Originally posted by BrownPaper
isn't the case that amd's genreally do more work per mhz than intel's? so an athlon xp@1.5ghz would be faster than an intel p4@1.5ghz. intel go at higher megahertz and do less work per megahertz. would this hypothesis be true? the basis of amd having pr ratings for athlon xp's were a comparison to old athlons (which of course later implied performance compared to intel p4's) if i am not mistaken.
Originally posted by TS | Crazyace
There is no real answer to this question.
If you were to ask about reliability, then the Intel chip would be of choice.
Originally posted by TS | Crazyace
If you were to ask about reliability, then the Intel chip would be of choice.
My current system: Athlon XP 1800+ with 512MB ram. If I get the Dell, 512+128 = 640MB ram. Is that how it works?Originally posted by NoisySilence
If you do get that system please add some ram to it. I don't understand how you would set up a system with such a fast CPU & so little Ram.
This Link confirms that it's running on a 100mhz FSB ( so no HT ) & that the Ram is shared with the onboard VGA.:dead:
Originally posted by TS | Crazyace
There is no disagree on which is more reliable. AMD chips run hotter, that is a fact. You can run an Intel P4 chip without a heatsink, and it will not fry. This has been done.
And Intel chipsets are very compatable and stable. When you run an AMD system, you use aftermarket chipsets.