Best processor for Project64. Help!
- Thread starter loleoc
- Start date
RJARRRPCGP
The Rocking PC Wiz
If you want to go for AMD, an Athlon XP 2000+ (runs at 1666 mhz)with the T-bred core would be enough. I get good speed with Goldeneye 007 and 1.6 ghz seems to be the minimum for Goldeneye 007 under Project64.
Unless you are an insanely good Celeron overclocker, Athlons are always faster than Celeron's as Celerons are budget processors for the mainstream. Hi-end P4's are fast but too expensive. Mid-range P4s (2GHz) can be out-performed by their Athlon counterparts at lower clock speed and are much cheaper.
For guy's with insane amounts of cash, The top end is now taken by the Athlon64 anyway. Hyperthreading is not too useful for gaming, but more for multitasking and video encoding.
Go Athlon 2000+ or faster.
For guy's with insane amounts of cash, The top end is now taken by the Athlon64 anyway. Hyperthreading is not too useful for gaming, but more for multitasking and video encoding.
Go Athlon 2000+ or faster.
scotty
The Great One
I knew that the new AMD 64 bit processors were fast, yes Pentium processors are expensive, but I think they are worth it. I have always trusted the Pentium processors since they began. The AMD is getting better, but pentium 4's will go further, Im surprised that there isnt a pentium 5 processor out yet
Yep, the Athlon64 will be dethroned by the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition when it comes out/if it is already out. The P4 EE I do believe isn't 64-Bit like the Athlon but beats the Athlon64 FX in almost all benchmarks. I think one of these will set you back the entire cost of a mid-range PC.
neoak
Triforce of Something...
It (P4EE @ 3.4 Ghz) beats the FX-51, but not the FX-53 (not yet released).
The P4EE is a XeonMP with a 200x4 Mhz FSB and nothing else. The cheaper version (3.2 Ghz) costs US$1,000 so, forget it.
You could get a Athlon64 3000+ easily in the USA, but i say that in Argentina, the best you can buy right now is an Athlon XP.
A P4 is expensive, and is good for video and audio encoding, but for the rest, the Athlon XP is better in the mid-range level. The Athlon64 3000+ beats a normal P4 at 3.2 in most tests.
The P4EE is a XeonMP with a 200x4 Mhz FSB and nothing else. The cheaper version (3.2 Ghz) costs US$1,000 so, forget it.
You could get a Athlon64 3000+ easily in the USA, but i say that in Argentina, the best you can buy right now is an Athlon XP.
A P4 is expensive, and is good for video and audio encoding, but for the rest, the Athlon XP is better in the mid-range level. The Athlon64 3000+ beats a normal P4 at 3.2 in most tests.
RJARRRPCGP
The Rocking PC Wiz
Yeah, perhaps the Pentium 4s appear to score better, because of possibly Intel cheating with it's optimizations, thus this is why Pentium 4s often have higher IDE
HDD performance scores under various IDE HDD benchmarks, including under PC Pitstop than the Athlons do, including the Athlon XP Bartons
.
BTW, the latest Final Fantasy has Pentium 4 optimizations.
It appears that Square is pro Intel.
The above does mean that Pentium 4s may perform better than Athlons under plain Windows, but that don't mean Pentium4s perform better than Athlons under gaming.
HDD performance scores under various IDE HDD benchmarks, including under PC Pitstop than the Athlons do, including the Athlon XP Bartons
.BTW, the latest Final Fantasy has Pentium 4 optimizations.
It appears that Square is pro Intel
.The above does mean that Pentium 4s may perform better than Athlons under plain Windows, but that don't mean Pentium4s perform better than Athlons under gaming.
Last edited:
Tagrineth
Dragony thingy
I was under the impression that the P4EE had a larger cache or something like that.
And Intel cheating in optimisations? WTF?
Did it ever occur to you that the main reason some people love Intel so much is BECAUSE you can use Intel's incredibly great motherboard chipsets with them?
Yes, Intel's chipsets are really that good. They don't "cheat" on the ATA bus... wtf gave you that idea, anyway?
Edit: Hell, I'm even using Intel's famously BAD i820 and I get perfect stability and just fine performance out of my 800MHz P3.
And Intel cheating in optimisations? WTF?
Did it ever occur to you that the main reason some people love Intel so much is BECAUSE you can use Intel's incredibly great motherboard chipsets with them?
Yes, Intel's chipsets are really that good. They don't "cheat" on the ATA bus... wtf gave you that idea, anyway?
Edit: Hell, I'm even using Intel's famously BAD i820 and I get perfect stability and just fine performance out of my 800MHz P3.
gandalf
Member ready to help
neoak said:
Are you really sure?: The P4 EE it´s not 64 bits plataform,and then the AMD Atlhon 64 FX beats any 32-bits plataform.
And,here,in argentina,the AMD 64 FX-51 is here,but cost + U$S 1000
,and yes,AMD Atlhon 64 3200+ is here,+600 U$S.AMD Athlon XP,MP,Barton,they cost less than 200 U$S
Not go to Pentium,go to AMD Athlon
Mejor dicho: comprate el AMD Athlon (it´s much easier for me,sorry
)jollyrancher
New member
Unless you're talking about Celerons... although they are pretty inexpensive these days.
RJARRRPCGP
The Rocking PC Wiz
Pentium IIIs are not the problem. I gotten wording back back in the early Pentium 4
days that Pentium III 1.0 ghz can outperform a Pentium 4 1.4 ghz.
Also, there are applications that may be doing biased benchmarking with Pentium 4 optimizations.
I'm starting to think there may be software companies putting Pentium 4 optimizations in thier applications to make applications with Pentium 4s get a higher benchmark score than with Athlons.
I noticed the latest Final Fantasy box has a Pentium 4 logo and words stating
that it performs best with a Pentium 4 (or to that effect).
That makes me confirm that Square is pro-Intel.
days that Pentium III 1.0 ghz can outperform a Pentium 4 1.4 ghz.
Also, there are applications that may be doing biased benchmarking with Pentium 4 optimizations.
I'm starting to think there may be software companies putting Pentium 4 optimizations in thier applications to make applications with Pentium 4s get a higher benchmark score than with Athlons.
I noticed the latest Final Fantasy box has a Pentium 4 logo and words stating
that it performs best with a Pentium 4 (or to that effect).
That makes me confirm that Square is pro-Intel.
Trotterwatch
New member
Because they add in SSE2 optimizations? Why not castigate any company that dares add in 3D Now enhanced support too....
True... but you severly underestimate the P4 (perhaps showing lack of knowledge?) The other day I recollect you advising someone that you needed a P4 2.6ghz to run Goldeneye on PJ64.... total rubbish This 2ghz runs it with idle to spare.
Ok.........
You can disable all (chipset non cheating) optimizations in benchmarks and the P4 will get beaten soundly by the AMD. The fact is Intel designed the chip to work better when SSE and particularly SSE2 was used, so why not use it? It's not a cheat, unless you are using SSE2 instructions in a test but neglecting to use AMDs equivalent.
Last edited:
Zilla
夢を見られた
The Linux 2.6 kernel now has full support for P4 Hyperthreading, not too sure about HyperTransport?
= Great things for Mupen if implemented properly ( compiling from source....Emerge?).
(AFAIK) This should be also possible with pj64, if NeTo's tool ends up going in the direction I hope it will. (Plugin wrappers are possible with Zilmar's spec aren't they??)
= Great things for Mupen if implemented properly ( compiling from source....Emerge?).
(AFAIK) This should be also possible with pj64, if NeTo's tool ends up going in the direction I hope it will. (Plugin wrappers are possible with Zilmar's spec aren't they??)
Lex
New member
read this: http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927 a duron 1.6GHz beats a celeron 2.66GHz while the duron only costs the half of the celeron.
I'd say an AMD Athlon XP 2000+ or AMD Duron 1.6GHz
I'd say an AMD Athlon XP 2000+ or AMD Duron 1.6GHz
RJARRRPCGP
The Rocking PC Wiz
Trotterwatch said:
Whoops, my bad. I thought I said 2.0 ghz or 2.2 ghz
Trotterwatch
New member
That's good that it was a genuine mistake
Lex said:
I saw this a while ago and shows the true badness of Celerons as they have high clockspeeds (TV Ads go like this: This laptop comes with a 2.8GHz Processor!!!11, and then a Celeron logo appears, making you think: Yeah, its really fast!) But little do they know a non-overclocked 2000+ Athlon would crush it. Celerons are definitely budget processors and not a patch on Athlons, but with P4's its a different story. But for price/performance ratio, Athlon wins.