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

Status
Not open for further replies.
i'd say amd and intel system have around the same compatibility. i think it boils down to the quality of the rest of your components such as your motherboard, ram, power supply and other things. if one of your components is shoddy then the rest of your system is going to suffer. some amd systems are real finnicky with ram and some intel systems can be just a pain in the arse.

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.
Click to expand...

i thought all amd only made processors. if they make chipsets too, i must be under rock for a long time then.
 
I'm not sure if onboard sound is enabled in bios. I'll have to check. Actually, I'm not sure where to look. Is it under PnP?

I downloaded the latest sound drivers off ecsusa.com but they didn't help any.

How do I remove dust safely?
 
i thought all amd only made processors. if they make chipsets too, i must be under rock for a long time then.
Click to expand...

Since the introduction of the Athlon AMD has done the AMD-750 ( Slot-A ), the AMD-760 ( Socket-A ) & the AMD-760MP(x) ( Dual Socket-A ). I'm too lazy to look for info for their chipsets prior to the Athlon.;)

They are also into the Flash Memory business.

I'm not sure if onboard sound is enabled in bios. I'll have to check. Actually, I'm not sure where to look. Is it under PnP?
Click to expand...

Try looking in the Onboard devices section or Integrated Peripherals.
 
I checked bios and the onboard sound is enabled. Hardware device manager says it's working properly. But there is no sound- in or out.

I also have a pci sound card installed. audio out works but audio in does not.

It can't be a hardware conflict, could it?
 
I would recommend DISABLING onboard sound, and just using your PCI card. This should take care of quite a few problems.
 
As far as AMD running hotter than INTEL. I dont need any benchmarks or heat output tests to prove it. I have 2 AMD TBIRDS that make great key-chains that would be sufficient. AMD chips have always been know to fry when thier heatsinks went bogus. If you want proof, just goto HARDOCP FORUM or OVERCLOCKERS.COM forums, and you will get plenty.
 
Originally posted by TS | Crazyace
As far as AMD running hotter than INTEL. I dont need any benchmarks or heat output tests to prove it. I have 2 AMD TBIRDS that make great key-chains that would be sufficient. AMD chips have always been know to fry when thier heatsinks went bogus. If you want proof, just goto HARDOCP FORUM or OVERCLOCKERS.COM forums, and you will get plenty.
Click to expand...


Again Crazyace, I don't mean to be crude here, but you are showing a fair amount of ignorance. You are referring to years-old technology. The thunderbird hasn't even been in production for quite a while and neither has the palomino core. The tbred-a, tbred-b and barton cores all have a thermal diode that prevents heat death.

I have 2 athlons running at very high overclocked speeds, both of them I *HAVE* tested by removing the heatsink during operation. A system freeze, and nothing more. After placing it back on the machine was perfectly fine, nothing wrong with it.

I also just compared the heat output of my tbred-b 2200+ at stock clock to a p4 at 2.2ghz. The p4 @ 2.2 was dissapating around 65-69W, which is actually MORE than the 2200+. I don't know why you keep parading this, but, you are wrong. This is not 2001 anymore.
 
Well, the problem with the sound card was not really a problem. The line in was muted. That was all.

<-- embarrassed :D
 
Well, some benchmarks show that information, but not at all. Usually they are gaming benchmarks but there are a lot of benchmarks out there that show more than just gaming.

Say if I was searching for the difference between a 2600+ and 2.6GHz. I would search for keywords like "2600" "2.6ghz" "benchmark". That normally does the job.
 
Then again, I have used many comparable p4 and athlon systems. When it breaks down to it, for gaming, the video card is way more important than the processor, and for other things it's so incredibly hard to see a difference to begin with. Without benchmarks you may never know in the first place.
 
Well SOUL,

Once you get burnt once, it's not a big deal. But when I got burnt twice by AMD, by about $300 bucks, I called it quits. I simply stated that Intel made a more reliable chip, and now that you admitt the older AMD chips were prone to overheating, you amplified my reasoning.
 
Originally posted by TS | Crazyace
Well SOUL,

Once you get burnt once, it's not a big deal. But when I got burnt twice by AMD, by about $300 bucks, I called it quits. I simply stated that Intel made a more reliable chip, and now that you admitt the older AMD chips were prone to overheating, you amplified my reasoning.
Click to expand...


Your reasoning is based on irrelevant and obsolete facts. Intel had notorious overheating problems when the pentium was first released and I dumped well over a grand on replacing burnt pentiums. I don't tell people that intel is "unreliable" because of that. I think you are a little too biased and shouldn't spread misinformation about things such as reliability.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by TS | Crazyace some words and stuff
Click to expand...



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?
 
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
 
hideing_behind_computer.gif
 
Re: I was wondering...

Originally posted by newbie5678
What is faster: AMD Athlon XP 1.5GHz or Intel P4 1.5GHz?
Click to expand...
Originally posted by snowman
an athlon xp 1500+ or one with 1.5 ghz?
Click to expand...
Originally posted by newbie5678
One with 1.5GHz.

Someone told me that the numbers aren't entirely accurate. It's like comparing cars with different redlines. Higher revs doesn't necesarily mean it is faster. It could mean that it takes that many revs to reach a certain speed. While another car can reach that speed with lower revs.

I have a Athlon XP 1800+. I am thinking about buyng a Dell P4 2.2Ghz but I'm not sure if that would be an upgrade or not.

My PCMark2002 scores for my AMD Athlon XP 1.5Ghz:
CPU = 4568
Mem = 2812
HD = 594
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Squid Surprise
Threadripper 7980x Build - occasional black screen?
Replies
5
Views
170
Squid Surprise
Squid Surprise
D
Snapdragon X Elite is faster than Intel and AMD flagship CPUs in Geekbench
Replies
15
Views
193
quadibloc
quadibloc
A
AMD says its MI300X AI accelerator is faster than Nvidia's H100
Replies
6
Views
274
bviktor
B

Latest posts

Back