Which way to go: p4 1.6a O/C'd, or Xp1900+

I will tell you right now, I have built the same exact computer as mine, except with an Athlon XP 1700+ and GA-7VRXP, and I cannot tell the difference in anything. It performs on par with my system in almost all benchmarks, except for the ones which favor SSE2. So it's really up to you. I really love the stability of my system but at the same time the other computer I built for a friend with Athlon XP has never crashed either... They both run Morrowind perfectly and well...

I'm pretty much over the whole CPU game, I chose this motherboard for the features. I wanted RAID, USB 2.0, onboard LAN etc! I only went Intel because I wanted to try out the 8IRXP after working with the wonderful 7VRXP. I am super pleased with both systems.

Too bad mine required overclocking to be competitive. Whereas the Athlon's are awesome stock performers for the price. Sure everyone can overclock, but it's more of a matter of features to me now.

I'd recommend whatever you feel is the right choice for you. Just don't skimp on the motherboard, because that is what is really important in the long run. (firewire, USB 2.0, LAN, RAID!)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CrawlingEye



Many have gotten over 2.2ghz, though. There's people here running at 2.66ghz. ;)

---

Yes but what's the point if unlocking the 1900+ gives the same performance if not faster. The only kick is.. the 1900+ requires more maintenance.

My evaluation stands as this: If he wants more performance and doesn't mind unlocking his athlon, by all means go with an AXP 1900+. If he's not overclocking at all, go with an AXP 1900+ since that will blow away the P4 1.6A at stock speeds. However if he wants to overclock easily and just wants to be dazzled by #'s and not performance.. go with the P4 1.6A. Its pretty good but its not the *best*. :(

Hey guys, I'm new to this forum. This is my first post.

Anyway, on to the topic.

Its a tough choice, but if you are overclocking, then I suggest you go with the P4 1.6A, although its a very close call indeed. I think the high FSB speed obtained from a P4 overclock will be enough to pull it slightly ahead of an overclocked Athlon XP 1900+, though not by much.

I disagree with Indus on a few points.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Indus
Well there's 3 ways to look upon it.

You can overclock a 1.6 to 2.2ghz on average. But you can also overclock a 1900+ to 2200+ easily so that's an even match.

However you can unlock the Athlon XP and run it at 200+ FSB (400FSB DDR).. and match the performance of any overclocked P4 with Rambus.

Its a stalemate basically. I'd go with a 1900+ if you want to unlock the CPU. If you just want to overclock the easy way, go with Intel. If you don't want to overclock at all, go with the 1900+.

---

The average overclock speed of a P4 1.6A, according to www.overclockers.com CPU database, is 2379Mhz. The average overclock of an Athlon XP 1900+ 1797 Mhz, which is equal to a 2200+ PR.

Keep in mind that at 2.4Ghz, the P4's FSB would be at a whopping 600Mhz vs the 400Mhz FSB on a stock P4 2.4Ghz. Such a high FSB should allow a P4 1.6A @ 2.4Ghz to outperform a stock P4 2.4Ghz by about 5%. In memory intensive applications the difference should be even greater.

I do acknowledge that you can push the FSB on the Athlon XP 1900+ as well, but generally speaking, Athlon XPs can only reach their maximum potential overclock speed through multiplier unlocking or multiplier unlocking + FSB adjustment. FSB adjustment alone will hardly ever allow an Athlon XP to overclock to its fullest potential. Therefore Athlon XPs won't benefit from a FSB overclock to the extent a P4 does.

Hence my reasoning as to why a P4 1.6A @ 2.4Ghz will slightly outperform an Athlon XP 1900+ @ 2200+. Add the fact that the 1900+ costs a bit more than the P4 1.6A (here in Australia it does anyway, don't know about you guys in the US)

Another thing to also consider is heat. An Athlon XP 1900+ @ 2200+ would be substantially hotter than a P4 1.6A @ 2.4. Which means a more powerful HSF would be needed for overclocking the Athlon XP, making the price difference between the two CPUs even greater. Also, the Athlon XP system would be noisier.

Having said that, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what I would buy if I was in the same situation as gemini8026. You may be thinking after reading this post that I am biased towards Intel. Well, you would be right. I think Intel are better overclockers at the moment than AMD.

I look forward to your reply Indus. ;)

Thanks for all the great points guys.....

There are both great arguments for either side of the decidion. Only one small problem, there is nothing overly conclusive :D

Right now im kinda leaning toward the p4 due to upgradability. Im guessing in another few months it would be easy to stick a new processor in there without much hassle.


With the Injtel mobos, which ones support DDR 333. Also, if a person bought a mobo and pc3200 memory becomes available, will a person be able to simply swap that in with a new processor and still be good to go?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by azns_kickass
I disagree with Indus on a few points.

The average overclock speed of a P4 1.6A, according to www.overclockers.com CPU database, is 2379Mhz. The average overclock of an Athlon XP 1900+ 1797 Mhz, which is equal to a 2200+ PR.

Keep in mind that at 2.4Ghz, the P4's FSB would be at a whopping 600Mhz vs the 400Mhz FSB on a stock P4 2.4Ghz. Such a high FSB should allow a P4 1.6A @ 2.4Ghz to outperform a stock P4 2.4Ghz by about 5%. In memory intensive applications the difference should be even greater.

I do acknowledge that you can push the FSB on the Athlon XP 1900+ as well, but generally speaking, Athlon XPs can only reach their maximum potential overclock speed through multiplier unlocking or multiplier unlocking + FSB adjustment. FSB adjustment alone will hardly ever allow an Athlon XP to overclock to its fullest potential. Therefore Athlon XPs won't benefit from a FSB overclock to the extent a P4 does.

Hence my reasoning as to why a P4 1.6A @ 2.4Ghz will slightly outperform an Athlon XP 1900+ @ 2200+. Add the fact that the 1900+ costs a bit more than the P4 1.6A (here in Australia it does anyway, don't know about you guys in the US)

Another thing to also consider is heat. An Athlon XP 1900+ @ 2200+ would be substantially hotter than a P4 1.6A @ 2.4. Which means a more powerful HSF would be needed for overclocking the Athlon XP, making the price difference between the two CPUs even greater. Also, the Athlon XP system would be noisier.

Having said that, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what I would buy if I was in the same situation as gemini8026. You may be thinking after reading this post that I am biased towards Intel. Well, you would be right. I think Intel are better overclockers at the moment than AMD.

I look forward to your reply Indus. ;)

---

I agree with you on most things as being very accurate. I wouldn't buy a 1900+ currently but I might when the price dips a little more as you suggested. However the thing I disagree with you on is the average overclock stats on www.overclockers.com

Some of those are with LN2 (liquid nitrogen) which you can't use in a home environment, only in a lab. You can only take air into account. Well you could also take water cooling into account but I am not a fan of spending $150 US on cooling or mixing electrical parts with water. You know all too well what can happen. :(

Anyways if we take just air.. I've seen quite a few overclocks hit 2.4ghz but the average o/c is still only 2.16Ghz which is GUARANTEED. I think the highest possible on air that we know till now is 2.5ghz from a 1.6A. That's not shabby by any means but it varies from CPU to CPU. The basic rule of overclocking is.. nothing is guaranteed.. :( Some CPU's might not even be able to do that. :( However 1.6 to 2.13 is pretty good and that is the norm in most cases, hence the average. ;)

As for the FSB overclocking of an Athlon.. yes I agree with you.. unlocking it takes patience and experience a few people have killed their CPU like that.. so I don't blame anyone if they don't want to do it. I mean its your money and your decision to risk it. I personally wouldn't do that, however I cannot overlook the performance gained by the procedure.

But all in all, if you don't want to do the surgery and still want to overclock, by all means go with the 1.6A. I myself will in a few months. :)

I'm tired of hearing how much better cooling an AMD system will need...

Simply not true.

1900 AXP with a stock HSF on average runs at 37C from what I've seen.

Is that terribly hot? lol I don't think so. When OCing, say 100 or even 200mhz faster, the temp. will increase by on average 2-4C w/o voltage increasement.

That is with stock cooling ppl.

Put a Volcano 7 for $16 + $4 shipping (bestbyte) if you want better cooling and your temps will decrease a good margin. The whole cooling issue, is a none issue as far as I can see. Only really matters if you want MAX OC with high voltages.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Indus


I agree with you on most things as being very accurate. I wouldn't buy a 1900+ currently but I might when the price dips a little more as you suggested. However the thing I disagree with you on is the average overclock stats on www.overclockers.com

Some of those are with LN2 (liquid nitrogen) which you can't use in a home environment, only in a lab. You can only take air into account. Well you could also take water cooling into account but I am not a fan of spending $150 US on cooling or mixing electrical parts with water. You know all too well what can happen. :(

Anyways if we take just air.. I've seen quite a few overclocks hit 2.4ghz but the average o/c is still only 2.16Ghz which is GUARANTEED. I think the highest possible on air that we know till now is 2.5ghz from a 1.6A. That's not shabby by any means but it varies from CPU to CPU. The basic rule of overclocking is.. nothing is guaranteed.. :( Some CPU's might not even be able to do that. :( However 1.6 to 2.13 is pretty good and that is the norm in most cases, hence the average. ;)

---

Indus, again, I disagree with you on some points. :p
I think the CPU database is pretty accurate. Take a closer look at the CPU database. I can't see an entry with LN2 cooling. The highest overclock in the P4 1.6A database is 2.85Ghz. I have seen P4 1.6A with LN2 overclocked to 3.5Ghz and up! Most of the overclocks in there are air-cooled, with a few water cooling entries as well. Also, take note of the amount of stock Intel HSFs in the database. I'd estimate that 50% of the entries are using stock cooling! :o

I know of someone who has his 1.6A @ 2.4 @ 1.65V with stock cooling. The temperatures were admittedly a bit high with the stock HSF at 59C but it was still completely stable. :D
If he can hit 2.4Ghz with stock cooling, imagine putting in a Thermaltake Volcano 7+! :eek:


AMD soldier:
I highly doubt an Athlon XP 1900+ would be at 37C with the stock fan. From what I've seen, the stock AMD fan usually pulls temps in excess of 50C. How many people do you see overclocking an 1900+ with the stock fan?! Very few. It would be just plain foolish. They won't get very far. :p Any seasoned overclocker will realise that AMD CPUs need better than stock cooling to overclock well.

Also, you cannot deny that an overclocked AMD CPU does run hotter than an overclocked Intel CPU. :p

edited for spelling mistakes...

That's not true.

First of all about the AMD CPU.. you can sand the heatsink and it'll decrease the temperature noticable. Also as for high temps under overclock.. that's inaccurate. Look into the Thermalright AX-7 heatsink. :) 35 degrees is UNHEARD of with that heatsink under load with a heavy overclock. Its usually 25-30 degrees. :)

As far the Intel CPU's go.. well I agree with you that it is possible, but I've been here a while and a lot of people in the Overclocking section can't get their CPU beyond 2.16. They start getting corruptions on their hard drives or crashes.. which is an unstable overclock. I mean sure you can clock your computer at 2.8ghz but what good is it, if it crashes? :( That's the deal.. some can hit a 50% overclock, not all though.

However I just think its a stalemate. Someone who's never tried an AMD will favor Intel. :( Someone who hasn't tried an Intel, will favor AMD. But there are a few people that've tried both and they favor the AMD unlocked with a high FSB. For example, Mystifmagic, KJY9 and I believe them. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Indus
That's not true.

First of all about the AMD CPU.. you can sand the heatsink and it'll decrease the temperature noticable. Also as for high temps under overclock.. that's inaccurate. Look into the Thermalright AX-7 heatsink. :) 35 degrees is UNHEARD of with that heatsink under load with a heavy overclock. Its usually 25-30 degrees. :)

---

I was talking about the stock HSF that comes with an AMD Athlon XP 1900+. Those things aren't very competent for overclocking IMO. If I was are planning to overclock an AMD I would just get the OEM CPU without the fan and get a Volcano 7+ instead.

I do agree that it is not always possible to get 2.4Ghz out of a P4 1.6A, there will be good and bad batches, and a good mobo and RAM is also crucial for overclocking. That may be the reason many people haven't been able to push their P4s very far. I think someone who couples a P4 1.6A with an SiS645DX chipset mobo and DDR333 has a good chance of hitting 2.4Ghz.

Many people just don't realise how important the chipset and RAM are to overclocking success. :rolleyes:

After reading this article http://www.overclockers.com/tips828/
"My Northwood 1.6A Overclocking Experiences" I am quite confident that a P4 1.6A has a good chance to reach 2.4Ghz.

Also, for your initial comment that the CPU database is inaccurate because people use all kinds of cooling with the P4 1.6A, what is to say that the same doesn't apply to the Athlon XP 1900+? If people can use watercooling with their P4s, they can use watercooling with their Athlon XP as well right? So if we go by your initial comment on the accuracy of the CPU database, then the Athlon XP 1900+ results should be inflated as well. :)

Having said that, however, it doesn't really matter what you get gemini8026. These two CPUs will both have excellent performance when overclocked. Apart from benchmark scores, you will never notice any real world performance between the two when they are overclocked. the performance difference between the two CPUs would be too slight to notice.

If the P4 doesn't overclock well, it might be 5% slower. If it overclocks well it might be 5% faster. You will never notice these differences in real world computing. :p

All in all, I say it comes down to personal preference. Just buy what you are more comfortable with, knowing that both options are just as capable of good performance. :)

Indus, it has been good to have an intelligent discussion with you, something I don't always get in other forums. :rolleyes:

More often than not, I have AMD fanatics screaming "AMD RULES! END OF STORY!" with no facts to back up their comments. These kind of ignorant fools who think they know all but in fact know nothing really gives me the shits! :mad:

So, once again Indus, I thank you for keeping the discussion civil and intelligent, and I'm sure we will have many more intelligent discussions in future. I look forward to them. :D

Benchmarks of a 1.8a at 2.5GHz compare with a [email protected] on a SIS645 P4S333.

http://marv1950.ezhoster.com/

The SIS645DX has even better bandwith for the memory than the SIS645 does and unless your going above a FSB of 135-140, or so, the DX performs as Rambus does.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/mainboards/sis645dx/

https://www.sharkyforums.com/

marv:

I personally don't like SANDRA benchmarks, as they are purely theoretical and doesn't represent real world performance in any way.

Lets face it, we buy CPUs for performance in real world applications, not to see big numbers in synthetic benchmarks. :p

While those SANDRA benchmarks look impressive, in real world performance an AMD 1900+ @ 2200+ would be very close to a P4 1.6A @ 2.4Ghz.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by azns_kickass
marv:

I personally don't like SANDRA benchmarks, as they are purely theoretical and doesn't represent real world performance in any way.

Lets face it, we buy CPUs for performance in real world applications, not to see big numbers in synthetic benchmarks. :p

While those SANDRA benchmarks look impressive, in real world performance an AMD 1900+ @ 2200+ would be very close to a P4 1.6A @ 2.4Ghz.

---

The point of the post was simply Rambus doesn't have a 400MHz advantage over a P4 DDR system. Also, synthetic performance BM's is really all that can be posted, which to me sure is better than "AMD sux or Intel sux", which is trash talk.

AMD performs better in some specific applications than Intel does, and vice versus. Your "real world" and someone else's maybe be totally different, depending on what they use (or abuse:D) their computer for.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by marv


The point of the post was simply Rambus doesn't have a 400MHz advantage over a P4 DDR system. Also, synthetic performance BM's is really all that can be posted, which to me sure is better than "AMD sux or Intel sux", which is trash talk.

AMD performs better in some specific applications than Intel does, and vice versus. Your "real world" and someone else's maybe be totally different, depending on what they use (or abuse:D) their computer for.

---

True true. :)
Like how Q3A favours Intel while Serious Sam favours AMD.

However, I still stand with my original comment that overall, a P4 1.6A @ 2.4Ghz would outperform an Athlon XP 1900+ @ 2200+, though not by much.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by azns_kickass


True true. :)
Like how Q3A favours Intel while Serious Sam favours AMD.

However, I still stand with my original comment that overall, a P4 1.6A @ 2.4Ghz would outperform an Athlon XP 1900+ @ 2200+, though not by much.

---

I have built 4 systems in the last month with the 1.6A and all hit 2.4ghz with one reaching 2500mhz all on air with the stock HSF, I run 2.43ghz right now 100% stable on the retail HSF, My temps never get above 45c with the retail HSF.

1.6A is cheaper
1.6A is cooler
1.6A overclocks better
1.6A is faster
1.6A is more stable :)

easy choice.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by azns_kickass

AMD soldier:
I highly doubt an Athlon XP 1900+ would be at 37C with the stock fan. From what I've seen, the stock AMD fan usually pulls temps in excess of 50C. How many people do you see overclocking an 1900+ with the stock fan?! Very few. It would be just plain foolish. They won't get very far. :p Any seasoned overclocker will realise that AMD CPUs need better than stock cooling to overclock well.

Also, you cannot deny that an overclocked AMD CPU does run hotter than an overclocked Intel CPU. :p

edited for spelling mistakes...

---

Dude... Have you tried a 1900 AXP with retail cooling before?

I have... And that is what I got, and my freind has a 1800 AXP and gets 36C. You stating 50C is either a lie, rumor, or you live in Africa. ;)

Now as I said in my post... OCing the cpu does not increase the temp. very much. So if I get 36-40C with stock cooling I can surely OC. Of course it would be nice to get 35C with a better HSF, but it is possible to get 100-200 extra clock speed with retail cooling.

Also, I am not denying that a OCed AMD CPU runs hotter than Intel's OCed cpu. But I have seen high speed NW's above 55C before. My system which has 2.1cv is at 42C, wow that sure is hot. ;) :p