P4 1.8GHz or AMD Athlon XP And Why?

[irdawood]

Spyder.................I (part time) build computers for a major firm and im also on tech support we have all the latest stuff people buy

this pretty much sums it up

-the Enthusiast who knows about computers, knows what he wants, wants to experiment, overclock to the max, and knows how to build a computer, donsnt give a **** about his electricity bill (as he can afford it) or fan noise as this computer is gonna be no ordinnary computer and is gonna be Overclocked

them types go for the AMD

-from working there the majority of the guys who dont know much about computers and gets the company to build it for them go for the intel they dont want fan noise coz the computer is not gonna be used to the max its only for word proccessing and simple games

they go for the intel

so from this u can evaluate for your self

both CPU's are for differant market segmants

Computer Enthusiast, overclocker buys AMD

an average person who dont need a comp for power goes for INTEL

[TimeRider]

SHoTTa35:

x87 is a Floating Point instruction set. The x87 Floating Point Unit on the Pentium 4 loses the semi-pipelined design of the P6 and instead feature a reduced design with only 2 functional units.

I believe x86 is a core instruction set, someone here can correct me if I'm wrong on that part.

In any event, Intel percieves SSE-2 to be the future of floating point instructions.

Try this one:

http://serverwatch.internet.com/hardware/p...pentium4_2.html

To irdawood:

That's the biggest load of manure I have yet to read. I do believe you are talking out your arse!

My last LAN Party

P4's = 5

PIII's = 3

Celeron's = 1

PII's = 1

Athlon's = 1

GeForce = 11

Home Built = 9

Branded = 2

[Spyder Veteran]

Originally posted by irdawood  

Spyder.................I (part time) build computers for a major firm and im also on tech support we have all the latest stuff people buy  

this pretty much sums it up  

-the Enthusiast who knows about computers, knows what he wants, wants to experiment, overclock to the max, and knows how to build a computer, donsnt give a **** about his electricity bill (as he can afford it) or fan noise as this computer is gonna be no ordinnary computer and is gonna be Overclocked  

them types go for the AMD

-from working there the majority of the guys who dont know much about computers and gets the company to build it for them go for the intel they dont want fan noise coz the computer is not gonna be used to the max its only for word proccessing and simple games  

they go for the intel  

so from this u can evaluate for your self  

both CPU's are for differant market segmants  

Computer Enthusiast, overclocker buys AMD  

an average person who dont need a comp for power goes for INTEL

I`m not quite clear why your post was for me, or even how it relates to my post. I was speaking from my own personal experience between the two.

I like both for different reasons, but in the end, whether one chip can get 10fps faster, or encode an mp3 3 seconds faster makes no difference to me, since these are such tiny amounts, the whole thing is hardly worth fussing over.

I value stability and compatibility over performance. Unfortunately I haven`t had that pleasure with my current AMD solution, which is why I`ll be switching back to an Intel solution.

[Krome]

Spyder, well said... and yes I have had so many AMD user (friends) bugging me to help them trouble the software problems too...

[Zombie9920]

Thats far from true d00d. I am a computer enthusiast and I push my system to the max all the time and I still choose Intel. In my 9 years of working with computers I have never and I mean never seen a processor that is as unreliable as an AMD Athlon. As I said in a previous post, I even built myself an Athlon system because they are supposedly so great. I don't see anything great about them because

1. The computer is like a little space heater, the room it is in actually gets hot after the system has been on for a while(which isn't really a bad thing for a cold day, but is ludicris for a hot day).

2. I have yet to see/use a chipset for an Athlon that is anywhere near as reliable as Intel chipsets(when I say reliable I mean chipsets that aren't riddled with tons o' bugs). I get fed up with having to apply patch after patch to solve chipset issues to keep my system from crashing.

3. My Athlon system is extremely loud because of all the fans it needs to keep at a respectable temp. Whether you want to admit it or not, the fan noise is an important factor. When it gets too loud it interferes with your listening pleasure(like listening to game audio, MP3's, audio for downloaded videos, etc.)

4. My AthlonXP system used to have a T-Bird in it, but for some reason the fan on my HSF died in the middle of the night when I had a Q3 server up, sure enough when I woke up the next morning the CPU was dead. I got lucky because it didn't catch anything on fire. My P4 on the other hand...I know I can leave it up and running forever and it will never fry(even if the fan died). AMD Cpus are not near the level of quality of Intel CPU's(You don't seem to understand what quality is).

Where I work we don't use AMD based systems because they haven't proved to be a reliable alternative for workstations that are left on 24/7. People who put reliability on top of thier priority list do not choose AMD. It is good that AMD is here though because they force Intel to lower thier CPU prices to stay competitive(which in the end is a major plus for the consumer).

Also, whether you like it or not, if it wasn't for Intel you would not even have an Athlon. Intel did make the first microprocessor in history. AMD tends to copy technology from Intel also *cough* MMX *cough* SSE *cough*. Isn't kinda funny back in the day of the Slot processors when Intel decided to move thier PIII to a socket and add on-die cache memory AMD copied them and did the same with thier Athlons(Slot 1 PIII to coppermine, AMD Athlon Slot A to AMD Thunderbird socket A). Another instance of AMD copying Intel....Intel makes a 64 bit CPU and AMD decides to do the same.

You AMD people need Intel because AMD copies technology from Intel. MHZ for MHZ a PIII and an Athlon are almost equivalent in performance so therotically a 1.6ghz PIII could keep up with a 2.2ghz P4. That really doesn't matter though because Intel plans on having a 10ghz CPU by 2006. You have to sacrifice a little speed for the clock to reach much higher clock speeds(without the loss of reliability) which in turn equals a better computer.

The reason OEM's hardley ever use AMD Cpu's is because AMD Cpu's are not reliable enough for consumers who buy a system expecting it to last them for years and years. What it all boils down to is you get what you pay for. Don't flame people because they treasure quality.

(EDIT)When SSE2 is more widely used in apps I garantee the P4 will cream the Athlon(mhz for mhz in the same apps). Then AMD will probably put SSE2(copy from Intel once again) in thier CPU's.(EDIT)

[Bain]

Krome,

I did decide to go with the P4 :)

About the thread.. it's a really informative thread for people that were like me not but a week ago and torn between the two processors and not knowing the pro's and con's of each.

I think this is an awesome thread and will serve alot of people that were like me info on the two. I feel this thread should stay open as it's a great topic to be debating on, only the biggest topic in the computer hardware industry right now.

[irdawood]

you guys act as if u want the dam thing to last for 10 years or so?????

i upgrade my system every 2 years

so do my friends who have Intel systems

you gotto otherwise u are left with a system that dont work

[freeza]

nice reply zombie

[Krome]

irdawood,

In my opinion, "quality" is something that will last for a long time. :)

Bain, nice to know you choose quality over limited power :)

[irdawood]

zombie u say that soon the intel will match amd mhz to mhz well thats what all the AMD people are trying to point out to you at the momment its not matched AMD has a much better CPU then its Intel same MHZ counterpart

[Zombie9920]

Originally posted by irdawood  

zombie u say that soon the intel will match amd mhz to mhz well thats what all the AMD people are trying to point out to you at the momment its not matched AMD has a much better CPU then its Intel same MHZ counterpart

But you don't seem to understand. More speed per mhz isn't nesicarrily better. In some people's opinion quality, reliability and a quiet computer are more important factors. I can afford Intel so I really don't have a problem with shelling out a little extra money to get the same performance of an Athlon XP since I know my comp will never go down on me. As I said in a previous post, when AMD irons out thier issues then they will be a more viable solution for the average consumer. Just because benchmarks boast higher numbers does not mean that the user will notice the speed difference. Lets get real here man, who is going to be able to tell if 1 loads something a milisecond faster or if one runs 10 fps faster than the other(considering that the FPS are so freaking high the human eye can't tell a difference)?

[Typh0n]

I am a CAD Manager for an Architectural firm. We do 3D renderings and 3D animations with 3D Studio. We have a farm of computers that are CAD workstations by day and renders by night. Here are some stats on different systems...

PIII 1000 w/ 512 PC133

rendered image in 73 minutes (1 hr 13 min)

P4 1.4 w/ 512 DDR

rendered image in 49 minutes

P4 1.7 w/ 512 RDRAM

rendered image in 40 minutes

Quad Xeon 733 w/ 3 GB RAM (not sure the exact type, but runs at 133)

rendered image in 26 minutes

Dual Athlon MP 1800+ w/ 1 GB DDR

rendered image in 18 minutes

All systems rendered the same image. As you can see, a Dual Athlon MP beat a Quad Xeon. The Quad Xeon is a Dell server we bought specifically for rendering 24 hours. We paid close to $25,000. We built the Dual Athlon MP for about $2500 (w/ video card add $2000). We don't have any single processor AMD systems, yet. I will be building one in the next couple of months, I will post the results of it verses the P4 w/ DDR & RDRAM.

Another interesting point is that a P4 1.7 with the faster RDRAM rendered only 9 minutes faster (20%) than the P4 1.4 w/ DDR RAM.

[Zombie9920]

Xeon 733mhz x 4 processors = performance of an Xeon at 2932mhz

Dual Athlon MP 1800+ = Athlon MP 3600+

Of course it is going to beat the old Xeons. Why would a business use old Xeons for that type of work anyways? The old Xeons do not have SSE(I believe CAD uses SSE). Xeons are intended for servers(hence thier high price).

[irdawood]

hey whats this then.....seems like the AMD even kisks the Xeon's ass hehe:D

now which intel user was saying earlier opinions matter???

just goes to proove that all the Intel folk are getting ripped off for a worse CPU

and that AMD is a MUCH MUCH better product!!

[irdawood]

yeah now he says that .......

but yet the 1.67 ghz (2000XP) AMD also kicks the 2000 Nortwoods ass!!!

and to all the intel fans that were saying that that a little bit better on benchmarks dont mean much well here is an example where it does

[TimeRider]

Zombie . . .

Thank-you. I have been trying to get the people on this post to understand that the P4 is not just a faster PIII for two days. That NetBurst or SSE-2 is a different language and therefore requires a different environment to optimize the chip.

Thank-you

Thank-you

Thank-you!

I no longer feel like a lonely voice in the woods.

[Zombie9920]

Originally posted by irdawood  

hey whats this then.....seems like the AMD even kisks the Xeon's ass hehe:D  

now which intel user was saying earlier opinions matter???

just goes to proove that all the Intel folk are getting ripped off for a worse CPU

and that AMD is a MUCH MUCH better product!!

The Xeons he is talking about are old Xeons based on the P6 core. The Athlon MP is alot newer than the old Xeons. I'm sure if they were using newer Xeons(based on the P7 core) it would be a totally different story. BTW man, do the math of the speed equivalencies I posted above.

[Zombie9920]

Originally posted by irdawood  

yeah now he says that .......

but yet the 1.67 ghz (2000XP) AMD also kicks the 2000 Nortwoods ass!!!

and to all the intel fans that were saying that that a little bit better on benchmarks dont mean much well here is an example where it does

Don't go by the actual mhz, go by the rating AMD uses to mark thier processors. The whole point of the PR rating is to say this CPU equals a certain speed. You do know that the AMD PR rating actually means the palomino is running as fast as a T-Bird would run at that speed(XP 2000+ equals a 2ghz T-Bird if it existed). BTW, the Athlon MP still suffers the heat problems of all other K7 processors. So if something happened to the cooling system they would be out of some money to replace the CPU(s).

[irdawood]

oh for GODS SAKE

dont start this crap about heat again i thought we established AMD's dont have a problem

[TimeRider]

But they do.

[Zombie9920]

No, we established that you are totally blind to the fact that AMD does suffer from heat issues. I really don't like having to waste my time showing you that AMD video was taken with special hardware again, but I guess I must do so since you don't seem to comprehend what you read. HAve a look at this link. ;)

http://www6.tomshardware.com/column/01q4/0...1029/index.html

Athlons are not perfect like you try to state. They do suffer some design flaws. You can't expect perfection out of a cheap solution.

[Zombie9920]

Now if you want to talk about a rip-off. The Athlon MP is a rip-off. The Athlon XP and the Athlon MP are the same thing but AMD charges alot more for the MP because of the name MP. It has already been proven that an Athlon XP can run in a SMP configuration and runs just as well as the MP.

[Guest deadzombie]

ok, I was going to unsubscribe to this thread, but then someone posted this;

Xeon 733mhz x 4 processors = performance of an Xeon at 2932mhz

Dual Athlon MP 1800+ = Athlon MP 3600+

YKM! If you don't understand how multichip setups share the processing workload, please don't act like you do!

Xeon 733 x4 = is NOT the equivilant clock rate of 2.932ghz

Athlon 1.8ghz x2 = is NOT the equivilant clock rate of 3.6ghz.

I'm not going into it, but no OS, especially during CAD work, will ever acheive that kind of multi-processor efficiency.

[irdawood]

on the other thread i even showed u a vid to proove Athlons dont have a prob with heat, we even carried out a test at work what more do u want???

YOU DO NOT NEED ANY SPECIAL HARDWARE!!!!!

I DONT USE ANY!!!

and i dont get any probs

if u get probs then u guys dont know how to build Computers

first learn how computers work then come crying back

[Zombie9920]

Originally posted by deadzombie  

ok, I was going to unsubscribe to this thread, but then someone posted this;

Xeon 733mhz x 4 processors = performance of an Xeon at 2932mhz  

Dual Athlon MP 1800+ = Athlon MP 3600+  

YKM!  If you don't understand how multichip setups share the processing workload, please don't act like you do!

Xeon 733 x4 = is  NOT the equivilant clock rate of 2.932ghz

Athlon 1.8ghz x2 = is NOT  the equivilant clock rate of 3.6ghz.

I'm not going into it, but no OS, especially during CAD work, will ever acheive that kind of multi-processor efficiency.

Well, it may not run that efficiently but still, the Athlon MP is at a clear advantage. Especially since the MP has SSE, 3DNow, 3DNow+, MMX and MMX+ on top of the fact that it is a newer processor.