(major snippage)
The P4 doesn't use THAT much more power.
Pretty vague. Relatively speaking, it does use more power,
enough that it can be a factor, particularly if one isn't
buying (overbuying) larger PSU than the A64 box would need.
If you purchase the right power
supply for an Athlon64 system, you can put that same exact power supply in a
similar P4 system and it will work fine. A power supply does not need to be
a higher capacity to support a P4.
Unfortunately you're wrong. Perhaps, as i already wrote,
you're simply comparing situation when one spends more on
the A64 power supply than needed. Perhaps you're stuck on a
particular brand and that limitation means you, personally,
would buy the same power supply for either. That is not the
same as "needs same power". The difference is not large,
but neither is the difference in power output from a median
unit and a higher priced one... at least within the price
differential I mentioned, which was $40 to account for
power, heatsink, and a fan. Certainly if you want to
compare a $150 PSU to a $20 one then there would be more
difference.
However, if your system uses (for
example) exactly 300W maximum, only an idiot would actually buy a power
supply rated at (for example) 300W maximum. So you ALWAYS buy a power
supply that is bigger than you need. That is, unless you want to replace
the power supply along with every upgrade you do to your computer. (not
very smart)
Exactly why you either have to buy a larger PSU for that P4,
OR accept a lower margin for it (closer to that "exactly
(nnn)W" scenario you mention.
If a case is properly cooled, it will be properly cooled for either
processor.
Only if you don't know a lot about cooling. Having
excessive airflow to handle "anything", means more wear on
fans, dust buildup, and noise than necessary. Again, Intel
changed case layout for BTX to address this, because their
CPU was running hotter. It might be argued that there were
other accomodations too, but that does not account for
putting the CPU up in front of the intake which can even
make the other parts run hotter.
And you don't need to spend a lot of money or have a really loud
system to have it cooled properly. YES, you can throw a bazillion really
loud fans into any system. But any computer (Athlon64 or P4) should need no
more than one (quiet) case fan, along with the (quiet) power supply fans(s)
to cool it PROPERLY. If you need more cooling than that, the reason you
need more cooling has NOTHING to do with the CPU. For example, if you have
(4) 10,000RPM hard drives, you might need some more case fans to keep that
system cool.
Reread what I wrote on this, it was something like "to have
same ambient case temp". SURE, you certainly can use same
number/rate/flow fans, and you won't remove as much heat,
the P4 box WILL retain more. There is escaping this.
There are cheap, QUIET HSF solutions available for both CPUs. And yes, the
performance of the two CPUs, Athlon 64 vs. P4, is identical. I've been
called an Intel shill before.
It might be because you're ignoring all the factors, only
choosing those which support your argument. When two CPUs
have similar performance, it's generally those other factors
that are to be considered... failing a specific use pattern
by the user of apps that clearly benefits from one
architecture over the other.
With the heatsink similar issue- The P4 does produce more
heat. Intel spec sheets AND real-world tests confirm this.
Whether you can accept it or not, more heat requires more
elaborate/expensive heatsink, and/or more airflow/noise.
You can't just plop the same heatsink-fan (except it's
mounting) on either and have same result, unless you're
again overspending for the Athlon. I'm not suggesting one
use crap parts for the athlon, rather that there is a
correlation between heatsink performance and price, except
those that just strap an obnoxiously loud fan on top, which
only teenagers seem to like.
The truth is, I prefer AMD processors, and
USUALLY build with AMD processors. But my most recent two builds were both
P4. In the first P4 build, I was working on a very strict budget and found
that the system I needed to build was actually cheaper to build (and thus I
could keep it within budget) if I used a P4 3.0 Prescott. And no, I didn't
use a cheapie mainboard, either . . . but Athlon64 mainboards -at the time-
were really expensive in comparison to their socket 478 counterparts. That
P4 system I built ended up being so fast and stable, it impressed the heck
outta me, and I was comparing it to similar AMD systems. So for my next
build, I deliberately chose the P4. My next build, I might (probably will)
go the Athlon64 route.
Sure, when they first come out with boards they're pretty
expensive. Intel boards were too at first. Even so, one
can't look too far forward or backwards when it's an
industry that changes technology and pricing so much.
But I get so fricking tired of seeing people post that AMD is faster and
cheaper than Intel, period. Why is it that if I repeat the opinion of many
well-regarded experts, I am called a shill for that? If I'm a shill, what
does that make tomshardware, anandtech and sharky extreme, for example?
Well some people call Tom's Hardware the same, but more than
anything I think they like to just make a spectacle, cause
debate. Often being a shill can have to do with what one
ignores, a testing or comparision methology that was already
favoring one architecture over the other. Truth is, if
Intel were selling Athlon 64 CPUs and AMD the P4, there are
still plenty who would chose based on the company... and
it's their money, they can do that but it's good to have ALL
the facts too, not only benchmarks of new apps tuned for a
P4. Again it's fine if they use those apps, otherwise the
cost must be factored in too. Many people already have the
software to do what they want.
Are
they all Intel shills, also? The facts are, Intel P4 systems are just as
easy and cheap to build, and perform as well as Athlon64 systems.
Jumping to that conclusion isn't helping your case.
Yeah, at
any specific moment, the -total- cost of a computer system might favor AMD
by less than it costs to fill the gas tank on my compact car.
Sure, $50 here, $50 there, you're only looking at the CPU
right now, but taken as a whole it adds up. You argue same
cost or cheaper for Intel but now "les than it costs to fill
th gas tank". You're making progress, but still, it IS a
difference. Again, it has to be factored against user's
needs, not just a website's benchmarks of (particular new
apps).
But that's
not always true, as processor prices are constantly changing. Just a few
months ago, prices of mid-range processors were identical, and mainboards
for the P4 were actually cheaper, making the P4 system (overall) cheaper to
build. Right NOW, if you want a P4 system, it will cost you a tad more than
an Athlon64 system. So little extra that you won't even notice, next to the
total cost of the computer. -Dave
I do notice the heat difference. I've been tweaking systems
for heat management and low noise for several years. As for
performance, I'm not arguing that nobody should get a p4,
but rather that your initial claim of "p4 ... less
expensive" is wrong.
Sure, you can avoid paying the Microsoft tax, if