|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.a-plus > September 2002 > P4 or Athlon ?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Rick Blythin 2002-09-29, 12:28 pm |
| First I just want to thank everyone who replied to my previous post on
upgrading. I'm now debating between either the 2 Ghz Athlon or a 1.6 P4.
Unfortunately the 2+ P4's are still a little to expensive here (Canada) then
I really want to spend right now. The Athlon and P4 1.6 are only a few
dollars different in price. I'll mainly be using it for CAD work 2D and 3D,
and I also use it as a games machine (Metal of Honor and Soldier of fortune
type games). I'm running a k6-2 450 currently, with 448 RAM. It's still a
decent system for CAD, but games is where it's really starting to show it's
age.
I can't see their being a huge difference in performance in CAD work, but
in gaming there might be.
Any thoughts would be great.
Cheers,
Rick
A+, Network+
| |
| Barry Watzman 2002-09-29, 12:28 pm |
| The 2.4 P4's are selling for $193, at that price I can't see getting a
1.6. I believe that some of the US vendors, although in general they
don't ship internationally, will ship to Canada (the $193 is at
Googlegear, and it's the packaged, full retail shrink wrapped CPU with
heatsink and fan -- other vendors have similar pricing).
If you get the 2.4, be aware that they come in two FSB clock speeds, 400
and 533, get the right one for your configuration.
If you get the 1.6, be aware that they come in two different families,
Willamette and Northwood. You ***DEFINITELY*** want the Northwood,
there is a HUGE difference. You can tell them apart by the size of the
cache, the Northwood has a 512k cache vs. 256k on the willamette.
I think that the differences are very significant for both CAD and
gaming. Both do a lot of "heavy duty" display stuff and calculations,
including 3D rendering and floating point.
Rick Blythin wrote:
> First I just want to thank everyone who replied to my previous post on
> upgrading. I'm now debating between either the 2 Ghz Athlon or a 1.6 P4.
> Unfortunately the 2+ P4's are still a little to expensive here (Canada) then
> I really want to spend right now. The Athlon and P4 1.6 are only a few
> dollars different in price. I'll mainly be using it for CAD work 2D and 3D,
> and I also use it as a games machine (Metal of Honor and Soldier of fortune
> type games). I'm running a k6-2 450 currently, with 448 RAM. It's still a
> decent system for CAD, but games is where it's really starting to show it's
> age.
>
> I can't see their being a huge difference in performance in CAD work, but
> in gaming there might be.
>
> Any thoughts would be great.
>
> Cheers,
> Rick
> A+, Network+
>
>
| |
|
|
"Rick Blythin" <mosguy@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:CRFl9.913$zz2.74915@news20.bellglobal.com...
> First I just want to thank everyone who replied to my previous post on
> upgrading. I'm now debating between either the 2 Ghz Athlon or a 1.6 P4.
> Unfortunately the 2+ P4's are still a little to expensive here (Canada)
then
> I really want to spend right now. The Athlon and P4 1.6 are only a few
> dollars different in price. I'll mainly be using it for CAD work 2D and
3D,
> and I also use it as a games machine (Metal of Honor and Soldier of
fortune
> type games). I'm running a k6-2 450 currently, with 448 RAM. It's still a
> decent system for CAD, but games is where it's really starting to show
it's
> age.
>
> I can't see their being a huge difference in performance in CAD work, but
> in gaming there might be.
>
> Any thoughts would be great.
>
> Cheers,
> Rick
> A+, Network+
It looks to me like there is a substantial price difference between those
chips at www.pricewatch.com , which is where I look to compare prices. I
use an Athlon 1.1 with 128 Mg of RAM right now and the only problems I have
had are with heat. It runs anything that I want to run.
Of course I don't do any CAD at all mostly internet and games like Diablo II
and MechWarrior 4.
AG
| |
| Barry Watzman 2002-09-29, 1:28 pm |
| The 2.4 P4's are selling for $193, at that price I can't see getting a
1.6. I believe that some of the US vendors, although in general they
don't ship internationally, will ship to Canada (the $193 is at
Googlegear, and it's the packaged, full retail shrink wrapped CPU with
heatsink and fan -- other vendors have similar pricing).
If you get the 2.4, be aware that they come in two FSB clock speeds, 400
and 533, get the right one for your configuration.
If you get the 1.6, be aware that they come in two different families,
Willamette and Northwood. You ***DEFINITELY*** want the Northwood,
there is a HUGE difference. You can tell them apart by the size of the
cache, the Northwood has a 512k cache vs. 256k on the willamette.
I think that the differences are very significant for both CAD and
gaming. Both do a lot of "heavy duty" display stuff and calculations,
including 3D rendering and floating point.
Rick Blythin wrote:
> First I just want to thank everyone who replied to my previous post on
> upgrading. I'm now debating between either the 2 Ghz Athlon or a 1.6 P4.
> Unfortunately the 2+ P4's are still a little to expensive here (Canada) then
> I really want to spend right now. The Athlon and P4 1.6 are only a few
> dollars different in price. I'll mainly be using it for CAD work 2D and 3D,
> and I also use it as a games machine (Metal of Honor and Soldier of fortune
> type games). I'm running a k6-2 450 currently, with 448 RAM. It's still a
> decent system for CAD, but games is where it's really starting to show it's
> age.
>
> I can't see their being a huge difference in performance in CAD work, but
> in gaming there might be.
>
> Any thoughts would be great.
>
> Cheers,
> Rick
> A+, Network+
>
>
| |
|
|
"Rick Blythin" <mosguy@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:CRFl9.913$zz2.74915@news20.bellglobal.com...
> First I just want to thank everyone who replied to my previous post on
> upgrading. I'm now debating between either the 2 Ghz Athlon or a 1.6 P4.
> Unfortunately the 2+ P4's are still a little to expensive here (Canada)
then
> I really want to spend right now. The Athlon and P4 1.6 are only a few
> dollars different in price. I'll mainly be using it for CAD work 2D and
3D,
> and I also use it as a games machine (Metal of Honor and Soldier of
fortune
> type games). I'm running a k6-2 450 currently, with 448 RAM. It's still a
> decent system for CAD, but games is where it's really starting to show
it's
> age.
>
> I can't see their being a huge difference in performance in CAD work, but
> in gaming there might be.
>
> Any thoughts would be great.
>
> Cheers,
> Rick
> A+, Network+
It looks to me like there is a substantial price difference between those
chips at www.pricewatch.com , which is where I look to compare prices. I
use an Athlon 1.1 with 128 Mg of RAM right now and the only problems I have
had are with heat. It runs anything that I want to run.
Of course I don't do any CAD at all mostly internet and games like Diablo II
and MechWarrior 4.
AG
| |
| Navin R. Johnson 2002-09-29, 5:28 pm |
| On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 12:25:55 -0400, "Rick Blythin"
<mosguy@gosympatico.ca> wrote:
>First I just want to thank everyone who replied to my previous post on
>upgrading. I'm now debating between either the 2 Ghz Athlon or a 1.6 P4.
>Unfortunately the 2+ P4's are still a little to expensive here (Canada) then
>I really want to spend right now. The Athlon and P4 1.6 are only a few
>dollars different in price. I'll mainly be using it for CAD work 2D and 3D,
>and I also use it as a games machine (Metal of Honor and Soldier of fortune
>type games). I'm running a k6-2 450 currently, with 448 RAM. It's still a
>decent system for CAD, but games is where it's really starting to show it's
>age.
I'm using an Athlon 1900 right now and it's noticeably faster than the
P4-1.6. Incidentally, I just finished building a P4-1.6 for a customer.
The difference in speed isn't dramatic, but, after loading W2k on the P4
and running it for maybe 10 minutes I remember thinking to myself, "this
thing's a dog compared to my Athlon". And the P-4 has a better video
card - GeForce-4 TI4600 as opposed to my GeForce-4 MX440. Go figure.
BTW, for another $20 you could get an AthlonXP 2100+...
NRJ
> I can't see their being a huge difference in performance in CAD work, but
>in gaming there might be.
Rick, you're gonna be astonished by the huge difference in speed between
your old but reliable K6-2/450 and your new system, no matter which CPU
you choose. A tip - check out the prices at newegg.com. I've been buying
from them for about a month now and so far I couldn't be happier. Good
luck.
Navin R Johnson (not my real name LOL)
>Any thoughts would be great.
>Cheers,
>Rick
>A+, Network+
>
| |
| Navin R. Johnson 2002-09-29, 6:29 pm |
| On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 12:25:55 -0400, "Rick Blythin"
<mosguy@gosympatico.ca> wrote:
>First I just want to thank everyone who replied to my previous post on
>upgrading. I'm now debating between either the 2 Ghz Athlon or a 1.6 P4.
>Unfortunately the 2+ P4's are still a little to expensive here (Canada) then
>I really want to spend right now. The Athlon and P4 1.6 are only a few
>dollars different in price. I'll mainly be using it for CAD work 2D and 3D,
>and I also use it as a games machine (Metal of Honor and Soldier of fortune
>type games). I'm running a k6-2 450 currently, with 448 RAM. It's still a
>decent system for CAD, but games is where it's really starting to show it's
>age.
I'm using an Athlon 1900 right now and it's noticeably faster than the
P4-1.6. Incidentally, I just finished building a P4-1.6 for a customer.
The difference in speed isn't dramatic, but, after loading W2k on the P4
and running it for maybe 10 minutes I remember thinking to myself, "this
thing's a dog compared to my Athlon". And the P-4 has a better video
card - GeForce-4 TI4600 as opposed to my GeForce-4 MX440. Go figure.
BTW, for another $20 you could get an AthlonXP 2100+...
NRJ
> I can't see their being a huge difference in performance in CAD work, but
>in gaming there might be.
Rick, you're gonna be astonished by the huge difference in speed between
your old but reliable K6-2/450 and your new system, no matter which CPU
you choose. A tip - check out the prices at newegg.com. I've been buying
from them for about a month now and so far I couldn't be happier. Good
luck.
Navin R Johnson (not my real name LOL)
>Any thoughts would be great.
>Cheers,
>Rick
>A+, Network+
>
| |
|
| Athlon is cheaper and actually runs cooler for the equivalent performance
(not clock speed).
Some undercool the Athlon by mistake.
Most undercool the whole tower.
The 1.6 Athlon Xp will match a 2.0 P4.
The ratio is about 5:3
You mentioned 1.6 P4 vs. 2.0 Athlon
A place where I help with networking has two of each for AutoCAD (3D) along
with some solid modeling.
There is no appreciable difference.
The biggest MISTAKE is to NOT go with at least DDR memory and at least a 400
mHz front end.
Obviously the graphics (AGA) board is important, 128 MB DDR min.
The most powerful I have seen for AutoCAD is a dual processor Mother Board.
This usually says Intel and any pair of P4s over 1.6 will scream. Don't ask
me for the details. It just works super. Of course you need 2000 Pro. or Xp
Pro.
"Rick Blythin" <mosguy@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:CRFl9.913$zz2.74915@news20.bellglobal.com...
> First I just want to thank everyone who replied to my previous post on
> upgrading. I'm now debating between either the 2 Ghz Athlon or a 1.6 P4.
> Unfortunately the 2+ P4's are still a little to expensive here (Canada)
then
> I really want to spend right now. The Athlon and P4 1.6 are only a few
> dollars different in price. I'll mainly be using it for CAD work 2D and
3D,
> and I also use it as a games machine (Metal of Honor and Soldier of
fortune
> type games). I'm running a k6-2 450 currently, with 448 RAM. It's still a
> decent system for CAD, but games is where it's really starting to show
it's
> age.
>
> I can't see their being a huge difference in performance in CAD work, but
> in gaming there might be.
>
> Any thoughts would be great.
>
> Cheers,
> Rick
> A+, Network+
>
>
| |
|
| Athlon is cheaper and actually runs cooler for the equivalent performance
(not clock speed).
Some undercool the Athlon by mistake.
Most undercool the whole tower.
The 1.6 Athlon Xp will match a 2.0 P4.
The ratio is about 5:3
You mentioned 1.6 P4 vs. 2.0 Athlon
A place where I help with networking has two of each for AutoCAD (3D) along
with some solid modeling.
There is no appreciable difference.
The biggest MISTAKE is to NOT go with at least DDR memory and at least a 400
mHz front end.
Obviously the graphics (AGA) board is important, 128 MB DDR min.
The most powerful I have seen for AutoCAD is a dual processor Mother Board.
This usually says Intel and any pair of P4s over 1.6 will scream. Don't ask
me for the details. It just works super. Of course you need 2000 Pro. or Xp
Pro.
"Rick Blythin" <mosguy@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:CRFl9.913$zz2.74915@news20.bellglobal.com...
> First I just want to thank everyone who replied to my previous post on
> upgrading. I'm now debating between either the 2 Ghz Athlon or a 1.6 P4.
> Unfortunately the 2+ P4's are still a little to expensive here (Canada)
then
> I really want to spend right now. The Athlon and P4 1.6 are only a few
> dollars different in price. I'll mainly be using it for CAD work 2D and
3D,
> and I also use it as a games machine (Metal of Honor and Soldier of
fortune
> type games). I'm running a k6-2 450 currently, with 448 RAM. It's still a
> decent system for CAD, but games is where it's really starting to show
it's
> age.
>
> I can't see their being a huge difference in performance in CAD work, but
> in gaming there might be.
>
> Any thoughts would be great.
>
> Cheers,
> Rick
> A+, Network+
>
>
| |
| Barry Watzman 2002-09-29, 9:29 pm |
| There are no dual processor P4 motherboards or chipsets at this time.
Xeons, yes, but not "plain" P4's.
VOJ wrote:
> Athlon is cheaper and actually runs cooler for the equivalent performance
> (not clock speed).
> Some undercool the Athlon by mistake.
> Most undercool the whole tower.
>
> The 1.6 Athlon Xp will match a 2.0 P4.
> The ratio is about 5:3
> You mentioned 1.6 P4 vs. 2.0 Athlon
> A place where I help with networking has two of each for AutoCAD (3D) along
> with some solid modeling.
>
> There is no appreciable difference.
> The biggest MISTAKE is to NOT go with at least DDR memory and at least a 400
> mHz front end.
> Obviously the graphics (AGA) board is important, 128 MB DDR min.
>
> The most powerful I have seen for AutoCAD is a dual processor Mother Board.
> This usually says Intel and any pair of P4s over 1.6 will scream. Don't ask
> me for the details. It just works super. Of course you need 2000 Pro. or Xp
> Pro.
>
> "Rick Blythin" <mosguy@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:CRFl9.913$zz2.74915@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>First I just want to thank everyone who replied to my previous post on
>>upgrading. I'm now debating between either the 2 Ghz Athlon or a 1.6 P4.
>>Unfortunately the 2+ P4's are still a little to expensive here (Canada)
>
> then
>
>>I really want to spend right now. The Athlon and P4 1.6 are only a few
>>dollars different in price. I'll mainly be using it for CAD work 2D and
>
> 3D,
>
>>and I also use it as a games machine (Metal of Honor and Soldier of
>
> fortune
>
>>type games). I'm running a k6-2 450 currently, with 448 RAM. It's still a
>>decent system for CAD, but games is where it's really starting to show
>
> it's
>
>>age.
>>
>> I can't see their being a huge difference in performance in CAD work, but
>>in gaming there might be.
>>
>>Any thoughts would be great.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Rick
>>A+, Network+
>>
>>
>
>
>
| |
| Barry Watzman 2002-09-29, 10:29 pm |
| There are no dual processor P4 motherboards or chipsets at this time.
Xeons, yes, but not "plain" P4's.
VOJ wrote:
> Athlon is cheaper and actually runs cooler for the equivalent performance
> (not clock speed).
> Some undercool the Athlon by mistake.
> Most undercool the whole tower.
>
> The 1.6 Athlon Xp will match a 2.0 P4.
> The ratio is about 5:3
> You mentioned 1.6 P4 vs. 2.0 Athlon
> A place where I help with networking has two of each for AutoCAD (3D) along
> with some solid modeling.
>
> There is no appreciable difference.
> The biggest MISTAKE is to NOT go with at least DDR memory and at least a 400
> mHz front end.
> Obviously the graphics (AGA) board is important, 128 MB DDR min.
>
> The most powerful I have seen for AutoCAD is a dual processor Mother Board.
> This usually says Intel and any pair of P4s over 1.6 will scream. Don't ask
> me for the details. It just works super. Of course you need 2000 Pro. or Xp
> Pro.
>
> "Rick Blythin" <mosguy@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:CRFl9.913$zz2.74915@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>First I just want to thank everyone who replied to my previous post on
>>upgrading. I'm now debating between either the 2 Ghz Athlon or a 1.6 P4.
>>Unfortunately the 2+ P4's are still a little to expensive here (Canada)
>
> then
>
>>I really want to spend right now. The Athlon and P4 1.6 are only a few
>>dollars different in price. I'll mainly be using it for CAD work 2D and
>
> 3D,
>
>>and I also use it as a games machine (Metal of Honor and Soldier of
>
> fortune
>
>>type games). I'm running a k6-2 450 currently, with 448 RAM. It's still a
>>decent system for CAD, but games is where it's really starting to show
>
> it's
>
>>age.
>>
>> I can't see their being a huge difference in performance in CAD work, but
>>in gaming there might be.
>>
>>Any thoughts would be great.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Rick
>>A+, Network+
>>
>>
>
>
>
| |
|
|
"Barry Watzman" <Watzman@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3D97B3A0.1030803@neo.rr.com...
> There are no dual processor P4 motherboards or chipsets at this time.
> Xeons, yes, but not "plain" P4's.
Correct.
Same with Athlon Mp
>
> VOJ wrote:
> > Athlon is cheaper and actually runs cooler for the equivalent
performance
> > (not clock speed).
> > Some undercool the Athlon by mistake.
> > Most undercool the whole tower.
> >
> > The 1.6 Athlon Xp will match a 2.0 P4.
> > The ratio is about 5:3
> > You mentioned 1.6 P4 vs. 2.0 Athlon
> > A place where I help with networking has two of each for AutoCAD (3D)
along
> > with some solid modeling.
> >
> > There is no appreciable difference.
> > The biggest MISTAKE is to NOT go with at least DDR memory and at least a
400
> > mHz front end.
> > Obviously the graphics (AGA) board is important, 128 MB DDR min.
> >
> > The most powerful I have seen for AutoCAD is a dual processor Mother
Board.
> > This usually says Intel and any pair of P4s over 1.6 will scream. Don't
ask
> > me for the details. It just works super. Of course you need 2000 Pro.
or Xp
> > Pro.
> >
> > "Rick Blythin" <mosguy@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:CRFl9.913$zz2.74915@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> >>First I just want to thank everyone who replied to my previous post on
> >>upgrading. I'm now debating between either the 2 Ghz Athlon or a 1.6 P4.
> >>Unfortunately the 2+ P4's are still a little to expensive here (Canada)
> >
> > then
> >
> >>I really want to spend right now. The Athlon and P4 1.6 are only a few
> >>dollars different in price. I'll mainly be using it for CAD work 2D and
> >
> > 3D,
> >
> >>and I also use it as a games machine (Metal of Honor and Soldier of
> >
> > fortune
> >
> >>type games). I'm running a k6-2 450 currently, with 448 RAM. It's still
a[col
or=darkred]
> >>decent system for CAD, but games is where it's really starting to show
> >
> > it's
> >
> >>age.
> >>
> >> I can't see their being a huge difference in performance in CAD work,[/color]
but[c
olor=darkred]
> >>in gaming there might be.
> >>
> >>Any thoughts would be great.
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>Rick
> >>A+, Network+
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>[/color]
| |
|
|
"Barry Watzman" <Watzman@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3D97B3A0.1030803@neo.rr.com...
> There are no dual processor P4 motherboards or chipsets at this time.
> Xeons, yes, but not "plain" P4's.
Correct.
Same with Athlon Mp
>
> VOJ wrote:
> > Athlon is cheaper and actually runs cooler for the equivalent
performance
> > (not clock speed).
> > Some undercool the Athlon by mistake.
> > Most undercool the whole tower.
> >
> > The 1.6 Athlon Xp will match a 2.0 P4.
> > The ratio is about 5:3
> > You mentioned 1.6 P4 vs. 2.0 Athlon
> > A place where I help with networking has two of each for AutoCAD (3D)
along
> > with some solid modeling.
> >
> > There is no appreciable difference.
> > The biggest MISTAKE is to NOT go with at least DDR memory and at least a
400
> > mHz front end.
> > Obviously the graphics (AGA) board is important, 128 MB DDR min.
> >
> > The most powerful I have seen for AutoCAD is a dual processor Mother
Board.
> > This usually says Intel and any pair of P4s over 1.6 will scream. Don't
ask
> > me for the details. It just works super. Of course you need 2000 Pro.
or Xp
> > Pro.
> >
> > "Rick Blythin" <mosguy@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:CRFl9.913$zz2.74915@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> >>First I just want to thank everyone who replied to my previous post on
> >>upgrading. I'm now debating between either the 2 Ghz Athlon or a 1.6 P4.
> >>Unfortunately the 2+ P4's are still a little to expensive here (Canada)
> >
> > then
> >
> >>I really want to spend right now. The Athlon and P4 1.6 are only a few
> >>dollars different in price. I'll mainly be using it for CAD work 2D and
> >
> > 3D,
> >
> >>and I also use it as a games machine (Metal of Honor and Soldier of
> >
> > fortune
> >
> >>type games). I'm running a k6-2 450 currently, with 448 RAM. It's still
a[col
or=darkred]
> >>decent system for CAD, but games is where it's really starting to show
> >
> > it's
> >
> >>age.
> >>
> >> I can't see their being a huge difference in performance in CAD work,[/color]
but[c
olor=darkred]
> >>in gaming there might be.
> >>
> >>Any thoughts would be great.
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>Rick
> >>A+, Network+
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>[/color]
| |
|
|
"VOJ" <icon@iconhere.com> wrote in message
news:VKPl9.129832$Pf7.5528912@news1.west.cox.net...
>
> > > Obviously the graphics (AGA) board is important, 128 MB DDR min.
> > >
AGP
| |
|
|
"VOJ" <icon@iconhere.com> wrote in message
news:VKPl9.129832$Pf7.5528912@news1.west.cox.net...
>
> > > Obviously the graphics (AGA) board is important, 128 MB DDR min.
> > >
AGP
|
|
|
|
|