AMD Athlon or Intel Pentium
- Thread starter WildWing
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
&
"Sp!ke"
Guest
"Yea, MAYBE if you have a nitrogen tanker in your yard and have all the tools... and the most ive seen is 3.2Ghz..."
Or if you have a plastic cup and a small container of N(aq)...thats some high-tech-hard-to-get-tools...
http://www.muropaketti.com/artikkelit/cpu/northwood2200/ln2/index.phtml for the rest...and I know it could only run stable at 3,6..
Viper: Did you notice the Sysmark pics that I posted?(guess not) The Intel Rambus chipset ran better than the Intel DDR chipset,which again ran better than the AMD DDR chipset....(and i know that the chipsets arnt Intel, but you get my point..)
http://www.muropaketti.com/artikkelit/cpu/northwood2200/index.phtml
At 2800mhz with "just" a big fan...
Result of this dabate I think: Intel faster, but at a price. AMD Overall result: not as good as Intel, but cheap.
Almost forgot: God dosnt exist...
"..and AMD 1.3 micron Throughbreds are just around the corner"
err, eek? (considering that the P4N is 0,13 Micron, a typo perhaps? )
Or if you have a plastic cup and a small container of N(aq)...thats some high-tech-hard-to-get-tools...
http://www.muropaketti.com/artikkelit/cpu/northwood2200/ln2/index.phtml for the rest...and I know it could only run stable at 3,6..
Viper: Did you notice the Sysmark pics that I posted?(guess not) The Intel Rambus chipset ran better than the Intel DDR chipset,which again ran better than the AMD DDR chipset....(and i know that the chipsets arnt Intel, but you get my point..)
http://www.muropaketti.com/artikkelit/cpu/northwood2200/index.phtml
At 2800mhz with "just" a big fan...
Result of this dabate I think: Intel faster, but at a price. AMD Overall result: not as good as Intel, but cheap.
Almost forgot: God dosnt exist...
"..and AMD 1.3 micron Throughbreds are just around the corner"
err, eek? (considering that the P4N is 0,13 Micron, a typo perhaps?
)
Yeah, well ... CYRIX OWNZ AMD and INTEL ... ok, well maybe not
Do they even still make processors, or did they finally give up?
Do they even still make processors, or did they finally give up?
The stability of both chips are probably near perfect. The instability issues we see are software related, bad RAM, or poor motherboard design.
Via bought Cyrix
http://www.via.com.tw/en/viac3/c3.jsp
http://www.via.com.tw/en/viac3/c3.jsp
Originally posted by Elrod
Yeah, well ... CYRIX OWNZ AMD and INTEL ... ok, well maybe not
Do they even still make processors, or did they finally give up?
Ah god, what a terribly misinformed thread.
Depending upon which benchmark you are talking about and the competancy of the people running the test, you are going to have vastly different results. Personally, I usually stick with Anandtech's benchmark results because they have always struck me as intelligently designed, unbiased, and insightful.
But to put that aside for a moment, any rational person should be able to see that the top of the line AMD and the top of the line Intel give very similar levels of performance. One will win some benchmarks, and the other will win some benchmarks. Neither is a clear winner in terms of pure speed.
Saying that AMD processors are unstable is just foolish. It isn't the processor that makes a system unstable. More often then not, that would be the motherboard, or else conflicts with the OS or software that you are trying to run. It just shows that you don't understand computers very well to claim that a processor is unstable.
Depending upon which benchmark you are talking about and the competancy of the people running the test, you are going to have vastly different results. Personally, I usually stick with Anandtech's benchmark results because they have always struck me as intelligently designed, unbiased, and insightful.
But to put that aside for a moment, any rational person should be able to see that the top of the line AMD and the top of the line Intel give very similar levels of performance. One will win some benchmarks, and the other will win some benchmarks. Neither is a clear winner in terms of pure speed.
Saying that AMD processors are unstable is just foolish. It isn't the processor that makes a system unstable. More often then not, that would be the motherboard, or else conflicts with the OS or software that you are trying to run. It just shows that you don't understand computers very well to claim that a processor is unstable.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh my Spike...
The P4 clocks down if it gets too hot, you can run it even without any fan. It's slower then though. So you never really know if the CPU really runs at the max speed...you can only see it by running benchmarks...which this guy obviously hasn't done.
And please don't mention that liquid nitrogen crap again unless someone has done this with an AMD. That test says absolutley nothing, as there is nothing to compare it with.
Itis also nice how you only pick tests the Intel peformed well in, and not ones an Athlon came even close...
the problem is that those kinda tests VERY often were run with an intel optimized version of the program in question, as there are no AMD compilers out there yet (to my knowledge) it seems clear that the intel outperforms the Athlon...but sometimes it is just caused by bogus settings. Or comparing a 1,4GHz to a 2,2GHz...please get real here man.
Given the fact that you are afraid to post tests teh Athlon performs better in kinda hints at that there is something to hide.
Sometimes the Intel is better, sometimes the AMD...not ALWAYS the intel like you want to make people think. You can quote as many silly benchmarks as you want, as long as you only post one side of the facts it doesn't hold any value.
Read tests and get out of that fanboy crap.
There is no doubt RDRAM is faster than DDR RAM...but it has a hefty price tag...it's not worth it (Intel admitted that going with RDRAM was a failure). Also you are comparing chipsets here, and different ram types...NOT the CPUs...what you said has absolutely zero relevance.
The P4 clocks down if it gets too hot, you can run it even without any fan. It's slower then though. So you never really know if the CPU really runs at the max speed...you can only see it by running benchmarks...which this guy obviously hasn't done.
And please don't mention that liquid nitrogen crap again unless someone has done this with an AMD. That test says absolutley nothing, as there is nothing to compare it with.
Itis also nice how you only pick tests the Intel peformed well in, and not ones an Athlon came even close...
the problem is that those kinda tests VERY often were run with an intel optimized version of the program in question, as there are no AMD compilers out there yet (to my knowledge) it seems clear that the intel outperforms the Athlon...but sometimes it is just caused by bogus settings. Or comparing a 1,4GHz to a 2,2GHz...please get real here man.
Given the fact that you are afraid to post tests teh Athlon performs better in kinda hints at that there is something to hide.
Sometimes the Intel is better, sometimes the AMD...not ALWAYS the intel like you want to make people think. You can quote as many silly benchmarks as you want, as long as you only post one side of the facts it doesn't hold any value.
Read tests and get out of that fanboy crap.
I'm not gonna say why I like Intel or AMD better then the other, but you pple seem to go on about the clockspeeds. This is kinda st00pid. The P4 was designed to run at higher speeds then the XP. But the XP was meant to do more per clock cycle. So it would be best to compare Intels fastest cpu vs AMDs fastest cpu.
There are pros and cons for both methods. In the end all that counts is what a cpu can calculate in a certain amount of time, not the clockspeed it's running on. Also it's important to know what you're gonna do with your system so you know what benchmarks matter for you. Btw, who cares what cpu other pple think is better anyway?
And comparing chipsets isn't that irrelevant imho. You buy a cpu and a mobo with a chipset right? So if cpu X only comes with a crappy chipset I'd rather buy (slower) cpu Y with a good chipset. But that's just me
There are pros and cons for both methods. In the end all that counts is what a cpu can calculate in a certain amount of time, not the clockspeed it's running on. Also it's important to know what you're gonna do with your system so you know what benchmarks matter for you. Btw, who cares what cpu other pple think is better anyway?
And comparing chipsets isn't that irrelevant imho. You buy a cpu and a mobo with a chipset right? So if cpu X only comes with a crappy chipset I'd rather buy (slower) cpu Y with a good chipset. But that's just me
I was more aiming at that if the XP totally outperformed the P4 (which it doesn't) then I would give a **** if the chipset was 2% slower .
.
/me comes in
/me reads the posts
/me laughs
Ok SC, you win! Now I see what you see when you look at console threads
Anyway, here's a thought. Is the difference between them really that noticable? We are not comparing a V8 to a Four-C here, we are comparing a V8 to a V8, one might be 0.03 seconds faster in the 0-60 race, but both are worlds faster than earlier stuff, so pick one and leave it at that. They will both play your games and you won't notice any difference between them.
. . .
. . .
. . .
/me watches as the rational people say "That's what I've been saying!" and the m0s say "Feck off!"
/me leaves Happy flaming!
/me reads the posts
/me laughs
Ok SC, you win! Now I see what you see when you look at console threads
Anyway, here's a thought. Is the difference between them really that noticable? We are not comparing a V8 to a Four-C here, we are comparing a V8 to a V8, one might be 0.03 seconds faster in the 0-60 race, but both are worlds faster than earlier stuff, so pick one and leave it at that. They will both play your games and you won't notice any difference between them.
. . .
. . .
. . .
/me watches as the rational people say "That's what I've been saying!" and the m0s say "Feck off!"
/me leaves
Happy flaming!
How did I know you would show up in this thread?
Intels are NOT a lot more stable, they are pretty equal. In fact, I had more trouble with my P3 600e w/ BX mobo then I have with my XP1700+/A7V266 combo
The new P4 "Northwood" is more overclockable, but overclocking comes at a cost, the CPU wont last as long.
For me, Intel = people who like the dancing blue f00ls (making idiots of themselves) and must be brainwashed.
AMD = BEST performance for your money, and in cases FASTER then Intels HIGHER clocked CPU's.
Sp!ke, I think you should read this: P4, the real truth
And the Durons are a hell of a lot better then those Celerons. At least you can admit that.
Good post dudeOriginally posted by Loibisch
lol spike, Q3A is about the only test that the intel is better in.
Let me link some:
This is the Q3A test...as yo ucan easily see the P4 2,2GHz outperforms the AMD Athlon XP 2000+...which is actually running at 1666MHz, that's over half a gigahertz lower than the Intel.
Still it manages to be faster than the P4 2GHz.
Now the same test at 1024x768
The difference is negligible (sp?). The Athlon 2000+ is now much closer to the Intel 2,2GHz (which is - I want to stress it again - 533MHz faster than the AMD chip). And it leaves the 2GHz Intel behind. The difference is under 5%...for the best "bang per buck" you can definitely go with an AMD.
Q3A is Intels strong point...now for the rest.
Athlon 2000+ (1,66GHz) outperforms Intel 2,2GHz...straight.
Same test at DX8 and 32bit...http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/images/image008.gif
Difference is about 1%...not even worth mentioning...
More tests available here at Tom's Hardware
The P4 might be faster...but it's too little (if at all) to justify the hefty price tag you pay for CPU, RAM and MoBo.
Sp!ke = 0\/\/|\|3d with that one.
As I said before Sp!ke, MEGAHERTZ ISNT EVERYTHING, it just helps, but not with Intels case, they are 500+MHz faster and yet a few fps ahead
LMAO, the lowest AMD processor there is 800MHz slower, so of course its gonna be left behindOriginally posted by "Sp!ke"
Is this the test youre talking about? guess not since it crushes the Athlon....
Wheres your proof son?
I wanna see a XP 1900+ (1.7GHz) go against a P4 1.7GHz
You will see who is better, and I have a clue, it is NOT Intel
Yelling now are we? You have prooved to be brainwashed by Intels dancing f00ls and lame commercials.Originally posted by "Sp!ke"
DID I MENTION THAT IT CAN RUN STABLE AT 3,7 GIGAHERTZ!!!!!!!!!!
with a lil bit of liquid N....
And great links there: Compare a p4 1,7(how old is that thing? with a new XP...
Isnt that the idea?Originally posted by Thrakhath
Stop spamming dude, you'll get this thread locked . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . .
On second thought, that's a good idea. Keep spamming and get this thing locked
Sp!ke always comes in to defend his POS P4.. lets get it locked
