Whats Better Athalon Or Pentium?

[abu_has_the_power]

ok. that's it. my friend's gonna die! he builds comps, and he tells me that p4's are so much better. he's actually pretty good, works with some heavy shit. maybe i should shine some light on the poor guy? like i said, i have no probs with amds.

ok. how bout just disregard everything i said. i'm appearantly blabbering, again. lol. sory people.

[Kid1A]

jesus this had been going on for years, just like nvida and ati, depends wich one you prefer, i say the first computer you bought always depends on your choice, but id still go for athlon every time.

[Neo 721]

actually in response to "Intel's have more clock cycles" that may be the case, theres one thing to bear in mind, the general setup of the AMD arcitechture alows it to process generaly more data at one time than the intel setup, even though intels have the slight edge, meaning that they carry out large amounts of modifications to the chip in order for it to stay ahead,(judgeing by the specs) so another words Intel have put in considerablely more recoures to get them where they are now. Then AMD have just to stay where they are now. This is likley to happen in the future with their new Extreme edition P4 they are giving it 2MB of L3 cache, yet another large step for something which will only have a small performance increase on the Athlon 64.
So in answer to the origional question what is better Athlon or pentium, you need to consider what better means, higher performance, greater value for money, power consumption, cooling. It would clearly better to evaluate something looking at all those criteria rather than just what has the higher benchmark, i mean they dont just give things best buy award for being only faster but everything i just mentioned.

[clocker]

In all of these debates about Intel v. AMD I rarely see anyone mention that the CPU itself is basically helpless if all the surrounding hardware isn't well matched.
The fastest chip in the world is useless if the motherboard and memory aren't properly chosen and optimized.
You can put a NASCAR engine in a Pinto and still get beaten by a reasonably set up gocart....

[Neo 721]

That isnt really the issue, the judgments about them are being made despite of surrounding hardware.

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by neattairoski@25 October 2003 - 09:37

most of the programs out today don't utilize the entire cpu, and they still run in 32bit...

Thats true but soon will and also there will be 64 bit OS's.

Why not be prepared.

There is a version of Windows XP 64-Bit out.

[darkewolf]

QUOTE (darkewolf @ 30 October 2003 - 23:44)
QUOTE
ur rite bout the 4 ghz part. some dude at overclockers.com oced his p4 2.4c to 5.0 ghz with water cooling. i think he took apart his cpu and unlocked the multiplier lock that intel puts in their cpus. lol. let's c amd beat that
lets see very many PEOPLE do that!
since this had fallen down to the issue of overclocking.  here's my question:  What's the point?  a modern day CPU that is running over 2.1 gig is already fast as hell.
ok. but let's c amd cpu's beat 5 ghz? even on rare occasions, amd can't go that far. it might, but still needs heavy ocing. so p4 and athlon xp are pretty much the same. only p4 comes out of the box at the labeled speed. athlon 3200 is only at 2.2 ghz, not 3.2

basically what I meant, when I said lets see how many people do that, is lets see how many people have the money to afford the hardware setup for a water cooled system, if they do, how much they pay to have somebody set it up, or it they do it themselves, lets see if they screw it up, and how bad. And then lets see them do all the maintenance on a system like that. Waste of time....even an amd xp 1500 is faster on processing power than the human brain, so why worry about it?

one other thing that I can say about pentium, is look at the Celerons. those were utter crap, because they had no onboard memory. they were slow, they bogged, and they locked. And some of them even burned up. it's (w)intels way of working around expense by seriously cutting quality.

if you have an xp2400 and a intel 2.4 the biggest difference you are going to SEE in actual performance (if any) is going to depend on the architecture of the rest of the mobo. a brain can be superfast, but if the nerves are slow to carry the signals back and forth, that extra speed aint gonna do a lotta good.
also yeah, by clock speeds, an xp2400 IS slower than the 2.4, but by amd's and cnet/pcmagazine, they outperform the comparable 2.4...which is where they got the name xp2400.

the next question...is what is the machine gonna be used for? are you gonna be doing serious 3d architetcure mapping? are you gonna be formulating the newest attempt at AI technology? Prolly not. Prolly gonna be playing games, reading emails, playing tunes/music, taking care of the bills, and surfing the net...which is what the average home user does on their machine. How much processor does that take?