Pentium or AMD why?

[psd99]

hi i am REALLY stuck with a choice between AMD 3000XP and an Intel pentium 4 3.06 ghz cpu.

wat is more powerful? what is quiker?

why do people say amd are beter? surely not as they are slightly cheaper?
ive always used amd's never used pentium since pentium 1!!! and it was alrite

what does everyon think AMD or pentium 4?>


please if u read this tell me abt what u feel.

all the best

 

[kristel]

Hmmm it's a tough choice because as they say - it's "6 of one and half a dozen of the other"!

The AMD would win for me in the end because it's £40 cheaper, which would let you splash out a bit more on some other component that would really make or break the system - I'd suggest when talking about CPUs of this speed, the Hard Disk, Graphics Card, Motherboard and Memory would probably demand closer inspection than the CPU itself

 

[Matt Jason H]

AMD's generally do best in performance tests against equivalent pentium's for the home user/gamer in my experience, i agree with kristel in either case though, that extra cash could be put on a graphics card, faster harddrive or memory, etc which could do much more to improve performance than a tiny improvement on the processor.

 

[floppybootstomp]

I've just put together a system for a friend, Pentium 4 3Ghz, Asus Board, 1Gig RAM, and it runs very nice and runs cool, as well.

However, my XP2600, 333fsb, system, imo, runs faster.

For all that 800 fsb and 3Ghz CPU, I wasn't terribly impressed.

 

[eein]

Unless you are using the system at it fullest capabilities, then either will be particularly good.

Whether AMD or Intel are generally better than each other is not really something you can say for certain or is even worth trying to work out. A lot of poeple's opinions are historical.

Most (software) geeks will tend to be anti-intel more due to their anti-big companies attitudes than actual facts. It's similar to the whole anti-microsoft attitudes.

It is also hard to make a judgement as one week one may be better, then the next the other brings out an improved version. The relative cost also makes it pointless comparing. And many of these magazine tests will be weighted in preference for one or the other and the end differences so small that the normal home user will not actually see much difference.

For choosing a system, as 'kristel' says above, the other parts of the system make a much bigger difference to the system. You must always buy a 'balanced' system so that nothing is restricted from performing as it could by the things around it. i.e. if you memory wasn't very fast, then a super-fast processor will jsut spend most of its time sitting waiting.

Intel and AMD also make it hard to compare recently as they can use different memory types and different interfaces. This makes comparing similarly priced systems even harder.

Personally, I have had Cyrix and AMD mostly (once had an Intel). This is most been on tha basis of what stuff cost at the time. At work, however, I would use intel over amd any day as amd don't give anywhere near the support that intel do for design and development. AMD are also very bad at making some devices obsolete at relativly short notice - from Intel you can still buy (at a price) some of the microprosessors they made in the early 80s!

Iain

 

[Ian]

I couldn't agree more with what you said there eein. As you say, something often overlooked is the price of the components you must buy to pair with the CPU. Different types of CPU need totally different motherboards and (usually) memory, and this can change the cost again, almost as much as the CPU price difference.

I would usually pick AMD for a home/gaming system, simply because I have found them to be cheaper and quite often give an excellent price/performance ratio. However, I am using an Intel system at the moment, simply because of the features of a particular motherboard I wanted at the time (Firewire, USB 2.0, RAID, 10/100 LAN).

I personally would pick an AMD CPU when price is an issue... However, I would use an Intel CPU in a case when cost wasn't an issue - or in a high end server.

 

[floppybootstomp]

Originally posted by eein
AMD are also very bad at making some devices obsolete at relativly short notice - from Intel you can still buy (at a price) some of the microprosessors they made in the early 80s!

Iain

How can you say that? All AMD processors from the earliest Athlons up to the 400fsb XP3200 will run in any of today's boards (excepting the Opterons). You can't say that about Intel processors in the same time period. Remember that debacle with that special RAM you had to use to make a Pentium-based system run?

That didn't last long, did it?

Personally, I'm not biased against Corporate companies, I'll just run whatever is best for the buck. You could say that AMD are now amongst the big Corporate companies, so swift has been their recent success.

When my friend and I were speccing up his new system, he was drawn towards the Pentium 4 3Ghz as it was the fastest system available within a reasonable price range. A system based on the AMD XP3200 actually worked out about the same money.

I tried to explain that 2.2Ghz & 400 fsb could still outperform a Pentium 3Ghz @ 800fsb but he wouldn't have it, he was seduced by the 3 Ghz figure.

I was interested to see how it performed, and now I know.

It is pretty much neck and neck with my XP2600 based system.

I've a feeling the XP3200 in a decent board would outperform it.

Also, we made his system dual boot, running WIN 98 & XP Pro, and WIN 98 is decidedly slow, it almost seems as if Pentium systems are optimised for WIN XP, but maybe that's my imagination.

It was interesting, building that system, but I'll be sticking with AMD for the forseeable future.

I will concede that Intel do, generally, give better support, but with a multitude of computer Forums running out there on the Net, it shouldn't be hard to find support for either Intel or AMD, as far as advice is concerned, anyway.

 

[Ian]

After reading up a little more on it, I found this interesting article on Synthetic Benchmarks on both AMD/Intel platforms:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020402/p4_2400-11.html

An old Athlon 1.4 is about the same speed as a new P4 2.0Ghz in all tests except for the memory transfer rates.


However......

Check out the real world performance in office apps, and the roles are reversed:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020402/p4_2400-13.html

Some rather interesting results there!

 

[psd99]

thanks for the replies guys... this is like man utd or arsenal?

its such a tough choice but i do fell how can an xp 3200 with a FSB of 400 outperform an intel pentium 3.2 with a FSB of 800 i find it unimaginable!!!!!!!

i mean surely 800 is bigger than 400?

im still very unsure. if price wasnt as issue and u wanted power im very sure u would all go for intel.
but i have to say amd is good value for money., intel are expensive i beleive

please advise

 

[floppybootstomp]

As I mentioned earlier, the price of the AMD XP3200 (400fsb) is about the same as a Pentium 4 3Ghz.

However, if you go for an AMD chip running at 333fsb, the savings are considerable, and imo you won't notice much difference in speed.

The general POV was that Pentiums were always more stable than AMD chips, but I don't know for sure, haven't had any problems with AMD and I don't have much experience of Pentiums.

I've already expressed the view that I'll stick with AMD, but I wouldn't put down an Intel based system.

I will say this much though, if you want cool and quiet, and you can afford it, go for the Pentium.

Yegods! I never thought I'd ever say that, hehe :crazy:

 

[eein]

Originally posted by floppybootstomp
How can you say that? All AMD processors from the earliest Athlons up to the 400fsb XP3200 will run in any of today's boards (excepting the Opterons). You can't say that about Intel processors in the same time period. Remember that debacle with that special RAM you had to use to make a Pentium-based system run?

I wasnt awar that I could do that. I'll need to dig out some old original Athlons I have somewhere and stick them in my new mobo for a laugh! I do wonder how my old AMD CPUs would fit in my 'recently retired' slot A mobo!

My comments were more to do with parts being avaliable and being made obsolete, not anything to do with compatability. In fact making hardware backwards compatible has probably been the most restrictive factor in PC hardware development over the last 15 years.

I has hassle with AMD a while back when they stopped making lots of different flash devices I was using and they didnt tell me and didnt provide any alternative. It cased the people I was wokring for at the time lots of time and money. Whenever I disign a system now with a processor board in it (PC104 or cPCI or VME or whatever), I prefer to get an Intel based board as they will be garunteed to be avaliable for a longer time.

psd99, just coz one uP says it is 400 fsb and the other 800 fsb is, unfortunately, not completely useful. Again, there is more to the 'performace' than jsut the raw clock speed. For example DDR may have a clock of 100MHz, but the data changes on the positive and negative edge of the clock. A non DDR system with the same 100MHz clock will only change the data on the positive edge, thus half the data-rate of the DDR. There is also the issue of how the data is written of read at the memory device. CAS latency is an example of this (lower CAS latency memory costs more coz it is faster).

So I'm afraid it is more complex the more you try to look into it. I suggest reading a few mag/web reviews and just spend what you are comfortable with on a generally balance system. If you really want to make sure you get the best system possbile, then look at motherbaords in more detail as I consider them to be the most important part of a PC.

 

[floppybootstomp]

eein, when I read and re-read your post, I realised you were talking about availability and not compatability, so, sorry bout dat, it appears I made a boo-boo.

Yes, it is somewhat difficult trying to get hold of a slot A CPU or K6-2 now, that be true.

Just to set the record straight :yawn:

 

[kalbal]

i had a k6 b4 lol

 

[psd99]

im pretty sure im going to go for a asus motherboard and like eein mentioned the motherboard is the most important part in a pc thats very true thanks mate...

im looking at the asus motherboard as i think they are best. but when the question arises abt intel or amd im still WONDERING

 

[kristel]

Originally posted by psd99
thanks for the replies guys... this is like man utd or arsenal?

its such a tough choice but i do fell how can an xp 3200 with a FSB of 400 outperform an intel pentium 3.2 with a FSB of 800 i find it unimaginable!!!!!!!

i mean surely 800 is bigger than 400?

im still very unsure. if price wasnt as issue and u wanted power im very sure u would all go for intel.
but i have to say amd is good value for money., intel are expensive i beleive

please advise

I'd still go for AMD if price wasn't an issue, with their flagship processor the AMD64 FX51. The AMD64s run the FSB on the chip if I understand it right, so their FSB clock = CPU frequency.

However - 800 is bigger than 400 yes. Does it make much difference? No.

Why?

Because there are 1001 other things that have an equal or greater effect on the performance of the CPU

It's just that Intel choose to market the numbers they can win, and their marketing department is quite adept.

 

[muckshifter]

Mucks jumps in late ...

Sales man
"Would you like a DX4 or a DX2 sir"

Customer
"oh I'll have the DX4"

Sales man says to himself "sucker"

... a DX4 was a 4x25Mhz CPU a DX2 was a 2x50Mhz ... Inhell have been pulling the wool over your eyes for a long time.

Intel, “The front side bus (fsb) is 800”, err no, it’s not its 4x100 … 533 MHz is 4x133 MHz

Inhell are still pulling the wool over your eyes.

Sales man
“Would you like a 400 or an 800 sire”

Customer
“don’t be stupid … I’ll have the AMD 400.

like eein mentioned the motherboard is the most important part in a pc

... and if you buy an AMD 400 MB you can use a Duron/T'Bird/Palomino/T'Bred/Thorton (yes there is such a chip) and a Barton.

Show me an Intel MB that has that versatility and I'll shut up.

 

[psd99]

good point but isnt it true that the latest amd chips can not run under windows?

im not talking abt xp3200 im talking abt 64 bit ones!!! they seem not to work under windows?

 

[psd99]

ahh folkes when talking abt the Barton xp3200 memory of pc3200
is needed. this means if i get barton then ill have to buy new memory
at the moment i got pc2100 one 512 chip and one 256mb chip both at
2100. ill need another 100 quid for a gig of memory.!!!!!!


lots of people tell me that xp3200 would outperform intel p4 3.06gh
but with intel p4 3.06 i dont need to change my memory so thats
definetly a plus point.

does ne1 know what xp3200 needs such fast memory? and can some1 please
confirm that p4 3.06 dont need pc 3200 memory and can run on 2100?!



thanks a lot

 

[muckshifter]

God! I don't know where you get your crap from ...

AMD Athlon™ 64 and AMD Athlon™ 64 FX processors
On September 23rd, 2003, AMD introduced the world’s first and only Windows®-compatible 64-bit PC processor, the AMD Athlon™ 64 FX processor, for gamers, PC enthusiasts and digital content creators. View images from the AMD Athlon™ 64 processor launch event in San Francisco on September 23, 2003.

Read it and Weep


Your taking the piss, ain't you?

 

[Ian]

I think he said that as Windows will need to be recompiled and a special version released:

http://www.betanews.com/print.php3?sid=1049942150

You will need a 64bit version of Windows XP though as far as I know

You can run Windows XP 32 Bit on the CPU, but it won't take advantage of the 64bit architecture.