OK, here is a real, unbiased comparison between the new 'Barton' Athlon XP and the P4 3.06 GHz HT:
Review at AnandTech.com
Hope this clears things up a little.
Printable View
OK, here is a real, unbiased comparison between the new 'Barton' Athlon XP and the P4 3.06 GHz HT:
Review at AnandTech.com
Hope this clears things up a little.
I have always gone with athlon...
Athlon will 0wn Intel in the near future, Athlon 64 will piss all over P4 :D
Athlons designed so much better and it runs a lot faster that P4
Pentium 4 3.06 is way faster. What are you talking about? Intel will wipe Athlon out of the race.
The clock speed may be faster, but the number of processes a second is faster as Athlon can handle more than a P4...
Also Athlon does not lag when the pc is on for a long time...
If u leave a P4 pc on for quite a long time idling then it lags and goes slow when u go back to use it...
Athlon does not.
Therefore Athlon processors are much better than p4 processors
With that you probably refer to the temperature , and indeed AMD CPU's are more stable at higher temperatures. With good cooling this will be no problem , and I just have to say that if an AMD heatens up over the limit it's dead. An Intel will clock back by itself ( now a lot of MoBo's have this function installed , but still better to have it in the CPU itself ) and will go back to full speed when the temp is OK again. About the speed difference ; It's nothing. The Athlon 64 will be very fast indeed , but I'd rather have a P4 3 Ghz with HT Technology , but they cost a lot and that's for a lot of people a reason to go for AMD.Quote:
Also Athlon does not lag when the pc is on for a long time...
BTW Note that I don't want to start any flaming to each other over sum' CPU ;)
Did you read the article?!Quote:
Pentium 4 3.06 is way faster.
umm i still like p4 better :P
So? I'm not trying to convert people, just to inform them...Quote:
umm i still like p4 better
If you have money to burn, then by all means go with the superior performance of the top P4.
But if you aren't going for the highest-spec processor about, you're buying a component which is much more expensive to a near-identical part.
AMD's outperform Pentiums by, is it 25% or something like that.
Screw Chipzilla. I despise them! (intel for you non hardware geeks)
*giggles with excitement over athlon 64*
Its going to destroy Intel! So sayeth me!
Well, i can hope, but it sure as hell will outperform them.
I have always said that AMD where better than Intel.
Just look at the facts. You are putting a chip that runs at 2Ghz(approx) against a chip that runs at 3ghz(approx) including funky HT to it and the AMD chip can still open up a can of whoop ass ont he p4.
How can anyone say P4's are better when obviosuly a slower chip can still beat the p4 in almost all areas(bareing in mind that its also down to the programs that they run as some are generic some are p4 optimised and some are amd optimised)
GHz is NOT everything. and since amd's are far far cheaper than the compared p4 equivelent, amd anyday for me.
Xan
AMD ME
thanks i've been looking for an unbiased opinion on this :D
I tried, YodaX, I tried, but these people seem to have ignored the article.
i have a pentium 4 2.66ghz pc and also a amd athlon2200 (1.8gghz) and i much prefer my amd athlon
pentium is still good but amd athlon is better
FACT
i would choose anthlon because its much cheaper and can have just the same performance as a p4
what uall dont relize is that Microsoft wrights for the newest intell chips insturtsion set hence the name "wintel"
all AMD prossers are redesighins of the newest intell prosser becouse of this AMD is all ways playing a catch up game for example MMX,SSE, integer SSE,SSE2 all intell protacalls have built in suport in windows or direct x where as amds 3Dnow is not and each app that whant to use them must wright in suport for them though i think that MS final relented and added suport for it in Direct X i think there may have been a sute to make them but it was added as a backword compatablity not as a new feacher in there newest os
now this said since AMD are redoing the intell chips after intell comes out with new feachers (instruction sets) they have an advantage in being able to use newer tech to make them thus they are uasly faster (uasly at the cost of reliablity) the test that was used on the url that was posted was may or may not have been a fair comparison. u can find just as many sight that say the its the other way around i have never heard of that sight before (not that it mean there wrong) but the acknowlaged leader in bench testing is Zifdavis (and no i have not looked too see what they said)
what all this means is that if u want a prosser that will take advantage of the newest upcoming windows os and windows apps and have an exelent reliablity stick with intell
if all ur looking for is speed and dont care about forward compatablity or reliablity
then go with AMD (also AMD cpus are a lot better if ur in to Overclocking as it has no temp senser to clock the cpu down when it gets too hot)
many of us can still rember how amd and cyrus(now owned by AMD) and such would not work with alot of apps and had many problems and do not wish to take the risk of it hapening again. (many of us thought that WINTELL did this on purpus) though i must say that AMD is much better at it now. but that is mostly that there has been no mager improvment to windows os and software since win98 and win 2k. xp is just a pritty user frendly version of win2k with no mager improvments
the P4 will shows its colors when apps and OS's that take advantage of the new instrutsion set come out
Dood, what ever.
Toms hardware is one of the most respected hardware review sites on the internet. Just like Hardocp, inquirer.net, sharkeyextreme, everyone says the same thing.
And where amd beats out the p4 most often, is in applications... sysmark benches, etc. Where as intel usually beats it when it comes to gamming.
You sound like you knew about hardware like maybe 5 years ago, and havent kept pace.
You are gonna get no compatibility issues or reliability when it comes to an AMD... and if you think that, you truely are behind.
Why do you think Microsoft... the same on you say is writing for intel... only... is making a 64 bit windows version specifically for the AMD 64bit clawhammer? GEEE? I wonder... probably cuz amd knows whats up, and makes great processor
I dont see any windows versions made exlusively for that piece of shit itanium.
BTW... love the avatar... marvin is the best looney tune without a doubt, and i have a extensive marvin the martian collection.
athlon, any day.......
don't get me wrong, Intel's are great, but unless u have money to waste on the same performance, if not less, and since they cost a whole helluva lot more, than an AMD, then be my guest......
may be i dint quiet make my self clear i did not say that AMD still had compatabllity issues they are doing a vary good job now just dont trust them becouse of there earlyer problems
and i still beleve that the intell cpus have greater reliability i use both types at work and i have never had to replace a intell cpu (over 1600 of them)where as i have replaced about 6 AMDs athlons (only 75 of them) what can i say i let someone (the head of finance) talk me in to trying them again they will be replaced with intell sys as they burn out from now on there is a reasion that they are cheaper its becouse there cheep i must admit in all honasty that they where all still under warnty so it didnt cost anything but my techs time and mine the first time it happened till we clued in on it being the cpu it kinda thru us for a loop as we didnt ever have a cpu go out on us before
too me (especially since i dont pay for them) the intell is way better cus i dont have to waste my time fixing them
and MS never dose anything cus its the best it dose it cus its the thing they can make money on and since so many peps now use AMD and have suporters like you ur all gona go nut for a os desighned for it they are vary good a markiting
as for being behind on hardware ya thats probly got some truth too it as it been about 3 years since i did much trobleshooting on a pc besides a few things my techs where stumped on i prity much just do the networking equipmet any more and even my techs do more help desk (software and network setup) then actual hardware troble shooting
now again i will say amd is a much beter cpu if ur gona overclock and\or ur gona upgrade every 1-2 years but if u want a comp that has great reliability and will still be working great in 4-5 years then intell is the way to go
oh ya marvin rocks i also like woodstock from charle brown hes the coolest :)
Lies.Quote:
Microsoft wrights for the newest intell chips insturtsion set hence the name "wintel"
all AMD prossers are redesighins of the newest intell prosser
Windows XP was written using AMD Athlon-based computers.
And AMD designs are just compatible with Intel x86 chips - the architecture is totally different (more efficient but unable to reach such high clock speeds).
And AMD are now just as reliable as Intel CPUs - they'll only burn out if you don't set your cooler up correctly (or even use the wrong kind).
If i remember my a-level computing, *86 chips are the generic name since Intel was practically the only chip manufacturer for major desktops Pc's back in the late 80's.Quote:
AMD designs are just compatible with Intel x86 chips - the architecture is totally different (more efficient but unable to reach such high clock speeds
AMD never called there chips anything to do with *86 yet people called them that because they compared their power with such.
AMD used to take what intel did with their chips and look at the problem in a different way, and thus producing chips that where faster, more effiecient and more cost effective.
Now AMD are starting to use their own brains and come up with their own ideas, Intel effectivly did all the development for AMD, AMD just took it further and improved the "BASIC" design - they still had to make the chip *86 based or it would not work with windows, AMD used "hindsight" to beat Intel. Since AMD are thinking for themselves a bit more (baring in mind that AMD is relitivly new company compared to Intel) the chips are slighty more expensive in relation to previouse chips because AMD now do more development for them selves.
aye, that much is true, but the older versions of windows, when AMD was Cyrix before the merger, win 98 and the latter were done on Intel chips, i noticed that earlier versions of windows run slighty better on intel chips rather than amd's. remember the win2k patch that they had to release for the athlon t-bird.Quote:
Windows XP was written using AMD Athlon-based computers
its the same all over the world, a chinese cpu company (i think) has been working on their own *86 based chips, they call it the dragon (??) it now has the power of a p2 500 , they did it to make their econamy safer against american domination of the cpu industry. most of their government servers and some home pc's run these chips and from what i hear they are better than the amd and intel equivelents, that goes to show if you walk in someone elses shoes you can see where they went wrong. amd did that with intel and now the dragon does it with amd and intel
Xan
Well, everywhere I go, i see ppl saying that Athlon is way cheaper then intel....then how come the prices on PriceWatch, wich r always the cheapest possible (in my experience), of the Athon XP 3000 and the Intel P4 3.06 Ghz r 'bout the same?
ps: personally I prefer the Pentium, as I have owned pentiums ever since the 186 to the P4 (186, 286, 486, P1, P2, P3 and P4), including several laptops with pentiums...and have always been perfectly satisfied :D
People who say "Athlon owns Intel" are just biased and ignorant. It's a fact that Intel dominates the chip-making industry, yet AMD ownz? That does not make much sense. It's true that athlon chips outperform similarily clocked Intel chips, but look at the price difference. Compare the price between the Athlon 3000+ (2.1Ghz) to a Pentium 4 2.2 Ghz. HUGE difference. So you can't say "Athlon is faster" while saying "Athlon is cheaper" at the same time. That is gross manipulation.
You also cant compare the prices between the 2 chips you have mentiond.
The fact being that the amd 3000 is meant to be the equivelent of the intel p4 3ghz HT chip.
compare them like they are supposed to be compared and you will see that amd are cheaper by far.
and you still have the blatent fact that a slow chip keeps up with the faster (in terms of ghz) p4
if amd made a 3ghz chip then the p4 3ghz ht chip would be eating the athlons dust.
its a shame people cant do simple maths.
amd fastest chip = 2.1ghz
intel fastest chip = 3.2ghz HT
amd can still outperform and keep up with a faster clocked chip. FACT benchmarks proove it. users proove it.
the basic underlying thing is intel have made a sloppy chip so that they have room to make it have these high clock speeds. the internal design of the p4 means it can be developed quicker at the expense of real bare bones speed.
amd spend their time making the athlon efficient, and why shouldnt they, they show that you dont need higher clock speeds to have a faster chip.
Ghz is not everything
i have a athlon 1ghz cpu, compare that to a p3 1ghz and the athlon outperforms it but not by much.
now take the p4 3ghz chip, it has been found that due to the chip archtectue it IS NOT 3 times faster than my 1ghz athlon nor is it 3x's faster than their 1ghz p3.
the amd 2.1ghz chip (3000+) IS more than 2.8x's as fast as either of those 1ghz chips, yet it only clocks at 2ghz.
sadly the further we go up the ghz range the lower this becomes, if we go the intel way their 5ghz chip will only be more like 3.76 times faster than my 1ghz chip, but because amd are making the chip more efficient at its speed (rather than trying to fool the noobie pc user that ghz means faster) the amd way will be closer to 4.5 times as fast, until then or some other architecture comes along then this is how it will be.
Xan
Well said!
And that is the story... that is why intel chips cost more, they have continued pushing in the ghz race.... becomming bloated in price/cost concept, where as amd has made their chips more efficent, better use of clock cycles, and thus... you dont have to pay for a 533mhz bus... because the amd is right on par with it... and cheaper.
Well, I don't care what anyone thinks. If I was to choose between P4 3.06 and XP3000+, I would go with Pentium 4. It's actually CHEAPER, contrary to popular belief (only by a few bucks, though).
Choose the chip u feel rocks ur world, im an amd bloke myself for i see the true way a chip should be made. efficient NOT faster.
its like smaking a rock 10 times a second with a feather rather than hiting it once with a hammer. (no pun - athlon 64 lol)
the amd 3000 and p4 3ghz - amd ARE cheaper , i dont know where u do ur shopping.
+ have u seen the size of the p4's dye? its huge the chip itself is huge, while the athlon is still socket A. bigger dye size = more cost, cos u get few chips outta the wafer, and more chips are prone to flaws in the dye.
the only reason i can say that the amd chip took a jump in price is because the dye has increased to make room for the larger L1 and L2 cache and bus stuff.
going back to the scale thing (3 ghz chip not being faster than a 3x's 1ghz chip) number of instructions per clock cycle is what causes this flaw, the p4 may have a bigger bus, but it needs that to cope with the lack of L1 and L2 cache + the lack of instructions/sec the p4 can do, the athlon does more per cycle so doesnt need the bigger bus as the p4 with its smaller bus is stunted and cant breathe
there is some calculation i can do with Hz and IPCS (inst' per clok cyc) and bus speed but it late right now and i foget
Xanex
Pricewatch has the P4 3.06 cheaper by a few bucks. That's probably cause it's been out longer.
AMD the best no question about it intel runs okay but to expensive and u cant clock it like amd
I don't know what you're talking about, it's a well known fact that Intel chips have more overclockablilty than the AMD chips. Price is about the same, no huge difference.Quote:
Originally posted by adthomp@24 March 2003 - 00:28
AMD the best no question about it intel runs okay but to expensive and u cant clock it like amd
er where u get ur facts from? yo cant really clock a p4 cos it has the temp sensor on the chip that will clock the chip back if it gets too hot, and even with the correct cooling u need like liquid nitrogen to stop the p4 thinking its too hot, while the new athlons with proper cooling can be clocked further.
the overclockability you proably refer to is what i have mentiond in my previouse posts.
Intel made a sloppy chip, fact, look at the internal design, it was deliberate - but the bonus of that is it allows the same core to be taken further and achieve higher ghz, the chip can be taken further than the amd but only BY THE MANUFACTURER , who can set the safey feature on the p4 to stop it from clocking it self back when it "thinks" its too hot
amd have had more cores than p4 cos they belive in squeezing all the power they can outta the chip, u dont eat like half the apple b4 you move on to the next do u?
intel do
and think the feather and hammer thing i said about
Xan
The Pentium 4 architechture has a maximum potential of reaching a 5Ghz clock, while the Athlon architechtures have to be redisigned every time to support a higher clock. If you fully understood all the aspects of processor calculations and designs, you would know that the Pentium 4 and the Athlon are 2 very different chips. It's just so happens that Pentiums have always had better overclockablity. I'm not just making biased assumptions here or putting my two cents. These are facts, documented by many computer publications over the years.
Yes i agree with.
thoQuote:
The Pentium 4 architechture has a maximum potential of reaching a 5Ghz clock
is wrong, if i count right the athlon has had 3 -4 cores, of that morgan , barton and the other one i cant remember. p4 has had about 2-3 cores. northwood, willamina and some othersQuote:
while the Athlon architechtures have to be redisigned every time to support a higher clock
The term over-clock is not appropriate, by overclocking something you are taking it beyond the manufacturers settings, you can clock the chip with the bus setting and multiplyer based on the motherboard. the p4 may be able to reach 5ghz as its top speed but you cannot acheive that yet with normal methods of cooling, the chip has not got that far as for the home user. the home user cannot take the chip futher than what the manufacturer has allowed. socketA boards allow for greater bus speeds and multiplyers, so its not just down to the chip itself, try finding me a mobo that supports a 5ghz clock.
The thing is the p4 has this manufacturer setting that only allows the chip to clock so far. some cant be clocked at all. while athlon chips u can clock with out any special tools or equiptment. they are not locked like the p4.
intel dont really belive in chip clocking, as they do not see it fitting for a home user to mess with thier chips. that is why
Yes they are 2 very different chips, state the obviouse y dont you, tho im sorry but i DO understand chip architecture, i have a degree to proove it. so dont go thinking im some newb. i speak with the knowlage of a university degree and practical use, i have had many hours tinkering with chips etc. and in all my time i have never even heard of the pentium as being known for a good chip to overclock. being a university student i have many friends who will also back me up on this that pentium chips are not worth clocking.Quote:
If you fully understood all the aspects of processor calculations and designs, you would know that the Pentium 4 and the Athlon are 2 very different chips
can i ask if u fully understand processor calculations and designs?
Xanex
An intersting thing about the new chips, p4 3/16 HT and the amd 3000+ is that the amd now has a larger cache. not only that but its also seperate.
the p4 uses its cache inefficiently, u have 2 levels L1 which is small but runs at speeds near the chip speed and L2 being bigger but alot slower. now when instructions are sent to the cpu they are put into the cache, the instructions which are used the most are stored in L1 other not so used are put in L2, which in cpu terms is like from london to brighton.
BUT what the p4 does is duplicate all the instructions in L1 into L2, for some unknown reason, fails to enlighten me, while amd dont duplicate what L1 has into L2, thus making the chip faster.
intel have always done this and amd almost always did it the other, but to me what is the point in wasting cache since £ for £ its more expensive than the higest spec DDR
so who makes a better more "intelligent" chip, figure that out yourself
Xanex
The 2 different cache setups have their advantages and disadvanteges. Sometimes the Athlon chache is fast, other times the Pentium cache is faster. Go to the link in Lamseys original post, as it goes into great detail how they differ.
Athlon pisses all over Intel!!! Only people with Intel will say it is better, I have used PC's with both and Athlon is best by far, especially for gaming.
No point in argueing about it AHLON BEST (FACT!).
A nice Geforce 4 Titanium complements it quite nicely.
Read the article in the original post.Quote:
Originally posted by Yomanda_66@29 March 2003 - 13:00
Athlon pisses all over Intel!!! Only people with Intel will say it is better, I have used PC's with both and Athlon is best by far, especially for gaming.
No point in argueing about it AHLON BEST (FACT!).
A nice Geforce 4 Titanium complements it quite nicely.
I'll say it before and I'll say it again.
Intel has slighly better overall high-end performance while AMD are much better value for money.
Intel is faster....AMD is cheaper. That's it. Period. If you don't have the money go for AMD , if you do go for intel.
AMD is coming out with Sledgehammer! 4.0ghz I heard! :D drool