Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

budget gaming pc, intel p4 630 vs amd athlon 64 3200

Jun 7, 2005 11:08AM PDT

I am thinking about upgrading but can?t decide which processor might be best for me. I do a lot of gaming and want to give my current pc a little makeover and use what?s left for a server. Any advice on these two processors would be greatly appreciated.

Here is my current setup:

intel p4 (423) 2 ghz
VIA P4X266 VL33-S
512kb pc2100 ram
ati 9700pro 128mb
80gb WD 7200rpm 8mb cache
SB audigy2 platinum
asus 52x48x52 cdrw
an old cdrw and old dvd-rom
450w psu

My plan is to get a new cpu, new mobo, 2gb memory, a dvd-+rw dual layer burner, 120gbHD, and a cheap case. Then take my asus burner, SB audigy2, ati card and port them to the new box. I want to then take my old cpu and such and make a descent server to have for pics, videos, and email for my family. A lot of us and all spread out. I just can?t decide if I should go with the intel 630 3ghz with it's 2mb L2 cache and 800FSB for $225 or the amd athlon 64 3200 with 512 l2 cache for $190. I still haven?t really shopped the prices, but I know those are descent. My reall concern is which does everyone think might be better for me to do some extensive gaming. And if anyone has any idea which chipset I should look for on a mobo for whichever cpu you think would appreciated also. Thanks for any advice.

Michael

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
go with amd
Jun 7, 2005 1:26PM PDT

both is 64 bit. however, when goin with amd processor and mobo, u can upgrade to future amd 64 x2. also p4 take up more heat.

however, i would go for the athlon 64 3500+ for gaming.

also i wouldnt go with 2gb of ram as u r just wasting money. 1gb is already great today. instead save money for the athlon 64 3500+ processor instead of the 3200+

- Collapse -
Don't go for the 3500, but the 3700 with 1MB cache
Jun 7, 2005 1:44PM PDT

Also get a socket 939 motherboard with PCI-Express

- Collapse -
i agree
Jun 8, 2005 1:01AM PDT

i agree with the cpu and the chipset, and if u go with pci express, you cant use the same ati card, so i would suggest nvidia 6600gt or ati x800xl, if u are on a budget or obviously go higher.

- Collapse -
thanks for the suggestions
Jun 8, 2005 4:11AM PDT

thanks for all the help i think i?ll definitely go with the amd then

- Collapse -
Consider some of these...
Jun 8, 2005 11:18AM PDT

If you're on a budget, consider some of these:

You may want to consider Celeron. Most games look down on it, but they're not looking at the price. Celeron does less work per cycle compared to AMD and Pentium, but runs at a relatively high cycle rate. If you compare a Celeron processor to a Pentium and AMD that costs the same, Celeron performs far better. Also, Celeron motherboards are cheaper.

For memory, 1GB is more than enough. Puting in more than that is just a waste. Don't get DDR2. It cost more, and motherboards that support it cost more. Think of it this way, with the same amount of money, you can get more of the older memory, which adds up to a hight net speed. Things like DDR 2700 and DDR 3200 doesn't matter. The speed difference isn't noticable. Get whatever is more convient.

Avoid PCI Express. It's new, but not better. Motherboards equiped with PCI Express sockets cost more. 16x PCI Express runs faster than 8X AGP only in theory. In the real world, AGP comes out faster almost every time. Graphic cards aren't nearly fast enough for AGP to become a bottleneck. PCI Express tends to be less efficient, and tasks the CPU more than AGP, especially when a big game is running, and the CPU is working at nearly 100%. Also, the last time I checked, the fastest graphics card aviliable is still AGP.

For sound, use the onboard sound card. And if the motherboard doesn't have one, but a cheap card for $5. There is just no way human ears can tell the difference between a $200 Creative Lab and $5 card, if the speakers are the same.

Hope that helped...

Remember, $ matters. You want the lowest cost/speed ratio... o_O

- Collapse -
I disagree with the memory answers
Jun 8, 2005 2:21PM PDT

I agree with going for AMD. I wouldn't own anything different. I have 4 i built myself. 1-3200+ 64, 2-3000+ 64's and, a 2400+ sempron. My 3200 has 2 gigs of pc 3200 and the rest each have 1 gig. YOU CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MUCH MEMORY!!!!! If you want to see the differences checkout computers running seti@home. I'm on a team and the only one running AMD's. My 2 gig amd's keep up with the 3gig hyperthread intels nicely. AMD with at least a 8mb cache ata or sata drive and plenty of memory = speed.

- Collapse -
You guys are missing the point...
Jun 8, 2005 4:35PM PDT

There is a big difference between SETI analysis programs and games. Of course more is better. More is always better. It's just that memory are expensive, an extra GB will cost you almost $200 more, and it's just not worth it. You'll hardly notice a speed increase, for the most graphics heavy games. For other smaller applications, you'll notice no difference at all.

For harddrive, just get a cheaper IDE. SATA won't make a noticable difference anyway. Think of it this way, for the same amount of money, you can get a bigger harddrive.

AMD processors tends to be more expensive. Not only the CPU inself, but also the motherboard.

Now, we want the best $/speed ratio... ^_____^

- Collapse -
whats with the budget???
Jun 9, 2005 1:02AM PDT

cant you see his topic name, "intel p4 630 vs amd athlon 64 3200". obviously hes looking for a new motherboard for he goes amd and also pentium 4, its socket lga 775. whos going to downgrade for a freaking celeron!!?? if anyone wants to buy/build a gaming pc, they are far from buying a celeron. also, no sata? no pci express? no ddr2? dude, obviously he wants to upgrade and i dont think that anyone buying a pentium 4 is going to be on a $600 budget. its more upgradeable in the future, look at the pc he has now. you can barely upgrade that. if he goes a little bit more expensive, mostly the motherboard, he can upgrade a lot over time if he doesnt pick a celeron.

all IMO but still, celeron for gaming???

- Collapse -
What's wrong with Celeron?
Jun 9, 2005 4:17AM PDT

I play games with 2.6Ghz Celeron. Far Cry gets about 50fps and HalfLife2 gets about 40. They're both in 800x600, I've never tried higher resolution, but still... Most of my friends with far more expensive desktops gets worse performance. I built this computer myself almost a year ago. It cost about $600 total, and that's including 17 inch LCD monitor.

With something like this, you can get a new machine every year, and it'll always be able to handle the most current games. Instead of getting stuck with an old machine for 3 or 4 years. Who cares about upgrading? It cost more to upgrade an old machine than getting a new one.

- Collapse -
alright
Jun 9, 2005 7:37AM PDT

"Most of my friends with far more expensive desktops gets worse performance" alright thats just crazy.

IMO i think its a total waste to throw out a computer every couple of years, esp when you can just buy a new case or add new ram or mobo.

about the celeron, im sure it will perform ok, versus amd it is downright horrible. i currently have intel, and i really do not care that i game on an intel machine, pc vendors sell gaming pc's equipped with intel AND amd cpus. so i suppose that its alright, btw, what graphics card do you use?

- Collapse -
RE
Jun 9, 2005 1:43PM PDT

Right now, I'm using a Radeon 9600 with 128MB memory, brought for $70 plus tax. I used a $40 Radeon 9200SE with 128MB memory until about 2 months ago. Tried to run Far Cry on it, and didn't work too well. The frame rate keeps dropping below 20 FPS, so I had no choice but to upgrade.

- Collapse -
I have 5 AMD's and 1 celeron
Jun 9, 2005 3:43PM PDT

I named the celeron Crapola.

- Collapse -
You must be rich...
Jun 9, 2005 5:22PM PDT

You must be rich then...-_-

Graphics heavy games like Far Cry runs just fine on my "crapola" one years old 2.6Ghz Celeron. I get 30-40 FPS on it. Not very good, but good enough. Better than some of my friends with far more expensive Pentium 4 and AMD machines. Human eyes cant tell 40 FPS from 50 FPS anyways. The thing cost me about $600 including 17 inch LCD, one year ago...

Less money donated to AMD means more money for games... and whatnot...

- Collapse -
Learn to shop
Jun 9, 2005 3:38PM PDT

A gig of what will cost you $200? I can get a stick of samsung pc 3200 for $80. Maybe rambus will cost that much or, DDR2 from Dell. Which isn't really that much faster than DDR.

- Collapse -
Out of date...
Jun 9, 2005 5:30PM PDT
- Collapse -
newegg
Jun 10, 2005 1:27AM PDT

i didnt click ur link but shop newegg. some very good ram price and whatnot. i dunno bought $80 but still like around $120 which aint bad. haha crapola

konny

- Collapse -
try pricewatch.com
Jun 10, 2005 12:48PM PDT