Pentium V Amd

[Rodders]

Hello i was just wondering what you thought was the best. Most people that i know use a pentium but i have an AMD and was just wondering you opinions on this kind of stuff.

ATM im running
AMD Athlon XP2600+
512md ddr
geforce 440se 64mb ddr/ tv out
and a 60 gb hard drive

And i am quite happy with what im running for now lol i just wish that i had got a bigger hard drive thats all.
:P :D B)

[ilw]

I think at the moment AMD is slightly losing the speed race, their most recent chips have all been "aggressively" named (ie the speeds they claim are a bit overrated) and Pentium Iv's hyperthreading means that theres currently a definite gap at the top end. However, AMD's make perfect lower budget chips. I personally hope AMD's new 64bit chip really takes off.

[DarthInsinuate]

AMD is slightly slower, and has less features - but cheap = good

[Rodders]

Yes i know what you meen about when they claim to have higher speeds than are capable. Like i say im running a 2600+ but to a pentium thats only like a 2.2gh i think so im not really getting that speed.

Any way nice to know your opinions
:) :D

[ilw]

No I'm not saying about the ratings system used by AMD ie 2600 XP actuallyy runs at 2.1Ghz or whatever. This is a fairly accurate way of comparing XP's to Pentium IV's ie 2600 Athlong is roughly equal (not quite as good) to a Pentium 2.6GHz. What i'm talking about is the AMD 3000 and 3200 which apparently do not meet the benchmarks they should, basically AMD overrated them so that it doesnt look like they're falling behind Intel.

[Rodders]

Oh right i see whet you mean. So the point is don't go out an buy an AMD 3000 and 3200 lol i confuse my self some times hahaha.

[Lamsey]

You actually won't really notice the difference between an Athlon Xp 3000+ and a P4 3.06GHz unless you are looking at a benchmark.
In actual use of the chips, the difference is indetectable.

As for the model rating, the model rating reflects how fast the chip is in comparison to the clock speed of an equivalent first-generation Athlon. The recent optimisations made by Intel to the P4 series means they are now slightly more effiecient than the original Athlon clock-for-clock, so the 3200+ isn't actually the exact equivalent of a P4 3.2GHz. It's still very close though.

[ilw]

I heard that even compared to the first gen 1GHz Athlon the XP3000's were overrated.
Check it out here http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/.../barton-23.html (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/barton-23.html)

[Neo 721]

The AMD is a more efficient processer because it is capable of carrying out greater amounts of infomation at one time than the Pentium. This may seen wierd as the P4 is wining at the moment but the only reason for this is that Intel have in panic went right the way to 3.2ghz in case they lost reputation. But If the AMD was clocked 3.2 ghz it would whip the P4, bearing in mind that the benchmark score of the P4 is only slighly higher then that of the Athlon, the Athlon is only clocked at just over 2GHZ which does show doesnt it!

To measure the comparison of the two
The pentium is somone riding a bike furiosly strugling
The AMD is someone riding in high gear with ease.

So the AMD is clearly better.

[Lamsey]

Originally posted by Neo 721@23 July 2003 - 16:29
The AMD is a more efficient processer because it is capable of carrying out greater amounts of infomation at one time than the Pentium. This may seen wierd as the P4 is wining at the moment but the only reason for this is that Intel have in panic went right the way to 3.2ghz in case they lost reputation. But If the AMD was clocked 3.2 ghz it would whip the P4, bearing in mind that the benchmark score of the P4 is only slighly higher then that of the Athlon, the Athlon is only clocked at just over 2GHZ which does show doesnt it!

To measure the comparison of the two
The pentium is somone riding a bike furiosly strugling
The AMD is someone riding in high gear with ease.

So the AMD is clearly better.
No, the AMD chips are just more effiecient.

AMD use a chainsaw to crack a nutshell.
Intel chips use a sledgehammer (no pun intended).

The end result is still the same and is what matters, and to tell the truth, the difference between the two is negligible - except when you look at the price tag.

[Will_518]

There isn't much of a difference between the two, but from what i heard Pentium is better for games, simply because more games are tested and optimised for pentium.
AMD 2600+ Vs P4 2.6GHz -- no noticable difference.
i say lot's wait and see what the next generation has to offer, both AMD XP and P4 are now probably at their best clock rate, i think we are not far from the P5 or AMD YQ CPUs.

[bigdawgfoxx]

The P4 chip at 2.6 and the AMD 2600 have a pretty big difference....almost 30 points on toms hardware benchmarks...Benchmarks (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-32.html)

[ilw]

I can't figure out why, but they're using 266 DDR ram with the 2600(everything else gets 333). It might be because they're using the old athlon 2600 with the 266 FSB, the newer version performs significantly better, (a bit worse than the 2700) even so the 2.6GHz intel is probably still better on nearly all the benchmarks

[Neo 721]

I think the intro of the Barton was when they started using 333 ram, however it could be just another scam to pull money out of people.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by Neo 721@27 July 2003 - 20:37
I think the intro of the Barton was when they started using 333 ram, however it could be just another scam to pull money out of people.
well, i have an athlon 2700 with 333MHz fsb, so 333MHz fsb was available on this before barton cores came out...

[Neo 721]

What i said only applied to the earlier processors