Which is better? AMD Athlon or Intel Pentium 4? I wanna get some ideas and comments from this forum. I know that AMD is cheaper than P4, but I know that they're about the same. What do you guys think? Why? What would you buy (what do you have right now)? ... wanna get some comments here.. plz post and reply thx!

Personally, I don't think you can compare the two; they both have their pros and cons. I prefer Intel over AMD for the simple reason that I think more expensive components MUST be better, which I have learned can be wrong sometimes . And the fact that my processor was the best at the time just knocked AMD off my mind. Despite all of this, I could definitely see myself buying AMD products in the future, but for now I think I will stick with Intel.

I can't really compare the two, but I've got one of those P 4 3.06's and it's great. All I've ever had was Intel, PII 300, PIII 600,700, P 4 1.7 and now the P 4 3.06. The only problem I have with either one, is they come out to fast with new models. I'd sure like to stay top of the line for a while, but that didn't last long.

Rick,
It is a really stupid way to think and I deserve what I get!! I have made the mistake once, and will undoubtedly make it again; it must be some human instinct that lay dormant in everyone else except me ! The best way for me to go, would be to have both an AMD system and an Intel system, or more expensive and less expensive if you prefer; I only wish I had the money to take this plan into action though :blackeye: !

The fact of the matter is.

AMD = cheaper and faster
Intel = more expensive and slower

Buy AMD. That is all you need to know.

Thank's drive through.

I got an Intel, i decided to go that way because a few people were telling me about AMD Heat problems, and after all the fans etc they installed, they can't hardly hear any sound from the speakers unless they cranked them right up to cover the noise of the fans !!!

Funny my 3x2000rpm fans are keeping my £70 2100+ @ 11.5x200 2.3Ghz and 200fsb (400DDR) @ 55C load. Sandra gives it a PR of ~3400. Which is almost up there with £430 3.06 P4 (without Hyperthreading :S )
Just tweaking CPU and Ram voltages for complete stability now.

Both Intel AND Amd have had problems in the past.

Personally, I've never bought Intel since the days of Pentium III, and I never had any problems with my AMD systems.

Most issues that others have had are usually the result of other system components, as nearly all software is developed on Intel systems, and therefore has been tested on these systems prior to release.

The main reason I buy AMD (apart from lower cost) is that if AMD were not to exist, then the cost of Intel CPUs would not be affordable to the masses, and the pace of technological advancement would be significantly slower. Imagine if we were all still today waiting for Doom 2 to be released so that we could play it on our Pentium 2 systems. Now there something to think about.

AMD needs support and as long as they are making good CPUs at fair prices I see no reason to switch back to Intel (unless Intel falls significantly behind AMD). Really, you will be your own worst enemy if you ignore the benefits of AMD and simply choose Intel in the false belief that you are doing the right thing. Competition is good for consumers, and we all should help keep competition healthy so that we can all benefit from faster, and lower cost, systems. :blush:

I got an AMD just because I want to be different

Of all the friends I knew right now, there are only around 3 AMD users, the rest of them use Intel CPUs. I do not deny the fact that Intel does stringent tests on their CPUs to ensure compatibility, but other than the danger of a failing fan, Athlons worked fine. The only issue I had is using Lancraft, which is also quite buggy anyway.

One thing I looked into, though, is scalability. While Intel keeps changing their platform, AMD has been using the Socket462 for quite some time now. If anyone had a Duron then when the Socket462 first came out, he still has the option to upgrade to an Athlon XP 3000+ (No Kidding). They are finally moving to the Socket754 which I don't mind since it's about time.

I gave up on Intel when I bought my Socket423/i850 combination.

I'm waiting to get my hands on the Athlon 64.

Another reason why users shouldn't buy Intel :dead: ...

Intel's art of gentle AMD persuasion misfires - The Inquirer

I go AMD simply over price. It cost alot more for an Intel CPU thats the same speed as a AthlonXP (Ghz wise, keep in mind the XPs perform ~400mhz faster compared to the P4s).

--Now just look at that bowl of SharkFiN soup...we've come along way my friend

AMD Athlon XP2000+ speed in Pentium 4

I am curious, AMD Athlon XP2000+ says it is 1.67GHz, but some people say that Athlon XP is like whatever Mhz, 400 from agassi's post, so does AMD Athlon XP2000+ equal to a Pentium 4 1.67Ghz or higher?

By the way, thx! Try the soup, you can probably get it at some expensive chinese restaurants! Watch out, they may be very expensive lol, but very delicious!!

Ok, here is the official answer Sharky: An Athlon XP 2000+ performs equal or better than a 2GHz P4(that is pretty much AMD's explanation)

Agissi shouldn't have used MHz as a measure of performance because it tends to cause confusion. We have discussed the performance differences between the two here before and I see what he meant by the statement but MHz and performance is two different things. To try and explain this better, if we look at an XP and a P4 of the same clock speed, the AMD outperforms the P4. That is what agissi is saying. Maybe he is saying that a P4 400MHz faster could match that performance. However, the fastest P4 will currently outperform the fastest XP because of several factors as was previously mentioned. The cost is not really worth it IMO though. If you add it all up, including cost, the XP is the best performance, especially for the money IMO.

AMD for Now

I have been using AMD processors since I dumped my HP computer with a 200mhz mmx intel processor. I built an athlon slot A 600 overclocked at 750 for the entire time I owned the processor. It is still running this day overclocked at my brother-in-laws house. I replaced the 600 with a amd xp1700 and soyo mobo. Had a lot of problems with the mobo at first but since getting those issues fixed my machine has run error free for 2 years. I play lots of games and do a lot of web surfing computer is rock stable and never crashes.

I do plan the go with Intel on my next system. I can't stand the damn fan noise with the AMD heat sinks.

I know its not saying too much,but I believe there's an article on the front page about Microsoft choosing Athlon over Pentijunk using in house benchmarks.oops I mean Pentium.

Not to say that Pentiums are all that bad because they aren't, but the point is there is no logic in buying Pentiums over Athlon other than the fact that you need a better cooling solution. BUT the fact is even with a more than efficient heatsing+fan your Athlon processor is going to cost you less than the Pentium equivelant. Athlon processors are higher end processors that run much faster than Pentiums, cost less, and are more "effecient" processors.

I have to assume the role of Spock here when buying a Pentium over an Athlon for any reason whatsoever. I just don't see the LOGIC in it.

If you wanted a fast car (not that I know anything about cars) why would you buy a 350 horse power car for a higher price than a 450 horse power car that costs LESS? (I know crap about cars so keep that in mind-- but I do know it wouldn't make sense).

Also keep in mind that just because you had a problem with an AMD processor in the past it doesn't mean it was AMD's fault. That is hardly ever the case. It is usually because of an outdated BIOS, or other hardware problem other than your processor.

Pentiums are like the guy that is almost a genius that has to work really really hard to get the grades that the genius gets by not even studying. Who would you hire for a job first? The genius that works fast or the almost genius that gets basically the same job done but slower????