P4 530 & D915GAV or Athlon 64 3000+ & RS480-M2 2

[kcoder9]

Hi everyone,
We are in the process of finalising a deal for four new PCs. The vendor is offering following two configurations in same price category:

1) Pentium 4 530 (3GHz) processor with Intel D915GAV motherboard.
2) Athlon 64 3000+ processor with MSI RS480-M2 motherboard.

Other parts like 2x256 MB DDR-400 RAM and 120 GB SATA hard disk etc remain same.

Searching the internet, I have come to know that Pentium generally performs better in video encoding, 3D rendering tasks and Athlon is preferred for gaming apps.

In our case, the PCs will be exclusively used for software development and testing only. Please help me decide which of the two configurations is better in terms of performance and reliability? Thanks!

 

[franklin97355]

What type of software will you be "testing"?

 

[DragonQ0105]

I don't know much about Intel, but surely if the P4 520 3GHz is a 32-Bit CPU, then the Athlon64 will be better?

 

[kcoder9]

Hi franklin97355,
The PCs will be used to develop and test SCADA applications in VB for real-time control and code simulations for ARM7 and HCS12 (Freescale MCU).

 

[paparazi]

kcoder9
I'm afraid I'm not overly impressed with either of them, they are both basic micro ATX web surfer/media centre type platforms with poor integrated graphics and only adequate performance.
The micro ATX design does not leave much room for expansion and generally this type of board has fewer features, aimed squarely at the budget user.

If I had to choose between them I would say the Athlon system is marginally better but even that board was considered, quote:
"A Bargain Motherboard for Casual Computing"
read the rest of the review here:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1784838,00.asp

This ATI express 200 chipset based AMD board has better onboard graphics performance than offered on the Intel 915G motherboard which has weaker Intel 900 graphics but then they are both considered poor 3D performers when compared to systems with addon VGA cards.

I might be making much a do about nothing, these systems may well be perfectly adequate for the intended use, it just seems a pitty that another $100 per machine can't be found to upgrade to a full sized ATX motherboard and possibly addon PCI-E graphics cards (if they are needed)
Martin


We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[kcoder9]

paparazi
Thanks for your views and inputs!
You are right that MSI's RS480-M2 is just a basic micro ATX motherboard, but I have checked the Intel site again. The D915GAV is a full ATX board with 4 PCI, 1 PCIe x16 and 2 PCIe x1 slots.

The PCs will not be used for gaming or other apps demanding high 3D performance. Still I would prefer the mb to have a PCIe x16 slot for a future upgrade.

I am also convinced now that Athlon 64 3000+ based solution is better than a P4 530 one. Here I am a bit confused about selecting the motherboard as I have not worked on any non-Intel platform.

Looking at other MSI boards for Athlon 64 939 pin, I found K8N Neo4-F and K8N Neo4-Platinum. I want to have views of forum experts about these boards. How do these measure up against boards from ASUS and Giga-Byte?

Thanks in advance for any help and views on this!

 

[dakota81]

This is something that often gets said a lot of places, and it does bug me a lot. Just because some hardware is of the slower available for purchase, doesn't mean it will not be a very fast computer.

Paparazi, that link you provide, if you back that up one page:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1784837,00.asp

This site draws it's conclusions of "A Bargain Motherboard for Casual Computing" by comparing the it to a Fatal1ty K8N, which is the flagship ABit product for the enthusiast market. What does that say about the readers of that website? The readers are gamers concerned with every ounce of performance. And here we are instead making recommendations for computers intended for software development and testing...


For more comparison here:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2269

The ATi RX480 & nForce4 chipsets are running almost neck & neck with each other. The benchmarks seem to give the nForce4 a slight edge, but they do flip-flop on different individual benchmarks.

 

[dakota81]

kcoder9 - the main difference in performance between different chipsets is mainly due to the memory controller.

Well, with the Athlon 64 cpus, AMD built the memory controller right in the cpu itself! Thus, every Athlon64 system uses the same memory controller, whether it be an ATi chipset, nForce4 chipset or a K8T890 chipset. You are not going to see the massive differences like you did between the i845 and i875 chipsets. The differences are very minor, pick a motherboard based on the features you want them to have. PCI-E, sata-ii, gigabit ethernet, firewire, etc.

 

[paparazi]

dakota81
Actually I don't disagree with you at all, i think I added "these systems may well be perfectly adequate for the intended use"
My main concern was the micro ATX form factor.
I acknowledge on the face of it the ATI express 200 chipset seems to hold it's own generally but it lacks features like gigabit lan and the lack of PCI slots may also but a problem.
Also ATI are the new boy as far as chipset manufacturing goes and for this reason alone I would be reluctant to recommend however good they are.
Work stations need to be based on tried and tested technology as well as well supported ones and as of yet we don't know how stable or well supported the ATI chipset will be.
Nforce4 or Via K8T890 for AMD64 would be a better bet at this time because of the aforementioned reasons.

We have used most of the Nforce4 PCI-E boards now (From Gigabyte, Asus, MSI, DFI) and to be honest they are all much of a muchness.
MSI are a tear one manufacturer and I personally rate them along side the other top manufactures (Gigabyte, Asus, Abit, DFI) make your decision on the features that best suite the intended use.

Or you could play it ultra safe and go with the 915GAV
Sorry the angle of the picture led me to believe it was also micro ATX.

http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/av/

I still believe a full sized ATX form factor motherboard with an entry level graphics card would ultimately be better for you as onboard graphics does use system resources and share memory.
Martin



We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[kcoder9]

dakota81 & Paparazi
Thanks for your helpful suggestions!

I have finally decided on Athlon 64 3000+ and have shortlisted following mobos in the $140 category:
MSI K8N Neo4-Platinum, Gigabyte GA-K8N Ultra-9

These have dual Gigabit ethernet, firewire and SATA II apart from having PCIe slots. For the intended use, only single gigabit LAN is enough and we may not require firewire on all PCs.

However, I am not sure about how important is the SATA-II as compared to SATA? Will it make a marked difference in performance now or in future?

Shall I buy one of the following boards in $100 category with SATA and single gigabit ethernet and invest the saved bucks in Athlon 64 3200+ :
MSI K8N Neo4-F, Gigabyte GA-K8NF-9

Thanks again in advance for any views on this!

 

[paparazi]

Dificult call, on the one hand we all know about the umpteen features we pay for but never use but sods law dictates the one feature the entry level board hasn't got is the one you will want in a years time.

My other feeling is that by the time that there is a substantial gain with SATA-II it will be time for you next upgrade, swings and roundabouts ow'd lad, as my old boss used to say.
Martin


We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.