I was wondering... which is faster, XP or P4?

I have heard enough of your misleading crap, so here are some facts with links:

--Processors from Athlon XP family, especially the ones based on the new Thoroughbred core, need a high-quality cooler with a copper base while Pentium 4 doesn't put any strict requirements on the cooling system.
---Athlon XP processors fail due to overheating more often than Pentium 4.
---Athlon XP processors working in normal conditiond have higher core temperature than Pentium 4.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon-xp-2200.html

Now I would have to say the so called "misinformation" I was spreading was actually facts like I stated before. This conversation is now over. INTEL chips overheat less than the AMD chips, which means Intel chips are more reliable. I am pretty sure you will still disagree with XBITLABS, but take it up with them.

*Closes can of worms*

That article is pretty old (Aug 2002) and doesn't take into account the fact that most current mainboards have now implemented the required overheat protection circuits that were not present at the time of that review. Reading the article makes clear that many of the statements made are not relevent because they no longer apply to todays hardware (regarding implemented mainboard features etc.).

Also, Athlon Thoroughbred-B cores are pretty similar to P4 in terms of power consumption, and Barton cores have even lower power consumption than these cores (~74w). The top P4 models are the hottest CPUs around at the moment (~90w), with the Prescott set to beat all records for power consumption (~100w+), despite being engineered in a 0.09u process.

Future Athlon 64 bit cores will soon be running at very low power consumption figures of around 30w to 50w, which will be the lowest in the industry. With each new generation, AMD cores have reduced power consumption, whereas Intel CPUs continue to move in the opposite direction.

The hardware market is constantly shifting, so its best to keep this in mind when posting. Also, I think that we should avoid being drawn into arguments such as AMD vs Intel, or nVidia vs ATI. It seems that quite a few members can get into very hot and personal debates when this happens. There is no need for this, so lets just leave things at that, and move on.

You have one thing right, I am not going to argue with you anymore, only for the sake of keeping the forums peaceful. If you want to remain in the past, with obsolete information, by all means you are welcome to it. I strongly suggest however you give another look at AMD. Things are quite different than just a year ago, and night and day between 2 years ago.

In short, toodles.

The original question we are all replying to was this:

"What is faster: AMD Athlon XP 1.5GHz or Intel P4 1.5GHz?"

The article I linked to was indeed within the range of discussion. So, once again, the information I provided and the facts I provided were not "obsolete" to this discussion.

The AthlonXP at 1.5GHz would be faster then the P4 at 1.5GHz - you guys have come to that conclusion right? (the XP1700+ operates at 1.47GHz.. 1700 indicating it should give the performance of a P4 around 1.7GHz)

Also Didou, you demanded the dust be removed from newbie5678's case.. whats so bad about the dust in there?

Dust is bad. It's bad for cooling, and enough of it can kill a comp, i.e. dust in the PSU is horrible.

Faster?
Most of the benchmarks I have seen show the AMD chips do a little better with the gaming benchmarks, and the Intel chips do a little better with the encoding/decoding benchmarks.

Paul

Re: I was wondering...

ahaha you are all WRONG ... the bestestest chip is the cyrix!!!!!!1111111 omg wtf lol

I believe the thread starter got his answers a long time ago. I think it should be closed as it has gone way beyond "off topic".