Whats Better Athalon Or Pentium?

Quote:

---

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

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 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

@ 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 ?

Quote:

---

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)

Quote:

---

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 &#064; 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&#39;s fastest chip. But don&#39;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 &#036;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 &#036;85 is less than &#036;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&#39;m 8 years old and i&#39;m on this board. (sarcastic). ok, yea, i admit it. amd&#39;s have it&#39;s good points, and p4&#39;s have theirs. i just think p4&#39;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&#39;m pretty sure amd&#39;s can do that to, just no one has tried yet.

ok, amd&#39;s are just as good as p4&#39;s, ok?

and no, i&#39;m not 8 yrs old. i prefer to keep my age private, just becuz it&#39;s easier that way

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

So where is the article, abu_has_no_power ?

You obviously have no idea what your talking about.

Quote:

---

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&#39;m kinda busy rite now

You&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t be helpful or a reliable source for hardware support if you keep posting like you do.

Don&#39;t post if you don&#39;t know what you&#39;re posting about. :P