Whats Better Athalon Or Pentium? [Archive]

darkewolf

10-25-2003, 03:45 AM

this is one of those ford vs. chevy debates...or will turn into one.

myself I like AMD, for several reasons, all of which are not tech related, but based off of personal principles. 1) No processor ID chip. 2) Microsoft dont have it's hands in AMD's pockets, like it does Intel. 3) A lot of AMD chips dont cost as much as their wintel equivilents.
supposedly, an amd chip is faster, but at the current speeds of CPU's the only way you are really gonna see much difference is on benchtests.

abu_has_the_power

10-25-2003, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by Wolfmight@21 October 2003 - 05:04
ah, but Althon 64 is VERY pricey. (no one buyin em right now at all)
athlon 64 sucks ass. get a pentium if ur not gonna oc that much. get a amd if u plan to oc a lot. but c, a pentium doesn't need ocing, but a amd does

Evil Gemini

10-25-2003, 03:50 AM

pentium doesn't need ocing, but a amd does

You dont need to overclock an amd

abu_has_the_power

10-25-2003, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by neattairoski@25 October 2003 - 03:50

pentium doesn't need ocing, but a amd does

You dont need to overclock an amd
yea, but a athlon 3200 is actually only like 2.2 or 2.4 ghz. while a pentium 2.4 is 2.4 and 3.2 is 3.2

clocker

10-25-2003, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by abu_has_the_power+24 October 2003 - 20:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (abu_has_the_power @ 24 October 2003 - 20:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-neattairoski@25 October 2003 - 03:50

pentium doesn't need ocing, but a amd does

You dont need to overclock an amd
yea, but a athlon 3200 is actually only like 2.2 or 2.4 ghz. while a pentium 2.4 is 2.4 and 3.2 is 3.2 [/b][/quote]
So what?

The frequency doen't tell the whole story.

abu_has_the_power

10-25-2003, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by clocker+25 October 2003 - 03:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 25 October 2003 - 03:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@24 October 2003 - 20:51
<!--QuoteBegin-neattairoski@25 October 2003 - 03:50

pentium doesn't need ocing, but a amd does

You dont need to overclock an amd
yea, but a athlon 3200 is actually only like 2.2 or 2.4 ghz. while a pentium 2.4 is 2.4 and 3.2 is 3.2
So what?

The frequency doen't tell the whole story. [/b][/quote]
ok, ok, i know amds are great for ocing... and pentiums r 4 noobs i know. but i oc my p4

adamp2p

10-25-2003, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by abu_has_the_power+25 October 2003 - 04:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (abu_has_the_power @ 25 October 2003 - 04:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wolfmight@21 October 2003 - 05:04
ah, but Althon 64 is VERY pricey. (no one buyin em right now at all)
athlon 64 sucks ass. get a pentium if ur not gonna oc that much. get a amd if u plan to oc a lot. but c, a pentium doesn't need ocing, but a amd does [/b][/quote]
nonsense!

Abu, I am sorry, but you have the grammatical skills of an infant.

abu_has_the_power

10-25-2003, 06:12 AM

huh? lol... yea, maybe i do. but the athlon 64 isn't that good. most of the programs out today don't utilize the entire cpu, and they still run in 32bit... and it's crazy expensive. just wait for pentium 5 or watever they'll call it

Evil Gemini

10-25-2003, 09:37 AM

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.

Rocktron

10-25-2003, 09:51 AM

They did some tests a while ago.
Pentium VS AMD

They used 2 pc's,

1st : with a Pentium 2800
2th : with a AMD 2800+
(Both without a cooling fan... lol)

The Pentium melted after a while and died..
The AMD processor melted as well but kept going. :D

I use a AMD Athlon 2800+ and this pc is the most steady pc i have ever bought!
It really is!

AMD is cheaper because of the "Pentium and it's good name" competition.
That's all...

Just make sure you use a special Tower with an extra cooler on the side.
AMD get's a bit hotter than Pentium. ;)

clocker

10-25-2003, 10:18 AM

Rocktron,

Who is "they" and did they intend to destroy the chips?

bigdawgfoxx

10-25-2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Rocktron@25 October 2003 - 09:51

1st : with a Pentium 2800
2th : with a AMD 2800+
(Both without a cooling fan... lol)

The Pentium melted after a while and died..
The AMD processor melted as well but kept going. :D

Ok...I saw the same test..you got it wrong! They tested an AMD duron, AMD athlon, Pentium 4, and a Pentium 3 I believe. None of them had heatsinks or fans. Both AMDs immedialty smoked up and quit. The P4 keept running but at a slower speed. Tomshardware.com did this and have a good video! See if you can find it! The Athlon reached 700 degrees!!!

Damnatory

10-25-2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx+25 October 2003 - 18:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigdawgfoxx @ 25 October 2003 - 18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rocktron@25 October 2003 - 09:51

1st : with a Pentium 2800
2th : with a AMD 2800+
(Both without a cooling fan... lol)

The Pentium melted after a while and died..
The AMD processor melted as well but kept going. :D

Ok...I saw the same test..you got it wrong! They tested an AMD duron, AMD athlon, Pentium 4, and a Pentium 3 I believe. None of them had heatsinks or fans. Both AMDs immedialty smoked up and quit. The P4 keept running but at a slower speed. Tomshardware.com did this and have a good video! See if you can find it! The Athlon reached 700 degrees!!! [/b][/quote]

You can download the movie on this page. Link (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-07.html)
I watched the video that your talking about on Tomshardware.com
All of the processors survived, and the Pentium was the fastest to quit. Pentium quit immediatly after pulling the cooler off. The AMD's lasted 4-5 seconds.
And the AMD only reached 109 degrees. <_<

Nice try though. <_<

bigdawgfoxx

10-25-2003, 08:21 PM

Were not on the same page here lol. Im takling about when they tested a P4, Athlon, another Athlon, and a P3. Not the Athlon 64. Im talking about a diff video. The P4 survived in my video...the Athlon Xp went to 700 degrees and ruined the mobo too.

darkewolf

10-29-2003, 11:17 PM

another reason that the pentium is more expensive is because intel is in med with microsoft, so there's additional paper (the kind with the green ink) work that goes on at the manufacturer level.

another thing to keep in mind, is if you plan to run winNT on the machine...NT does NOT like an athlon processor. Wish I could say more on what all it entails but I've never had to do it, or watched anybody do it. But it takes a bunch of extra work to get it to run on an athlon. I dont THINK that any of the later versions of NT have that prob, but I dunno for sure.

Belial

10-30-2003, 01:48 AM

Ok, first of all it's fairly obvious not many of you have done much research. To clear things up, both companies do things differently to acheive performance. Some things work to their advantage, for instance AMD's 10 stage pipeline kicks ass in business applications while Intel's 20 stage does it up in multimedia related applications.

However, forgetting the Athlon64 for a minute..the XP which is the current P4's head to head competition is completely tapped out. Up until Intel released the P4 "C" processors (800mhz FSB/Hyperthreading) the XP was doing a good job of matching and sometimes taking over in performance tests. However, the "C" processors from Intel have completely walked away from AMD's XP line and any review articles and benchmark statistics will clearly show it.

On the subject of overclocking that too is another area AMD seemed to have owned for quite some time. However, how many AMD processors do you see (normally by many users) overclock more than 1000mhz over its rated speed? Not many if you ask me. It is possible, but not as abundant as P4's. Intel has without a doubt the overclocking crown thus far. (This will change, I'm sure.) Show me an XP that's reached 3.5ghz and I'll be impressed. Then I'll just have to show you the 4ghz+ overclocks P4 users have managed to get.

Also, for AMD's sake in this situation...clock frequencies do not mean everything. Just because Intel has a processor that's 200mhz faster than AMD's doesn't mean it performs better. (We're talking pre-"C" p4's) An XP 2100+ at 1.8ghz/266mhz will keep up with a 2.4ghz/400mhz P4 chip any day of the week. Keep that in mind.

abu_has_the_power

10-30-2003, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by Belial@30 October 2003 - 01:48
Ok, first of all it's fairly obvious not many of you have done much research. To clear things up, both companies do things differently to acheive performance. Some things work to their advantage, for instance AMD's 10 stage pipeline kicks ass in business applications while Intel's 20 stage does it up in multimedia related applications.

However, forgetting the Athlon64 for a minute..the XP which is the current P4's head to head competition is completely tapped out. Up until Intel released the P4 "C" processors (800mhz FSB/Hyperthreading) the XP was doing a good job of matching and sometimes taking over in performance tests. However, the "C" processors from Intel have completely walked away from AMD's XP line and any review articles and benchmark statistics will clearly show it.

On the subject of overclocking that too is another area AMD seemed to have owned for quite some time. However, how many AMD processors do you see (normally by many users) overclock more than 1000mhz over its rated speed? Not many if you ask me. It is possible, but not as abundant as P4's. Intel has without a doubt the overclocking crown thus far. (This will change, I'm sure.) Show me an XP that's reached 3.5ghz and I'll be impressed. Then I'll just have to show you the 4ghz+ overclocks P4 users have managed to get.

Also, for AMD's sake in this situation...clock frequencies do not mean everything. Just because Intel has a processor that's 200mhz faster than AMD's doesn't mean it performs better. (We're talking pre-"C" p4's) An XP 2100+ at 1.8ghz/266mhz will keep up with a 2.4ghz/400mhz P4 chip any day of the week. Keep that in mind.
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

darkewolf

10-30-2003, 11:44 PM

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.

ObLiViOuS_1.0

10-30-2003, 11:46 PM

well it sortof depends on what pentium your using but a p4 is way better than an athalon so i guess my final choice would be a pentium

lol athalon :blink: :blink: :blink:

abu_has_the_power

10-31-2003, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by darkewolf@30 October 2003 - 23:44

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

Virtualbody1234

10-31-2003, 12:21 AM

@ abu_has_no_power, Can you show us where you saw that P4 running at 5 GHz ?

And how did this topic get to be about overclocking anyway ?

adamp2p

10-31-2003, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@31 October 2003 - 01:21
@ abu_has_no_power, Can you show us where you saw that P4 running at 5 GHz ?

And how did this topic get to be about overclocking anyway ?
Virualbody, at no offense to abu (has the power) is probably 8 years old.

Everybody who knows anything about hardware knows that you can build a powerful system with both Intel CPUs and AMD CPUs.

AMD is leading in the performance/price war thanks to their remarkable Athlon 64 FX-51--which is able to run 32 bit (and 64 bit to boot) faster than Intel's fastest chip. But don't try to tell Intel that--because they are selling that extreme (rip off) editon for almost a grand when you can get an FX51 for about $500.

What will be exiting to see will be the new Prescott CPUs vs the FX51 and its brothers.

But there is no argument (except maybe from an 8 year old who thinks that "see" is spelled "c") that $85 is less than $200. I am speaking of the Barton 2500+ CPU from AMD in comparison to the Intel 2.4C. Hell, to get similar performance from Intel, you would have to sacrifice a motherboard and memory. With the money you save from buying an Intel microprocessor, you could afford a mobo and ram with your equally performing AMD chip.

Make sense? B)

abu_has_the_power

10-31-2003, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by adamp2p+31 October 2003 - 00:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (adamp2p @ 31 October 2003 - 00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Virtualbody1234@31 October 2003 - 01:21
@ abu_has_no_power, Can you show us where you saw that P4 running at 5 GHz ?

And how did this topic get to be about overclocking anyway ?
Virualbody, at no offense to abu (has the power) is probably 8 years old.

Everybody who knows anything about hardware knows that you can build a powerful system with both Intel CPUs and AMD CPUs.

AMD is leading in the performance/price war thanks to their remarkable Athlon 64 FX-51--which is able to run 32 bit (and 64 bit to boot) faster than Intel's fastest chip. But don't try to tell Intel that--because they are selling that extreme (rip off) editon for almost a grand when you can get an FX51 for about $500.

What will be exiting to see will be the new Prescott CPUs vs the FX51 and its brothers.

But there is no argument (except maybe from an 8 year old who thinks that "see" is spelled "c") that $85 is less than $200. I am speaking of the Barton 2500+ CPU from AMD in comparison to the Intel 2.4C. Hell, to get similar performance from Intel, you would have to sacrifice a motherboard and memory. With the money you save from buying an Intel microprocessor, you could afford a mobo and ram with your equally performing AMD chip.

Make sense? B) [/b][/quote]
yes. i'm 8 years old and i'm on this board. (sarcastic). ok, yea, i admit it. amd's have it's good points, and p4's have theirs. i just think p4's are easier and more than often, the expensive ends up being the better.

and yea, it was in the forum at overclockers.com, or maybe the australian version, but one of those. i know, things like that are very rare, but it still happens. and i'm pretty sure amd's can do that to, just no one has tried yet.

ok, amd's are just as good as p4's, ok?

and no, i'm not 8 yrs old. i prefer to keep my age private, just becuz it's easier that way

EDIT: wait, r u talking bout virtualbody or me?

Virtualbody1234

10-31-2003, 02:18 AM

So where is the article, abu_has_no_power ?

You obviously have no idea what your talking about.

abu_has_the_power

10-31-2003, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@31 October 2003 - 02:18
So where is the article, abu_has_no_power ?

You obviously have no idea what your talking about.
it was a thread on their forum. i just came across it a couple months ago. u feel like searching for it, be my guest. i'm kinda busy rite now

Virtualbody1234

10-31-2003, 03:28 AM

You're the one who mentioned it. I would like to see that article.

You say that there was someone who overclocked a P4 - 2.4 GHz to 5.0 GHz with water cooling ? If you don't have the article to back-up your statement then all I can say is stop posting misinformation here in HardwareWorld.

I have seen your misleading information here before. This place won't be helpful or a reliable source for hardware support if you keep posting like you do.

Don't post if you don't know what you're posting about. :P

abu_has_the_power

10-31-2003, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@31 October 2003 - 03:28
You're the one who mentioned it. I would like to see that article.

You say that there was someone who overclocked a P4 - 2.4 GHz to 5.0 GHz with water cooling ? If you don't have the article to back-up your statement then all I can say is stop posting misinformation here in HardwareWorld.

I have seen your misleading information here before. This place won't be helpful or a reliable source for hardware support if you keep posting like you do.

Don't post if you don't know what you're posting about. :P
where have i posted like u say i do b4? ok, it might have been 4.5 or so. but around 5, that's for sure, or else it wouldn't have stuck in my mind for so long.

johnboy27

10-31-2003, 04:51 AM

I personally like AMD. I payed 90 bucks for my retail Athlon XP 2200+,for the equivalent P4 I would have payed near 400 bucks(canadian).I built my whole system for less than 700 bucks including my sound system game controllers etc.This would not have been possible if I had gone with the pentium.
My mother in law had a P4 1.6 gig comp with 256 md DDR and mine blows the thing right out of the water,hers is absolutely no comparison to mine even when mine is not overclocked.
This debate all comes down to brand loyalty,some like Intel,some like AMD. I will likely always go AMD simply because of the performance to cost ratio.

abu_has_the_power

10-31-2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by johnboy27@31 October 2003 - 04:51
I personally like AMD. I payed 90 bucks for my retail Athlon XP 2200+,for the equivalent P4 I would have payed near 400 bucks(canadian).I built my whole system for less than 700 bucks including my sound system game controllers etc.This would not have been possible if I had gone with the pentium.
My mother in law had a P4 1.6 gig comp with 256 md DDR and mine blows the thing right out of the water,hers is absolutely no comparison to mine even when mine is not overclocked.
This debate all comes down to brand loyalty,some like Intel,some like AMD. I will likely always go AMD simply because of the performance to cost ratio.
and when did u build this comp? i got my comp in august. i thought i might try out one of the resellers and c wat they can come up with.
here's my comp:

P4 2.4c (800 FSB)
Powercolor 865APE mobo
512 PC3200 Dual Channel
Maxtor 120 gb
Gforce FX 5200 128mb w/ TV Out and DVI
6-1 Card reader thingy
Blue neon light

and i paid $646.

Virtualbody1234

10-31-2003, 01:31 PM

You can't win an argument with a P4 against the Athlon XP if you include price.

That $646 compared to his $700 ? Just remember that's your US dollars vs his Canadian dollars.

abu_has_the_power

10-31-2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@31 October 2003 - 13:31
You can't win an argument with a P4 against the Athlon XP if you include price.

That $646 compared to his $700 ? Just remember that's your US dollars vs his Canadian dollars.
oh, tat's canadian. sory dude. ok, yea, the p4 was more expensive.

johnboy27

10-31-2003, 05:14 PM

yeah just think,our dollar is only worth 75 cents in the US.So that would meen that mine cost 525 American to build.Mine is including everything.
Here is what I got for my money.
Athlonxp 2200+
Volcanoe 9 heatsink and fan
Shuttle AK32A mobo
Radeon 7500 video card
viewsonic monitor
LG CD-RW/DVD drive
floppy
80 gig samsung hard drive
Nikao case
300 watt PSU
keyboard and mouse
Canon BJC-2100 printer
512 mb PC2100 DDR
Diamond sound card
Logitech Z-540 speakers
logitech wingman rumblepad
nic card
modem
intel webcam
hp 1000 scanner

That's all I can think of for now,I know there is more.I think I did very well with my shopping around to get all this.

SciManAl

10-31-2003, 09:16 PM

damn that is sweet for how much you paid nice shopping!!! i can only gawk at the stuff you got... WOW!

fr600

10-31-2003, 09:57 PM

Obviously its Pentium!!!

abu_has_the_power

10-31-2003, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by fr600@31 October 2003 - 21:57
Obviously its Pentium!!!
yea. someone's openly backing me up. thanks man. no matter wat, i would still go with pentiums. they may be more expensive, but how many servers, big servers are run on amds? most of them are run on intel xeon or p4

bigdawgfoxx

10-31-2003, 11:06 PM

First off, I would like to say that the furom looks pimp with the halloween shit! lol.

Ok abu your right about that last thing that most servers are running on the Xeon, but I do think alot of servers will be using the Opteron and the AMD 64 more often. Still Intel leads there. Ok Intels run cooler, faster (clockspeed wise), and just have a better name. Amd is also good. THEY ARE FREAKING CHEAP. Thats what I love, I can buy a kick ass cpu for 80 bux! I used to HATE AMD, and yes I mean HATE. My friends that had AMD I would let them have it about how amd is horrible. Now I know that amd is fine, and if i buy a new computer, it will prob be amd based!

P.S! What the fuck good does it do to fight on here? The guy that started this wants a little help!, not to see a few people bicker. They both are good now get over it!

Virtualbody1234

11-01-2003, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by abu_has_the_power+31 October 2003 - 18:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (abu_has_the_power @ 31 October 2003 - 18:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-fr600@31 October 2003 - 21:57
Obviously its Pentium!!!
yea. someone's openly backing me up. thanks man. no matter wat, i would still go with pentiums. they may be more expensive, but how many servers, big servers are run on amds? most of them are run on intel xeon or p4[/b][/quote]
So, abu_has_no_power, do you base this on your alleged extensive knowledge about servers or are you just spewing bullshit again?

Don't post if you don't know what you're posting about.

zapjb

11-01-2003, 06:40 AM

AMD with my money. Intel with lotto winnings. :lol:

abu_has_the_power

11-01-2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Virtualbody1234+1 November 2003 - 01:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Virtualbody1234 @ 1 November 2003 - 01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@31 October 2003 - 18:04
<!--QuoteBegin-fr600@31 October 2003 - 21:57
Obviously its Pentium!!!
yea. someone's openly backing me up. thanks man. no matter wat, i would still go with pentiums. they may be more expensive, but how many servers, big servers are run on amds? most of them are run on intel xeon or p4
So, abu_has_no_power, do you base this on your alleged extensive knowledge about servers or are you just spewing bullshit again?

Don't post if you don't know what you're posting about. [/b][/quote]
if i am, then my apologies. but let's all say that they're equaly good. ok?

Lamsey

11-01-2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by fr600@31 October 2003 - 21:57
Obviously its Pentium!!!
Ah, a well-balanced argument, backed up by clearly-defined reasoning with good, solid evidence.

How refreshing.

[/sarcasm]

Neo 721

11-01-2003, 08:15 PM

Its kind of pathetic that the only argument people can find is the value for money, if clock speed was issue then Athlon would still be kings and have no competitions.

It would be nice if a mod could make this into a poll.

Lamsey

11-01-2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Neo 721@1 November 2003 - 20:15
Its kind of pathetic that the only argument people can find is the value for money, if clock speed was issue then Athlon would still be kings and have no competitions.
Clock speed - uh, no, Intel is capable of producing processors with much faster clock speeds than AMD can.

If you're talking about performance, the actual differences between equivalent processors (eg P4 2.4GHz vs Athlon 2400+) are negligible, apart from one factor. Price.

And it can't be made into a reasonable poll, because there are too many people who just go
AMD ownz Intel, I have an Athlon 2000+ and it kicks my friend's P4 3.06's ass
or

Intel r and always will b teh 1337. U need 2 overclock those crappy AMD chips then dey get burned

- so a poll wouldn't tell you much, other than which company's marketing department is doing better. People who are well-informed about x86 processors seem to be pretty thin on the ground :blink:

Neo 721

11-01-2003, 09:53 PM

I kinda didnt spell it out right, if you were to compare the performance of an Intel and AMD with the same clockspeed then the AMD would be well superior over Intel.

Lamsey

11-01-2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Neo 721@1 November 2003 - 21:53
I kinda didnt spell it out right, if you were to compare the performance of an Intel and AMD with the same clockspeed then the AMD would be well superior over Intel.
So? AMD are incapable of running their chips at the same clockspeeds as Intel P4s.

Clock speed is only one part of a large equation. It doesn't matter, it is not a measure of speed.

Saying something's faster or slower based entirely on clock speed is like comparing an octopus to a horse - what you're saying is like "a horse would be massively faster if it had 8 legs". That's not possible; neither is having an Athlon running at P4 clock speeds.

Benno

11-01-2003, 11:19 PM

Lamsey I think you missunderstood his statement. I think he meant if you compare a Athlon running at e.g. 2 Ghz and a P4 running at 2Ghz as well then the athlon will be faster BECAUSE of what you said.

Clock speed is only one part of a large equation. It doesn't matter, it is not a measure of speed.

Lamsey

11-01-2003, 11:31 PM

I understood perfectly.

What I'm saying is clock speed doesn't matter. Who gives a damn if Athlons can do more per clock cycle than a P4? P4s can do more clock cycles. It evens out.

The only factors you should be interested in when looking at processors are price and performance. Ideally, you should look at how well the two compare.

Clock speed tells you very little about performance. It only gives you a rough idea. a 2GHz Intel chip is middle-of-the-road while a 2GHz AMD chip is high-end. Clock speed doesn't matter in real life.

abu_has_the_power

11-02-2003, 12:07 AM

well, in one case, with exact same components, vd card, memory, and everything are the same, amd's tend to do similar to p4's, but the amd's have to be oced to perform the same in benchmarks like 3dmark or aquamark. yes, amd's are very cheap, but like someone said up there, u have to buy good support parts, like mobo and ram, to back up the ocing of the amd so that it'll match the power of a p4. but the p4 is more expensive, although u don't ahve to spend that much on support parts like mobo and ram. so i would say that THEY'RE BOTH THE SAME!!!!

Lamsey

11-02-2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@2 November 2003 - 00:07
well, in one case, with exact same components, vd card, memory, and everything are the same, amd's tend to do similar to p4's, but the amd's have to be oced to perform the same in benchmarks like 3dmark or aquamark. yes, amd's are very cheap, but like someone said up there, u have to buy good support parts, like mobo and ram, to back up the ocing of the amd so that it'll match the power of a p4. but the p4 is more expensive, although u don't ahve to spend that much on support parts like mobo and ram. so i would say that THEY'RE BOTH THE SAME!!!!
One word. Bullshit.

You do not have to overclock the AMD Athlon XP. Learn this.

abu_has_the_power

11-02-2003, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by Lamsey+2 November 2003 - 00:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey @ 2 November 2003 - 00:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-abu_has_the_power@2 November 2003 - 00:07
well, in one case, with exact same components, vd card, memory, and everything are the same, amd's tend to do similar to p4's, but the amd's have to be oced to perform the same in benchmarks like 3dmark or aquamark. yes, amd's are very cheap, but like someone said up there, u have to buy good support parts, like mobo and ram, to back up the ocing of the amd so that it'll match the power of a p4. but the p4 is more expensive, although u don't ahve to spend that much on support parts like mobo and ram. so i would say that THEY'RE BOTH THE SAME!!!!
One word. Bullshit.

You do not have to overclock the AMD Athlon XP. Learn this. [/b][/quote]
yea, i know u don't need to oc. but performance with exact same parts tend to be somewhat lower than the p4. and price wise, if u look at the BIG picture, prices are similar.

this discussion is getting a little heated up. who wants a beer? ;) :D

ok, lamsey, ur the hardware mod, so i won't argue with u. i have no grudge against amds. ok? so i'll shut up bout how good p4's are. ok?

Virtualbody1234

11-02-2003, 12:21 AM

Bullshit again, abu_has_no_power ???

A XP 2400+ and a P4 2.4 with the same setup will perform almost identically.

Not overclocking.

Some benchmarks will show the P4 ahead.
and some will show the XP 2400+ ahead.

It depends on what strenths are being tested by the benchmarks.

So one again, abu.

You obviously have no idea what your talking about.

Don't post if you don't know what you're posting about.

Lamsey

11-02-2003, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@2 November 2003 - 00:12
yea, i know u don't need to oc. but performance with exact same parts tend to be somewhat lower than the p4. and price wise, if u look at the BIG picture, prices are similar.

this discussion is getting a little heated up. who wants a beer? ;) :D

ok, lamsey, ur the hardware mod, so i won't argue with u. i have no grudge against amds. ok? so i'll shut up bout how good p4's are. ok?
I'm not the hardware mod, I just happen to post here. However, anyone with any idea about hardware will be able to tell you that what you're posting is utter codswallop.

Don't post unless you know what you're talking about and can provide evidence. If you do post rubbish like that, it misleads people who are looking for genuine information.

And it takes a lot more than spouting bull about processors to get me pissed off, mate, but I'll take a Morgan's and Coke if you're offering.

abu_has_the_power

11-02-2003, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Lamsey+2 November 2003 - 00:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey @ 2 November 2003 - 00:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-abu_has_the_power@2 November 2003 - 00:12
yea, i know u don't need to oc. but performance with exact same parts tend to be somewhat lower than the p4. and price wise, if u look at the BIG picture, prices are similar.

this discussion is getting a little heated up. who wants a beer? ;)  :D

ok, lamsey, ur the hardware mod, so i won't argue with u. i have no grudge against amds. ok? so i'll shut up bout how good p4's are. ok?
I'm not the hardware mod, I just happen to post here. However, anyone with any idea about hardware will be able to tell you that what you're posting is utter codswallop.

Don't post unless you know what you're talking about and can provide evidence. If you do post rubbish like that, it misleads people who are looking for genuine information.

And it takes a lot more than spouting bull about processors to get me pissed off, mate, but I'll take a Morgan's and Coke if you're offering. [/b][/quote]
ok. i just don't think people should say amd is better than p4, and now, i'm convinced that p4's arn't tat much different than amds. now, let's c, i got coke, miller lite, barcardi, and some left over apple juice. let's all have a party! :beerchug:

adamp2p

11-02-2003, 01:09 AM

utter codswallop.

:lol: :lol:

Virtualbody1234

11-02-2003, 01:14 AM

i just don't think people should say amd is better than p4
We didn't say it was better. We just said it's less expensive for similar performance.

now, let's c, i got coke, miller lite, barcardi, and some left over apple juice. let's all have a party!
You want to party? Go to the lounge.

scribblec

11-02-2003, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@2 November 2003 - 01:14

i just don't think people should say amd is better than p4
We didn't say it was better. We just said it's less expensive for similar performance.

now, let's c, i got coke, miller lite, barcardi, and some left over apple juice. let's all have a party!
You want to party? Go to the lounge.
well said

so my amd is good then

cos i only got it cos it was cheaper with the computer deal.i actually did want a pentium cos it seemed much more like it was better but i just neva had the money which for once is a good thing

johnboy27

11-02-2003, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@2 November 2003 - 01:07
well, in one case, with exact same components, vd card, memory, and everything are the same, amd's tend to do similar to p4's, but the amd's have to be oced to perform the same in benchmarks like 3dmark or aquamark. yes, amd's are very cheap, but like someone said up there, u have to buy good support parts, like mobo and ram, to back up the ocing of the amd so that it'll match the power of a p4. but the p4 is more expensive, although u don't ahve to spend that much on support parts like mobo and ram. so i would say that THEY'RE BOTH THE SAME!!!!
That's a crock of shit,or should I say utter codswallop (shit i laughed when I read that).My notherboard is basically bottom of the line,not even offered for sale anymore from SHuttle,I am running generic ram and my system work pretty much flawlessly when it is overclocked or even when it is not overclocked.In total I paid $90(CPU),$80(ram),$80(mobo) canadian with my 15% sales tax included.so that comes to a whopping $195 American for all three.That is super cheap ,I checked around on the web and the prices I saw for a P4 1.8ghz CPU(closest equivalent to my CPU clock speed wise) was $145 American + shipping so that would leave you with about 35 bucks for a mobo and ram.Good luck.For the difference in price I could have upgraded to an XP 2500+.
Do you see where we are going with the price and performance debate.
Sure intels are good,maybe great performers but that is if you have all kinds of money to throw around or if you buy what the older folks tell you to buy because they are still mislead by the old "AMD's are garbage,they burn up yadaa yadaa yadaa".

abu_has_the_power

11-02-2003, 06:12 AM

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

11-02-2003, 11:02 AM

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

11-02-2003, 12:08 PM

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

11-02-2003, 01:42 PM

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.... :P

Neo 721

11-02-2003, 02:57 PM

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

Mad Cat

11-02-2003, 03:49 PM

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

11-03-2003, 04:32 AM

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?