Performance question

[Nereid]

Which processor will deliver better gaming preformance, the AMD atholon FX-53 or the Intel 3.4 ghz extreme addition lvl 3 cache? Would be helpfull if I could get some comparisons and explanations on why one is better then the other. "this is might cause a feud between people loyal to AMD or Intel but id really like to know".

[Electrofreak]

the Intel EE will probably perform better, but it costs a HELL of a lot more. the FX-53 will perform almost as well and cost a lot less. I'll see if I can grab some numbers for ya.

[Electrofreak]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2002

Here we go. This article is actually a review of the FX-53, but provides some great comparisons to the Intel 3.4 EE. As you will see, the FX-53 wins in some areas and the Intel 3.4 EE wins in others.

Also, something to note is that the FX-53 is a 64-bit processor that is 32-bit capable. If you are planning on having this CPU for more than a couple years, I would go the 64-bit route, as Microsoft will be releasing a 64-bit Windows XP (which is actually available right now in a public beta). The FX-53 would be able to run this windows, and actually perform BETTER under the 64-bit environment.

Again, I'll admit I'm a little bit biased to AMD, I would get the FX-53 because its just about on even ground, costs less, and has a bit more future-proofing ability.

edit- as you may note from my sig, I have an AMD 64 cpu, the 3200+ in my machine. And, it totally pwns.

edit2- I found the FX-53 for $769.00 on newegg.com, but could only find the Intel 3.2 EE on newegg, for sale for $917.00. You can be assured that the Intel 3.4 EE will cost even more. Well, to be fair, the 3.2 EE comes with a stock heatsink...
:p

[Nereid]

I found the P4 3.4 ghz on tigerdirect that doesnt have the level 3 cache for only 420$. Is that 2mb more of cache really gonna make that much more of a difference? Or you can get a 3.2 ghz without level 3 cache for only 290$. But im power hungrey im not sure what Ill do just yet for my next comp. I might wait on the 6800 because I hear they have a more advanced version ready to come out soon that has 512mb of video RAM. "when ever a top of the line vid card comes out theirs ususally an more advanced version of that same one soon to follow like 9800 pro to 9800XT or geforce 5900 to 5950" but deffinately gonna get 2 GB of RAM. So far i put together some nice system stats for a nice low cost:

P4 3.2 ghz
Intel 875P motherboard
Ultra case w/ 500 watt PS
2 gb DDR 3200 RAM
Sound blaster Audigy X-Gamer
Ati Radeon 9800XT

already got monitor/keyboard/mouse/80 gb 8mb buffer hard drive

all that for around 1500$ after adding shipping and handeling.

[Acaila]

Yes, increased cache size provides massive performance increases, up to a point. Cache is simply a piece of high speed static RAM that stores information the CPU uses frequently, on modern CPUs, cache runs at full (L1) or half core speed (L2). L1 cache is on the CPU, L2 cache is nearby as it is too large to be integrated (though it has been now on some CPUs). So essentially you are looking at a piece of RAM running at 1.8-3.4GHz instead of slow dynamic system RAM at 400MHz. I don't know the setup for all 3 levels of cache on the EE chip, however the L3 cache probably is setup similar to standard L2 cache, but is lower down the access order. The more cache you have, the more common data (frequently requested data by programs and the OS) the fewer cache misses (when the CPU attempts to draw information from cache that isn't there) will occur, so the less frequently you will have to work directly from slow (comparitively) system RAM or HDD. The only time having more cache is slower than having less, is when a number of operations have to be accomplished that require data that isn't in cache.

Correct me if I am wrong on the above, I haven't taken a class on hardware at that specific a level in 5 years.

That 2MB cache is a large part of what allows the P4 EE to compete with the FX. Price wise, the P4 EE and the FX are both complete fucking rip offs.

[Electrofreak]

::Nods:: If you want value, you should probably go for an AMD 64 3000+ or an AMD 64 3200+ like mine.

[sandiman]

if u want real value just go for one of the Athlon XP's and wai for the 64 bit chips 2 get cheap and 64bit wiondows to come out!

Teh Fx-53 and EE pentiums cost way 2 much for any normaly prsn 2 buy! and the FX-51 is basicaly a souped up opteron. Yes an opteron not a athlon 64 bit! its not got that much in common with the athlons its way closer 2 an op and i has the same clok speed as the 64 3400+ which is about half the price or sumthin! and way easier 2 get ur hands on! i would stay clear of the FX-53 unlesss u want a total UBER machine and if u want 2 save some cash go nd pik up the FX-51 in the cheap... most shops are clearing their stokc of them so the are much bttr value than the 53 and they are only like 200Mhz or suthin behind, well put it this way the 53 = 3400 51 = 3200. and the FX-51 sceams soooo to sumarise....
1)FX 53 to expensive
2)wait till 64 bit windos is out
3)while u wait get an Athlon XP
4)or pick up a FX-51 while they are still around!

ow and as for the 2Mb cache they are gd for servers but i wouldnt say it was that nesiary for normal gaming!

just my opinion!
Sandy
MD Sandiman Computers

[dscytherulez]

Ditch the 2GB of RAM. With that much RAM, you might actually slow your computer down. After 1GB/1.5GB, it's pretty much worthless.

[Disconnections]

Sorry to jack this thread but how does 2 gig slow your computer? Ive only heard that 2 gig is a problem when some apps have to much memory to know what to do with it.

[Electrofreak]

Well, in AMD 64 computers, the memory controller is on-die. that means the CPU controls your memory. I know that in AMD 64s (not the FXs) if you put more than 2 sticks of RAM into your system, it drops down to a max speed of DDR333. I'm not sure about the FX CPUs, but I'm pretty sure they have limitations of some sort as well concerning memory.

Also, since socket 754 mobos (for AMD 64, again, not the FX, those are 940) only have 3 slots, you would have to get 2 1-gig sticks, and 1-gig sticks typically run slower than 512 sticks. Also, socket 754 cannot run RAM in dual channel.

For the FX CPUs, u need to get Registered ECC DDR RAM as well, which are very expensive, and also slightly slower than Unbuffered Non-ECC (normal) RAM.

The next socket for AMD (socket 939) will clear up all these issues with RAM and the like. However, it will a month or 2 before they are released. If you really want the best, wait for these mobos to be released, they will be able to run tons of RAM, in dual channel, with no performance drops at all. Also, you will be able to run an FX chip with normal RAM instead of having to purchase expensive R-ECC stuff.

[sandiman]

the only problem with waitin till that comes out is that then ull be waitin 4 ATI to counter GeForce or sumthin like that there is always a reason to wait.....

[Cyanide]

I would not buy a processor right now. Motherboards will be changing too much in the next few months. Both Intel and AMD are switching socket types, and PCI express is soon to be released. If I were you i'd wait until the fall to get a board with the new socket and PCI express.

[Electrofreak]

Cyanide speaks the truth...
sometimes there is good reason to wait

[Rbstr]

yeah no is not the time to buy an upgrade, wait a month then it will