Pentium 4 vs. Athlon XP
I was just curious, see what people think. I'm an AMD guy myself.
What are you asking? Which do we have or which do we like better?
...I have a P4... would rather have an Athlon
Like better, favor, support...
Whichever one you choose.
I pass... beings we just talked it to death :dead: here -->
Athlon XP & Pentium 4 systems
Personally I prefer XP processors. Putting together a p4 cpu/motherboard is all kinds of money I don't have. I can put together a good XP cpu/motherboard is so much cheaper, like $160 to $200 if you grap a cheap ECS motherboard (they're still nice and stable). So based on a lack of money I'd have to go with XPs for now.
If you have budget that i have to but in between This-that then instead of buying p4 1.7 buy xp 1.9+ & ddr ram is also cheap than rdram.althou i have p4 i will advice you to buy xp
Since right now a P4 1.6A costs about half of what a AthlonXP 2000+ costs and the P4 1.6A can easily reach clock speeds that make the AthlonXP whimper it is a P4 world.
AthlonXP's are starting to be too much money when we have the option of picking up a easily OCed CPU to 2.1ghz+ for under $150
I prefer the better product at purchace time
now?? Its the P4 1.6a.. Tommarow? Dunno..
I have owned AMD's for 4+ years and I am going to stick with AMD's. Intel changes to often to try to keep up. Intel has never given me a reason to try an Intel product. AMD in this house for a long time to come.
Take care all
Intel changes too much???
Oh no, here we goo....
My BX chipset equipped board is went through 300-1.2GHZ chips!!! Can AMD say that?? NOPE
Socket478 started at 1.4, and is supposed to carry on over 3.0GHZ.. Now, AMD's 0.13 micron chip (which isn't even out yet, who knows when) supposedly does NOT support popular XP chipsets, therfore new motherboards required.
Intel did tick me off with the socket 428/478 thing, but AMD plays the same game.
As far as INTEL changing to keep up, AMD in the begining was and INTEL CLONE! Thats a fact.
Yes, they did make up some ground, but now they are loosing it quick.
I like both products. But, I lost respect for AMD when they came up with this new processor speed crap. XP2.0, what the heck is that! I mean really, the same company that bragged about being at 1.0GHZ first now says clock speed doesn't matter. And, the system they use, benchmarks are optimized for their chips.
I agree. I think the whole thing is getting a little tired to me. Buy what you can afford, and get the best that you can for the money that you have to spend. If that happens to be AMD then sobeit, if that happens to be Intel then sobeit.
Last couple of times I have bought AMD (an original Athlon Slot based CPU and then a T-Bird) but if the Intel solution had had better bang for buck at the time, and I could haved afforded it, I would have gone for that.
Whatever you have inside your machine driving it, I just hope that you feel that you got your money's worth and that the computer is giving you joy or is getting the job done that you want it to do. I am far too skeptical of the computing industry on the whole these days to develop any kind of brand loyalty.
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.
Well, am I paying for it? If so I would go for another AMD CPU. The price on the AMD 1800XP is very good.
Is someone buying it for me? If so definately a P4 Northwood with Rambus memory. I think that the P4 definately has the upper hand right now with the Northwood. Money has to be no object when you are buying these because at nearly $1,000.00 for a 2.2, 512 rambus and a good mobo it is very expensive.
AMD vs. Intel
Now just settle down a bit. Here is what it boils down to. Intel is up to 2.2 gig range. AMD is in the 1.6 range (2000+). Bottom line and AMD's point with the rating game. My cpu performs on par with the 2.0-2.2 cpu and was cheaper to buy and at a 25% frequency deficit. Why ? AMD Athlon XP has superior core architecture than the P-4. And if you want to get in to the whole Yeild thing, AMD is making far more CPU's than Intel.
Boy am I gonna hear it on this one
AMD is no longer hitting those kind of yields with the Northwood. Well actually, on their synthetic enhanced benchmarks they are..
I'm not going to go raving about Intel, NOR AMD.. Like I said, I buy whats the best bang. But, clock for clock, the AMD chips seems to yield a bit better. Reliability belongs to Intel, and thats not even close.
I think there was time where AMD did have better chips, but tides are turning. AMD is having trouble with 0.13 micron chips, and therefore, needed to come up with thier new rating system because they could not keep up. Clock speed isn't everything, but according to AMD a year ago, it was.
AMD has pulled this stunt before, this isn't the first time. Like I said before, the XP stuff is junk. AMD supporters will keep the battle up about the chip performing better, but the bottom line is, it's a marketing scam. Customers are confused, and so are some of the door knobs at Best Buy! Anyhow, I just think there are better ways to sell your product than re-invent a rating system.
Cars performance is rated in top speed, horsepower, and torque. Now, are you going to all of a sudden rate them on a scale according to what another car is rated on? I mean really, its nothing less than a scam
true market capitalism.
This is been previously discussed in similar posts dating back to Jawbreaker. Surely a man such as yourself w/ journalistic ability would recognize that
a Scam is a fraudulent business scheme.
to Scam (v) mean to defraud or swindle.
If you really are concerned about a rating system that confuses consumers, try memory! I don't care about the BUZZ words. That's just marketing. They can say Pentium4, Athlon4, Geforce4, AthlonXP, Win/XP, Radeon8500XT, & WooHoo50000 all day long.
I can only remember *ntel gouging consumers w/ the premium prices charged for their cpu's. Till that fatefull day in 1999 when the AMD K7 (Athlon) was released, thereby instituting true market capitalism.
Only one thing to say to that AMEN BROTHER. Before Athlon, Intel alwaysed charged a premium for their Cpu's. Like I said before, all you Intel fans have AMD to thank for lower priced computers. Before AMD's resurgence, Intel had no reason to drop prices, now they fall by the week mostly thanks to AMD.
Take care all
Everything now adays is a scam... I dont mean to say that the XP chips are junk ,they are great chips, I just really disagree with the rating system.
I had alot of respect for AMD< until then. I mean, I still do, but that really tarnished it a bit...
And what makes my skin crawl is that around the web most are AMD supporters as of late, and these people make my head spin. If INTEL pulled a marketing stunt like this, it would be headline news everywhere, now AMD did it, and it is justified.
To this day, I will buy the product that offers a better performance at the best price. It just happends that most of the time when I buy, it's Intel.
I bought a Celeron366 many moons ago, clocked it to 550.. Great value.
I bought a Celeron 566 and clocked it to 850.. Great value.
I just purchaced a 1.6a, clocked it to 2.4, great value.
Thats what I look for. But, I am an overclocker, so it's a bit different for me.(celerons were worth nothing at 66mhz bus!)
. . not to be picky, but you appear to be going around in circles with your argument. I'd just like to address some of the points that have been made.
Well firstly the BX chipset doesn't officially support 1.2Ghz CPU's, but even looking at this we see 300-1.2Ghz is a 900Mhz increase in speed, if you look at the Socket A platform AMD this started with the 600mhz Duron and carried all the way through to the 1.4Ghz Athlon Thunderbird. Doing the maths thats 800mhz of performance increase out of the same platform. Not bad value. Further if you happened to get a KT133A motherboard in alot of cases you have the option to utilize the newer Athlon XP's bringing you up to the 1.6Ghz mark. Even better value.
. . .your analogy with cars is quiet a good one. What you have unknowingly shown is that cars arn't just rated on one performance variable. No one would say car A is better than Car B just because it has better Top Speed, or better HorsePower, all the individual variables would have to be looked at. Unfortunately with CPU's the only variable people have been programmed to look at is Mhz. AMD were in a situation where they had CPU's that did more work per Mhz than the competition and needed to re-educate people that Mhz wasn't the only indication of performance. Unfortunately this ment going against years of tradition. So they (re-)invented the PR system. I agree maybe it wasn't the best move, but as I see it they had little choice. (see here for good reads on the situation -> http://www.overclockers.com/tips634/
Whats quiet ironic is that the P3 outperformed the P4 when it first came out.
good point. . . without AMD one can only wonder at the innovation in the market and further the cost of those parts. .?
At this point in time I feel AMD has the better part mainly from a bang for buck perspective. Intels decission to drop RDRAM for DDR and the introduction of Northwood has gone along way towards AMD and Intel being equally viable options. It will be interesting to see what the year brings.
Whats really funny is that yet ANOTHER AMD fan suppports their rating system! Like I said before, you guys just can't admit that its wrong.
When I said the XP stuff is junk, I ment the rating system, not the chips like I said before. i am NOT going around in circles, just clarifing things.
Just because a motherboard is based upon the the socket A platform (a direct copy of Intels) doesnt mean that they support the later chips. I am not sure of the exact chipsets, but the early chipsets did NOT support TBIRDS, and the next faze of chipests did NOT support XP chips. So, if lived in AMD land your whole life, you had to change your motherboard twice to suppport XP chips, and you are going to have to change it again with their latest.
Crazyace: In this discussion, there's no right or wrong...it's all about what choice you feel fits best.
For me, I've owned both Intel and AMD-based machines, and I think they both make great products. Where we get into disagreements on is marketing; with the Pentium 4, Intel could use the "more mHz is better" argument to sell its chips, even though AMD had the performance per clock cycle edge. I personally see the Athlon XP marketing scheme as just that...a marketing scheme to counter Intel's P4 campaign for those consumers who don't know better and equate greater mHz with greater performance. Those who know the real story (people like us) know exactly what we're buying because we pay attention to this kind of stuff.
All of that aside, one of the best things AMD has in its favor still is the price/performance ratio of its chips...for this reason, every box I have built (for myself and others) since the Socket A Athlons/Durons came out has been an AMD machine.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of the constant AMD vs. Intel sniping (as well as the MS vs. Apple vs. Linux debacle) in almost every tech forum from here to Timbuktu; each company's products has their advantages and disadvantages. In the end, it's all about choice and how you want to spend your cash.
Concur. I've ran the Windows platform since 1998 and ran the Mac OS from 93-98, now I'm running Windows/Linux. Each has their own strengths & weaknesses. Like in hundreds of other forums and websites their respective Strengths and Weaknesses have been discussed so I will not discuss them here. But you have to respect each for what they are good at. So far no OS has been good at everything. And I believe no OS will be the all out best. Hardware might be different though, I think sometime there will be a piece of hardware that is better than all the others (n its field) in everything else that is avaiable. But never in the OS.
It's has been a long competition that took placed even until now.
I liked Intel because of it's quality assurance labs. Although because of that, Intel CPU's is charged premium, I didn't really mind too much because when I bought my PC, what I've really considered is its stability. Then, I've got a choice of either Athlon XP 1900+ or Pentium 4 1.8ghz. And, well, I bought the Pentium CPU. NOT to say that Athlon CPU's are less unstable, it's only my views.
I liked Athlon XP because it was cheap, and it could perform comparably with the Pentium 4 CPU. It's a fast processor that is worthy of my consideration when I want to buy a new computer system.
I do not like Intel because it did not continue supporting what it developed. Eg. 423-pins Socket CPU and Rambus. It is really a disappointment for me, because my motherboard has got both these components, and it's sad that I couldn't upgrade it too much. My only other option is a 2.0ghz CPU, which will not make much difference.
I do not like Athlon XP (Not say don't like, but somehow, slight dislike) because of little good motherboards and chipsets that was compatible with the Athlon XP. Of course I know KT266 and K7S5A are great, but other than these 2, there isn't really any great motherboard. Another thing about Athlon XP is it's high heat emiting. I'm someone who's very reckless, I didn't even know that once, my CPU fan is not working, and the tempature soars to 120 degress C. After several crashes, I opened my casing and THEN, i realise that my fan isn't spinning. Luckily, it wasn't an Athlon XP CPU, or my CPU is fried.
I ain't bias or anything while I'm writing this reply, and all I've written is only my views and may be incorrect! Actually I do not mind too much about performance because, as long as the game runs at a comfortable speed, it's enough for me, that's why to me, stabilty is more important. Though I had a Pentium CPU... I'll prefer Athlon XP because it's cheaper...
Re: AMD vs. Intel
OK, this is one reason why I always think "*****" when someone says they like AMD.
I don't quite understand what you mean by the AthlonXP having a superior core. I have news for you: The Athlon XP is yesterday's technology, scaled higher. Maybe it performs better clock for clock, but it isn't superior technology-wise. Also, if you think clock for clock is important, shut up right now and get a Mac, because by your standards, PowerPC architecture is superior to the Palomino.
If AMD makes more CPUs than Intel, what do they do with them? Intel contributes more than 80% of the CPU sales. In order to do so, they would have to sell more processors than AMD. Logic tells us that if AMD is making more CPUs, but Intel is selling more, AMD must be piling their processors up in a junk pile somewhere (or, they aren't making as many processors as Intel).
Seriously people, think before you post.
Now that that is all out of the way, I will state my recommendation: AthlonXP is a better buy right now. I emphasize the term "buy." To me, price/performance is a deciding factor in buying CPU components.
Re: Re: AMD vs. Intel
. . . care to clarify your comments on yesterdays technology?
AMD's rating system obviously sucks, but surely Intel's Processors are just as bad - with a low instructions per clock in order to make the higher clock speed processors.
Surely AMD's system is just as bad as Cyrix etc's performance ratings.