
    >
    NNBXX, Jun 23, 2005
    #8
  9. sgroulx

    DKI Guest

    As Much as intels are more expensive and before you might say anything on
    top about this i am running an AMD.

    It depends on what he does the most. if he games more than video editing
    then AMD would be his best choice but intel would be his best choice for
    video editing simply because amd are far behind intel in that area.
    "Wayne Wastier" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "sgroulx" <sgroulx@nospam.9bit.com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hi,
    >> I need to change my computer.
    >> I use my computer for Video editing and Gaming .
    >> What is best, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540???
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >> sorry for my english.
    >>
    >> Sébas
    >>

    >
    > Never ever buy an Inhell, I mean Intel based computer. Always go AMD.
    > You get much better performance with an AMD for less money, and they run
    > cooler.
    >
    >
    > Wayne
    >
    DKI, Jun 23, 2005
    #9
  10. sgroulx

    Torrey Lauer Guest

    If you would actually do research, you'd find that AMD is just better
    overall now-a-days. AMD's architecure is better and you'll be more out of
    hypertransport than anything you'd get out of Intel. Not to mention, you'll
    save on electricity too since AMDs run cooler than Intels.

    --
    Torrey Lauer
    Modern Travel Services
    moderntravel DOT net

    Rainbow Sky Travel
    rainbow sky travel DOT net
    "sgroulx" <sgroulx@nospam.9bit.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    > I need to change my computer.
    > I use my computer for Video editing and Gaming .
    > What is best, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540???
    >
    > Thanks
    > sorry for my english.
    >
    > Sébas
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Torrey Lauer, Jun 23, 2005
    #10
  11. "NNBXX" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Why troll ? No troll at all, but short answer.
    >


    Sorry about that. I hate Intel so much that I get carried away. I am a
    schmuck for this.... I apologize. :'o(


    Wayne
    Wayne Wastier, Jun 23, 2005
    #11
  12. sgroulx

    Jud Hendrix Guest

    On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:11:51 +0100, "DKI" <> wrote:

    >If you spend alot of time on both video editing and gaming then Intel would
    >be the better option overall.


    Then came the dual-core Athlons which void this.

    Sorry :)

    jud
    Jud Hendrix, Jun 23, 2005
    #12
  13. sgroulx

    NNBXX Guest

    No problem :)

    "Wayne Wastier" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "NNBXX" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Why troll ? No troll at all, but short answer.
    >>

    >
    > Sorry about that. I hate Intel so much that I get carried away. I am a
    > schmuck for this.... I apologize. :'o(
    >
    >
    > Wayne
    >
    NNBXX, Jun 23, 2005
    #13
  14. sgroulx

    DKI Guest

    I not got arround to looking a full dual core performances only a brief one
    of amd and intels yet, i know that the FX is line is catching up.

    But the older info is more revelent to what he is looking at but i did read
    that the new dual cores were good but not alot like software took advantage
    of it only the new DIVX did (could be wrong) but when the software is
    developed to fully support dual cores i will be switching but not much
    software does nor does it get a good performance out of it.in current time


    "Jud Hendrix" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:11:51 +0100, "DKI" <> wrote:
    >
    >>If you spend alot of time on both video editing and gaming then Intel
    >>would
    >>be the better option overall.

    >
    > Then came the dual-core Athlons which void this.
    >
    > Sorry :)
    >
    > jud
    >
    DKI, Jun 23, 2005
    #14
  15. sgroulx

    Jud Hendrix Guest

    On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:28:25 +0100, "DKI" <> wrote:

    >I not got arround to looking a full dual core performances only a brief one
    >of amd and intels yet, i know that the FX is line is catching up.
    >
    >But the older info is more revelent to what he is looking at but i did read
    >that the new dual cores were good but not alot like software took advantage
    >of it only the new DIVX did (could be wrong) but when the software is
    >developed to fully support dual cores i will be switching but not much
    >software does nor does it get a good performance out of it.in current time


    Not even a lot of multimedia software which is true 64-bit either :(
    Yeah, Virtualdub is :) The problem with the very old Athlon's, is that
    they didn't do fancy stuff like SSE2, which put them behind on
    Pentiums. But that's only the beginning. The architecture of the
    Athlon's has improved, and gawd knows what else. I have never had
    problems with my apps. And whether I have to wait 3h10 min, or 3h40m
    for a render to complete, I am not waiting for that anyway, so I don't
    care as much the speed, as more for the price-difference.

    jud
    Jud Hendrix, Jun 23, 2005
    #15
  16. Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jun 23, 2005
    #16
  17. Torrey Lauer got up from the bar and shouted: :
    > If you would actually do research, you'd find that AMD is just better
    > overall now-a-days. AMD's architecure is better and you'll be more out of
    > hypertransport than anything you'd get out of Intel. Not to mention, you'll
    > save on electricity too since AMDs run cooler than Intels.
    >


    I think that's a AMD fanboy answer... Intel still rule the roost when
    it comes to video rendering encoding/decoding type tasks. For
    everything else thou, AMD is a better buy (bang for buck wise).
    Mark Gillespie, Jun 24, 2005
    #17
  18. sgroulx

    DKI Guest

    price and performance are one thing but it down to what i get and how well
    the equipment can do all the jobs at the same time, i am now a little doing
    some video encoding but waiting 4 hours i do not always have patients for.
    but i don't do alot and play games so i am not fussed for it does do the job
    well with the games.

    "Jud Hendrix" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:28:25 +0100, "DKI" <> wrote:
    >
    >>I not got arround to looking a full dual core performances only a brief
    >>one
    >>of amd and intels yet, i know that the FX is line is catching up.
    >>
    >>But the older info is more revelent to what he is looking at but i did
    >>read
    >>that the new dual cores were good but not alot like software took
    >>advantage
    >>of it only the new DIVX did (could be wrong) but when the software is
    >>developed to fully support dual cores i will be switching but not much
    >>software does nor does it get a good performance out of it.in current time

    >
    > Not even a lot of multimedia software which is true 64-bit either :(
    > Yeah, Virtualdub is :) The problem with the very old Athlon's, is that
    > they didn't do fancy stuff like SSE2, which put them behind on
    > Pentiums. But that's only the beginning. The architecture of the
    > Athlon's has improved, and gawd knows what else. I have never had
    > problems with my apps. And whether I have to wait 3h10 min, or 3h40m
    > for a render to complete, I am not waiting for that anyway, so I don't
    > care as much the speed, as more for the price-difference.
    >
    > jud
    >
    DKI, Jun 24, 2005
    #18
  19. --
    rhmercer


    "sgroulx" wrote:

    > Hi,
    > I need to change my computer.
    > I use my computer for Video editing and Gaming .
    > What is best, AMD Athlon 64 3200+ or P4 540???
    >
    > Thanks
    > sorry for my english.
    >
    > Sébas
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > I have a AMD-Athlon 64 3400 + and it worls very well also using Zandros 3 Desktop Business OS.........with.........Windows XP Professional SP2...........works greate,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and fast......................

    Robert Mercer
    # # # #
    =?Utf-8?B?cmhtZXJjZXI=?=, Jun 24, 2005
    #19
  20. sgroulx

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    "Mark Gillespie" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Torrey Lauer got up from the bar and shouted: :
    >> If you would actually do research, you'd find that AMD is just better
    >> overall now-a-days. AMD's architecure is better and you'll be more out
    >> of hypertransport than anything you'd get out of Intel. Not to mention,
    >> you'll save on electricity too since AMDs run cooler than Intels.
    >>

    >
    > I think that's a AMD fanboy answer... Intel still rule the roost when it
    > comes to video rendering encoding/decoding type tasks. For everything
    > else thou, AMD is a better buy (bang for buck wise).


    Your answer is definitely an Intel fanboy answer...Intel procs are faster in
    encoding one type of video (using a proprietary codec that Intel uses on
    it's test; the codec is not available to the public). AMD processors are
    superior to Intel in every aspect that is important for the average home
    user. Even if your answer was technically correct, being better in one
    benchmark does not "rule the roost". Without Hypertransport, without an
    on-die memory controller; without exclusive L1/L2 cache data....well I could
    go on but you get the picture. Intel needs to get it's act together.
    It is making inferior and slower processors; only difference is that Intel
    has $300 million in advertising dollars to throw a mighty big smokescreen.
    If you take a serious, objective look at AMD vs. Intel, AMD is clearly the
    better choice.
    And before you accuse me (or anyone else) of being a "fanboy", I would only
    buy Intel for years, during the time when they were being an innovator, and
    incorporating features that benefited me as an end user. Since Intel no
    longer cares (apparently) about giving us what we want, they are getting
    what they deserve...people are buying what for them is the better
    deal...AMD. Its nice to see the gains in market share that AMD has made.
    If Intel would spend the money and energy to develop a new architecture
    instead of blowing smoke, they would regain the ground they lost. Lastly,
    with the announcements regarding the 65nm Presler core, the FUD continues.

    Bobby
    NoNoBadDog!, Jun 24, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dalgibbard

    AMD Sempron vs AMD Athlon

    Dalgibbard, Sep 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    670
    Shel-hed
    Sep 16, 2004
  2. Daniel

    Is there a good fanless cooler for Athlon XP 3200+ ?

    Daniel, Jan 24, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    812
  3. Ronald Murray

    AMD Athlon 64 3200+

    Ronald Murray, Jul 4, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    402
    - Bobb -
    Jul 10, 2006
  4. Jerry

    Athlon/Athlon XP/Duron???

    Jerry, Mar 11, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    595
    Box134
    Mar 13, 2006
  5. Ian
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,071
Loading...

Share This Page