What would be as reson for me to get a AMD instead of a Pentium?
pls gimme ur opinion
Printable View
What would be as reson for me to get a AMD instead of a Pentium?
pls gimme ur opinion
$
This is a very commonly asked question.
What it comes down to is your budget.
AMD is the best bang for buck. Period.
Intel Pentium 4 is at the end of its life, is optimized for most programs, and is very cheap if purchased refurbished from a major computer manufacturer, like Dell Inc.
The real issue is your budget. What is your budget? Let us know so we can help you make a decision. Probably read through some articles regarding benchmarks to make your decision.
Is there any AMD's equalvalent to the Pentium 4 3ghz 800mhz? and any of those special features like "hyper threading" (is that even any good)? I use my computer for gaming
AMD Athlon "Barton" XP3000+ 333FSB
Or
AMD Athlon "Barton" XP3200+ 400FSB ?
No AMD's have hyperthreading, hyperthreading does produce some performance increase (not a huge increase) if the program has been designed to use it and some future (and i think some coming out fairly soon) games will be designed to use it
Bang for it's buck.... now someone correct me A AMD Athlon XP 3200+ 2.2ghz 400fsb is more pricey than a Penitum 4 3.0ghz 800fsb what...? so that means amd is better cuz its more pricier or what how is AMD more bang for its buck?
the 3000 doesn't quite match the Pentium 3GHz so i mentioned the next one up which is the 3200. however the 3200 is supposed to compete with the Pentium 3.2 GHz which is about 200quid more expensive than the AMD 3200.
AMD's Athlon XP 3200+ is very new, while the P4 3.06GHz HT has been around for a while. So the initial high price of the new Athlon is yet to drop down below the level of the Intel chip, which it will.Quote:
Originally posted by Keikan@25 July 2003 - 08:51
Bang for it's buck.... now someone correct me A AMD Athlon XP 3200+ 2.2ghz 400fsb is more pricey than a Penitum 4 3.0ghz 800fsb what...? so that means amd is better cuz its more pricier or what how is AMD more bang for its buck?
I live in canada and the highest processers are the ones i listed above but still how is AMD a bang for its buck I don't get it in a way unless your talking about those 2800+ processers i mean like :huh: i don't get it. I mean like you said 3000+ don't match up so i really don't get it...
I think u might be mixing up the older 3.06 and the newer 3.0 Ghz
and like i said the 3200 is supposed to compete with the intel of the same rating ie 3.2Ghz , but its definitely behind in performance
yeah at the moment AMD's 2 highest chips are cheaper buy not as good as their Intel equivalents. So bang for buck they're close. Anything below a 3000 and the AMD is almost identical to the Intel, but loads cheaper so u get more for ur money
I would recomend to everyone to just wait for the new AMD 64 bit opterons to apear in numbers because theres bound to be a noticable performance increase, going from 32bit to 64.
when i bought my new system i went for amd
it wasn't anything to do with money at all, i just thought amd was better for gaming.
at the same clock speeds for amd and pentium, the amd owns the pentium (i don't like that word, but it's fitting).
pentium's ethos in chip design seems to be "no replacement for displacement" (or "no replacement for high clock speeds"), whereas amd aim for high efficiency from lower clock speeds.
this amd vs intel battle is very much like american cars vs the rest of the world.
americans are content churning out 8 litre engines producing 450hp, while japan, italy, uk etc are producing smaller engines with similar power outputs (e.g. McLaren F1: 6.1 litre, 627bhp. ferrari enzo: 6.0 litre, 660bhp. nissan skyline r34-gtr: 2.6 litre, 300bhp)
ok basicly the AMD says like 2800XP+...and it makes people think its clocked at like 2.8 Ghz....NOT it might be clocked at around 2.5 or 2.6...but not 2.8...Intel on the other hand tells you straight out...3.2 means 3.2....and the 3.2 intel whoops the amd 3200....im always having an intel sticker on my case :D :D
Okay I will sum it up for you...
Let's take a quick look at the Intel Celeron Line. What garbage...
No offense big dog and others with the celeron, but 128 kb of level 2 cache is puny. What is comes down to with performance/cost ratios is you can get a an excellent performing AMD chip for the price of a Intel Celeron at whatever gigahertz.
With most configs, it is actually cheaper to buy a new computer from a manfacturer, unless, of course, you buy AMD. That is the only way to beat the market.
As far as across the board performance, nobody will argue that Intel is the leader. But what is comes down to this: is the difference really noticeable enough at this juncture? The answer is no.
Why are we looking at Celeron nody told me why AMD is better. :ph34r:
clock speed (gigahertz) is not the way to measure the performance of a CPU.Quote:
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@30 July 2003 - 01:47
ok basicly the AMD says like 2800XP+...and it makes people think its clocked at like 2.8 Ghz....NOT it might be clocked at around 2.5 or 2.6...but not 2.8...Intel on the other hand tells you straight out...3.2 means 3.2....and the 3.2 intel whoops the amd 3200....im always having an intel sticker on my case :D :D
Thats what the AMD site says but anyways so the AMD 3200+ 400fsb IS better than the Intel pentium 4 3.0ghz 800fsb for gaming???Quote:
Originally posted by Lamsey@30 July 2003 - 01:39
clock speed (gigahertz) is not the way to measure the performance of a CPU.
nope in all the benchmarks the Intel 3GHz spanks even the amd 3200 silly. By Toms hardware benchmarks they reckoned the 3200 should be called a 2800
I know clock speed isnt it all and you need to look at benchmarks....but if your comparing those 2 you might not want to...ull fall in love with intel immediatly..hahaha but like my point was just that 2800 doesnt mean 2.8 like alot of people think
@bigdawgfoxx: what's a pentium celeron ?
Do you mean an Intel celeron 566 ?
Or they could use Amd naming and call it a pentium 350-.
Intel have a higher cache, AMD pose 256-512KB but Intel have 1MB Level 2 cache. Intel clock speeds tend to be higher, I haven't seen an AMD clocked at 3.06GHz. And as well as that Intel have better overclocking facilities, I have seen a 3.06GHz Pentium Xeon overclocked to 3.71GHz, that's 650MHz!
AMD is inferior to Intel power wise but AMD is cheaper. i have read sites where they tested them and yes Pentium are the highest power quality there is but AMD are cheaper price wise i myself will always use Pentium up until sony releases the Cell (1 teraFLOPS YAY!!!) :D . if u want performance go with Pentium if u r on a budget go to AMD.
the CELL?? 1 TERAFLOP?? what the hell???
The Athlon XP 3200+ is 2.2GHz, and uses the new Barton core. I've heard it's not giving the performance increase that AMD was hoping for.Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@30 July 2003 - 10:16
nope in all the benchmarks the Intel 3GHz spanks even the amd 3200 silly. By Toms hardware benchmarks they reckoned the 3200 should be called a 2800
I dont think 3200+ is 2.2 Ghz...give it a LITTLE more credit then that..even though i dont like amd much lol
its a Sony/IBM Processor first to be implemented into the Ps3 then later into Computers, will be capable of i TeraFlop look up that if u want more info.Quote:
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@30 July 2003 - 12:15
the CELL?? 1 TERAFLOP?? what the hell???
AMD and Intel have different caching systems... what is present in L1 cache in a P4 is also present in L2, whereas in AMD systems they use a system that doesn't allow duplication between caches.Quote:
Originally posted by Amarjit@30 July 2003 - 19:10
Intel have a higher cache, AMD pose 256-512KB but Intel have 1MB Level 2 cache. Intel clock speeds tend to be higher, I haven't seen an AMD clocked at 3.06GHz. And as well as that Intel have better overclocking facilities, I have seen a 3.06GHz Pentium Xeon overclocked to 3.71GHz, that's 650MHz!
Which is more efficient? Look at AMD's performance per clock cycle and you will see.
Who actually needs a 3.0 ghz? The AMD is much much cheaper and is quite fast..
Who needs a top-of-the-line processor anyway?
at my local supplier:
AMD Athlon XP 2000+ = £40
AMD Athlon XP 3000+ = £189
over four times the price for only 1.5 times the performance? I don't think so.
exactly what im saying... soon we'll have 5.0 ghz processors and then well be saying 3 ghz is slow..
Yes, yes, now let's clear up a couple of things. For one thing, only the Pentium "M" has 1 megabyte of level 2 cache. All other pentiums have 512 kilobytes of level two cache, or less.
Second, if you have been following the news, you will see that Intel is actually using AMD's strategy with the M series chips; "the clock speed is not the sole indicator of performance of the processor" is an AMD refrain.
The best AMD chip is the Barton line. The reason why it can compete with Pentium in the first place is because of not only having 512 kb of level two cache, the Barton also has 128 kb of level one cache. All of this cache implies slower clock speeds give excellent performance.
The Pentium is a better performing chip, nobody will argue about that.
But if you take at look at AMD's budget and how well they do with it, it is astounding. We owe AMD for a lot. I remember when AMD was whooping Intel's a*s. You see that is amazing when you think about it. AMD has less than 1/10 of the R&D unit that Intel has and the fact that they are so competitive gives you a hint about their efficiency. I tip my hat to AMD, although I am an Intel user. B)
hmmm...don't think this is quite accurate...Quote:
Originally posted by Lamsey@30 July 2003 - 23:52
over four times the price for only 1.5 times the performance? I don't think so.
didn't you just say that clock speed wasn't the best measure of performance?
hmmm...don't think this is quite accurate...Quote:
Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+31 July 2003 - 00:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 31 July 2003 - 00:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lamsey@30 July 2003 - 23:52
over four times the price for only 1.5 times the performance? I don't think so.
didn't you just say that clock speed wasn't the best measure of performance? [/b][/quote]
read my post again. :rolleyes:
i was simply mentioning that the performance of a 3000+ cpu isn't necessarily 1.5 times that of a 2000+Quote:
Originally posted by Lamsey@31 July 2003 - 00:55
read my post again. :rolleyes:
i was simply mentioning that the performance of a 3000+ cpu isn't necessarily 1.5 times that of a 2000+ [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+31 July 2003 - 01:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 31 July 2003 - 01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lamsey@31 July 2003 - 00:55
read my post again. :rolleyes:
It's as near as dammit.
Forgive me for not going and looking up benchmarks, then posting that it is actually 1.466666666666666667 times faster.
(that's not a real statistic btw)
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-22.html
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-23.html
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-24.html
oh, well
i suppose a difference of 3000 in 3d mark isn't really that much
<_<
:o
Intel all the way. If you got the pockets for it.
You will want 3ghz if you don't want to upgrade that soon.Quote:
Originally posted by mogadishu@30 July 2003 - 15:46
Who actually needs a 3.0 ghz? The AMD is much much cheaper and is quite fast..
Geez. Do a little research, would you... High-Flying: AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Squares Off Against Intel P4 3 GHz -> Comparing All Athlon XP CPUsQuote:
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@30 July 2003 - 21:07
I dont think 3200+ is 2.2 Ghz...give it a LITTLE more credit then that..even though i dont like amd much lol
For those who need to be enlightened about AMD's model numbering: AMD Athlon™ XP Processor Benchmarking and Model Numbering Methodology (pdf).
I'd say the Athlon XP 3000+ holds its own pretty damn well for being nearly a full GHz "slower" than the top P4. In fact, it actually beats the P4 3.06 GHz chip in UT2k3.Quote:
Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@31 July 2003 - 02:00
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-22.html
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-23.html
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-24.html
oh, well
i suppose a difference of 3000 in 3d mark isn't really that much
<_<
Intel really should be ashamed...