amd or pentium

jlwggns · Post by **jlwggns** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 9:50 am

i was wondering with the drop in prices as they are now which would be better to buy, a AMD Athlon 1.4 266 fsb @$105 or a PENTIUM 1.4 cpu @$120. price not being the deciding factor which is the better cpu? btw i was just at pricewatch.com and they list a AMD Athlon 1.4 200 fsb @$114, why woud the 200 fsb be higher to buy? thanks

el bob · Post by **el bob** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 10:20 am

i think the reason you are getting no replys is because you are asking a question that has been asked a hundred times.

click the search button in the top right hand corner and search for a similar thread.

if you don't find anything here, there is absolutely on doubt in my mind that you will find what you are looking for over at the hard forums. i find that they are better for searching then for participating in.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 12:41 pm

amd, but where can u get a 1.4 pentium 4 for 120?

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 12:43 pm

An AMD 1.4 T-bird beats even the new 2Ghz P4 in SOME benchmarks, and definetaly beats the hell out of a 1.4 P4, it slaps it silly....

Comparing 1.4 t-bird vs. 1.4 P4 the T-bird is the winner

jlwggns · Post by **jlwggns** » Wed Sep 05, 2001 2:48 pm

pricewatch has the P 4 i.4 listed today for $119

aagiants · Post by **aagiants** » Wed Sep 05, 2001 4:46 pm

Trust brent, he know what he talkin about. Go AMD, 266FSB i think is better, right brent??

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Wed Sep 05, 2001 4:53 pm

Originally posted by aagiants
Trust brent, he know what he talkin about. Go AMD, 266FSB i think is better, right brent??

yes, 133x2 = (ddr) 266mhz fsb

oakfan52 · Post by **oakfan52** » Thu Sep 06, 2001 6:13 pm

AMD all the way. Better performance for your $. Once you go AMD you'll never go back.

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Thu Sep 06, 2001 11:51 pm

Originally posted by oakfan52
AMD all the way. Better performance for your $. Once you go AMD you'll never go back.

Actually, I've gone AMD and come back.

Maliy · Post by **Maliy** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 12:13 pm

it depends for what you will be using it. If it will be the server or always on, then P4 is a better choice because it is more reliable and doesn't heat as much as T-bird. If you are a gamer then go with T-bird it is a little faster.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 1:46 pm

Originally posted by Qwijib0

Actually, I've gone AMD and come back.

what AMD and what INTEL? also why?

newbie69 · Post by **newbie69** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 4:36 pm

go with AMD 1.4 Athlon 266FSB, with the right heatsink/fan you can run it as a server,gaming , whatever, if you get the right HSF it will keep your CPU cool

fartface · Post by **fartface** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 4:45 pm

Get the Intel. It's better to show off to people. Intel is more expensive because it's just a better chip. Having an Intel chip puts you in a higher class.

Dunster · Post by **Dunster** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 4:57 pm

Oh boy, here we go..........

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 4:59 pm

Originally posted by fartface
Get the Intel. It's better to show off to people. Intel is more expensive because it's just a better chip. Having an Intel chip puts you in a higher class.

put a gold chain around it too!

Gaming-Module · Post by **Gaming-Module** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 5:05 pm

BLING BLING!!!@@@

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Fri Sep 07, 2001 8:31 pm

Originally posted by YARDofSTUF

what AMD and what INTEL? also why?

Well, to start out with, my first computer was an AMD, a 486 clone that was quickly replaced by an intel of the same speed that outperformed it. I then moved on to an Overdrive, and used that for a year. while planning my next PC, I took a look at some of the K6-2's, while buildng a friend's machine. Damn thing always locked up. New mobo, still locked up. Another chip-- BIOS didn't recognise it properly. Friend finally went with P-II 450 with no problems. Most recently, tried to use a T-Bird in ANOTHER budget machine I was building, and had to get a new PS, because the machine wouldn't boot without an AMD-approved one (funny, never heard of an Intel-approved PS), and when i got it to boot it always ran hot with AS and a standard Fry's T-bird heatsink. This is when I've gone AMD and come back...

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 3:15 pm

Originally posted by Qwijib0

Well, to start out with, my first computer was an AMD, a 486 clone that was quickly replaced by an intel of the same speed that outperformed it. I then moved on to an Overdrive, and used that for a year. while planning my next PC, I took a look at some of the K6-2's, while buildng a friend's machine. Damn thing always locked up. New mobo, still locked up. Another chip-- BIOS didn't recognise it properly. Friend finally went with P-II 450 with no problems. Most recently, tried to use a T-Bird in ANOTHER budget machine I was building, and had to get a new PS, because the machine wouldn't boot without an AMD-approved one (funny, never heard of an Intel-approved PS), and when i got it to boot it always ran hot with AS and a standard Fry's T-bird heatsink. This is when I've gone AMD and come back...

well yes amd runs hotter, and so ya know there are pentium 4 aproved PSUs

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 3:17 pm

Originally posted by YARDofSTUF

well yes amd runs hotter, and so ya know there are pentium 4 aproved PSUs

Yes, a p4 psu that requires a special connector, but amd uses the same as everyone else, but has to approve it??

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 3:21 pm

Originally posted by Qwijib0

Yes, a p4 psu that requires a special connector, but amd uses the same as everyone else, but has to approve it??

yes because some PSUs 5V lowers too much and the 12V has too high a variable. most PSus work for AMD now unless u buy one out of gutter store

BaLa · Post by **BaLa** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 3:25 pm

Originally posted by YARDofSTUF

put a gold chain around it too!

lmao you crack me up

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 3:27 pm

Originally posted by YARDofSTUF

yes because some PSUs 5V lowers too much and the 12V has too high a variable. most PSus work for AMD now unless u buy one out of gutter store

so what your saying is that an AMD chip is so sensitive that little flctuations can throw it off, while an Intel runs just fine? You've just proved that AMD has an inferior chip!

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 3:28 pm

Originally posted by Qwijib0

so what your saying is that an AMD chip is so sensitive that little flctuations can throw it off, while an Intel runs just fine? You've just proved that AMD has an inferior chip!

your dumb

Intel sucks

AMD rules the planet and the whole Alpha Quadrant

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 3:32 pm

Originally posted by Brent

your dumb

Intel sucks

AMD rules the planet and the whole Alpha Quadrant

Ok, I might be dumb-- you got me there.

Prove Intel sucks. -- and "the pentium 4" is NOT a reason.

AMD ruling the planet AND the Alpha Quadrant? Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey-- Don't bring star trek into this!

BaLa · Post by **BaLa** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 3:33 pm

Originally posted by Brent

your dumb

Intel sucks

AMD rules the planet and the whole Alpha Quadrant

lol good one..
got anything to back that up Brent?

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 3:51 pm

Nah, Intel doesn't really suck

I was exagerating a lot

But I do think Intel has made some recent bad decisions in trying to rush products out to compete with AMD and the like

Back in the day all I used was Intel, Intel was the absolute BEST to use, if you wanted stability, compatibility, speed and reliablitlity Intel was the best way to go no doubt. Though they were more expensive then the rest they were good, their BX chipset platform is probably the BEST chipset for a mobo ever in existance in this world. It was stable and fast, and In fac t I still have 2 mobos RUNNING right now with the BX chipset! An Abit Be6-2 and an Abit BH6 both running P3's.

However since then their chipsets have seemed rush and not as fast performance wise compared to their BX. For example the first i810, what a whopper, then the i820 which can't even be found now, and then the i815 which is prolly the best one now it's actually no t too bad, but still I have seen reports that even it has been intentionally capped in performance because they did not want it to be faster then their i820. Therefore it's not living up to it's full potential even now. It's this 'capping' that i hate.

Now their i850 aint too bad actually, I haven't used one in person so I can't really tell you what it's like first hand. However their i845 i'm a tad bit weary of, but if they can get DDR working on it real good then all the better.

Now on to their CPU's. They are ALL good up through to the P4 (we will get to that in a second). Ok The P1 and P2 and P3 all good, no question, CeleronA oc'd to 450 BEST OC ever in the beginning. Going to a Slot 1 configuration though BAD IDEA. Intel realy pushed going to a Slot 1 saying it would be all bad ass and stuff, and well they went back to a Socket so you figure that one out

That was intels first mistake. Anyway though the CPU's were good and fast. But something happend, they didn't realize they had hit a wall in getting the P3 up to higher speeds! 1.12Ghz or whatever is it's climax. They needed a new chip to go higher and compete with at the time AMD's Thunderbird which CAN go to higher speeds.

Ok P4 time then. My major concern with the P4 is the fact that they (Intel) released it WAY to early and with a NOT complete FPU unit. And they admit it too. They said they sacrificed FPU for SSE2 instruction code set AND to get it out faster, because they had to compete with AMD. Well that was a horrible move on Intel's part. The P4 was NOT ready.

Now RDRAM, another BAD move. Intel REALLY pushed this cause of their dealings with them and stuff. While RAMBUS has good mem bandwidth it's Latency is HORRIBLE. DDR is faster then RAMBUS even though rambus has more mem bandwidth cause of the high latencys. If Intel had gone with the Industry standard or stuck with DDR in the beginning things woulda been a lot better. Plus if they had waited and released the P4 after it was complete then it would have faired a lot better.

Now the P4 has Potential, MORE then a current T-bird for sure. It can go higher, already we've seen Intel running it at 3.5Ghz Air Cooled. Plus with the new core coming out and once it hits .13 micron you'll see it ramped up a lot. It has the potential.

BUT RIGHT NOW AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY it's not the best buy. 6 months down the road? MAYBE who knows, but right now price vs. performance Athlon 4 all the way

things move so fast in this industry who knows what it will be like even this Christmas

Get back to me in December then we'll see where the Athlon 4 and latest P4's compare

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 3:55 pm

One more thing i'll add

one thing i like about the p4's, actually REALLY like is their robustness and the heatplate spreader, THERE IS NO CORE TO CHIP like in the Athlon's, it 's flat and got a heat plate spreader and you will have a hard time breaking a P4 or even Coppermine heh....

Maybe AMD will wise up and do something about that in new chips, we can only hope

and yes the current T-birds get that hot right now cause they are being clocked at their max that the core can take right now, actually about 1.6Ghz is becoming the limit for current T-birds

but Athlon 4's will be able to do 2Ghz+ with less heat and power

just keep waiting

like i said, by December we'll see the state of things, heh

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 3:58 pm

Originally posted by Qwijib0

so what your saying is that an AMD chip is so sensitive that little flctuations can throw it off, while an Intel runs just fine? You've just proved that AMD has an inferior chip!

little fluctuations are ok the 5v can get as low as 4 and the 12 as low as 10.90 but older fortons, star psus and even enermax have had PSUs running lower at times to conserv energy.

so ur asumming that a cpu using more elecricity is worse than a cpu using less when teh cpu using more out powers the other? hmmmmm.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 4:02 pm

wow I was just looking back at my post, I just wrote a book up there lol

if it weren't for my fast typing that woulda taken me half a day

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 4:09 pm

Ok, I'm starting to see your point ov view now, and If I were brand new to this whole issue, I'd probably go AMD right now, too. But here's how I see it from past experience:

Analogy time...

I turn 16 and want a car. I can have the Toyota or the Kia. I'm dirt ppor so I take the cheaper one, and it works fine, until I get to the highway to really test it out, and I can only hit 40 and this Celica drives by me at 75. Guess which car I'm going to want next time? A couple years pass, ans I decide I want a new car, again I compare the Kia to the Toyota, and the Kia seems to be almost as fast, so I test drive the Kia. Well, the radio doesn't work all the time, the gas pedal is flaky and the engine gets really hot, but when it runs, it's just as fast as promised. Well, I decide to pay more for the Toyota thet works all the time. Finally, I'm in the market for another car, and this time the Kia is faster, cheaper, and easier than the Toyota, but you hear horror stories about how the engine gets so hot that the cars spontaneously explode in less then 5 seconds. I don't care HOW cheap that Kia is, I'll take the Toyota thak you. So the next ime I'm in the market for the car, even if the Kia is perfect in every way, I'll remember the ones I've owned and test driven. Even if those were the only two kias in the entire world thet had those problems-- I had them so I'll go with what has worked for me.

Ok, I'll agree with you that the slot idea was a bad one. and that the P4 was released to early. But now It's starting to hit it's stride while AMD is trying to make their current design scale down to 0.13 to hit 2ghz before the hammers come out. Last year was the year of the T-Bird, no doubt, but this year, Intel has the first ante on the table. so to speak. I'd like to see what AMD has, but I'll still be skeptical of what it is. At my job, they say it takes only one bad experience to lose a loyal customer, but 10 to gain him back. AMD still has 9 chips to go.

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 4:13 pm

Originally posted by YARDofSTUF

little fluctuations are ok the 5v can get as low as 4 and the 12 as low as 10.90 but older fortons, star psus and even enermax have had PSUs running lower at times to conserv energy.

so ur asumming that a cpu using more elecricity is worse than a cpu using less when teh cpu using more out powers the other? hmmmmm.

Yes, I AM assuming thet the chip that uses less electricity is better then the one that uses more. I am also assuming that a chip shouldn't have to put out twice the heat and use more power then a competitor's to run AS fast.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 4:19 pm

Q, i agree from ur point. if that happened to me i would be reluctant again, unless told by most SGers to switch

if u lokk back at AMD and how fast they come up into teh market from their crap chips to what they are now, its really great! and they do fix their errors i expect the sledgehammer to come out and be a much more flawless chip and blow intel away for the moment, i know with the money intel has that it wont get kicked out they have too much of the market for that. but ppl will know that amd is faster and that the sledgehammer is the #1 chip then. i also feel intels first chip after the sledgehammer is released will be a serious blow to AMD. AMD will have spent soo many years saying it is faster and better than intel and then i feel intel will say yes, the AMD chips at the same clockspeed are faster, but here is our <whatever> chip which is totally redesigned and ready to hit stores that will put us back in the game.

that should make amd pump out the next one even better or burry them, and i hope it makes them produce better chips because it would be great to see a real battle in the cpu world.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 4:20 pm

Originally posted by Qwijib0

Yes, I AM assuming thet the chip that uses less electricity is better then the one that uses more. I am also assuming that a chip shouldn't have to put out twice the heat and use more power then a competitor's to run AS fast.

they arent just running AS fast, they do more at the same speed, look at some bench marks lol and its not twice the heat or twice teh power

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 4:28 pm

Originally posted by YARDofSTUF

they arent just running AS fast, they do more at the same speed, look at some bench marks lol and its not twice the heat or twice teh power

Nope, we're not talking about the p4 here... I was talking about PIII vs Athlon. The p4 has a COMPLETELY revamped architecture which SHOULD NOT be compared to the athlon. It looks bad for AMD AND Intel. As for the heat issue...a quote from the register:

In the light of Athlon's already profligate heat output - a 1.2GHz TBird produces more heat than a 180nm 1.5GHz P4 (even when overclocked to 1.6GHz)

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 4:40 pm

produces more, doesnt say how much though. and if ur talking P3 to the athlon then the athlon blows the P3 out of the water for spped my duron at 900 mhz beats P3 1ghz systems so imagine what the athlon does.

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 5:06 pm

Actually, if you look at benchmark scores, the PIII 1.2 vs. Athlon 1.2 is neck and neck, with the PIII doing well in some categories, and the Athlon in others. The athlon can hold it's own most definitely, but benchmarks are not the cornerstone of my argument. I am arguing that the Intel chips are better designed for power and heat considerations, while maintaining high performance, whereas AMD is satisfied with a chip then can be fast, but not necessarily as cool or energy efficient.

BaLa · Post by **BaLa** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 5:11 pm

he...
what's the problem...if that were the case..?

As long as the chip does not burst into flames during normal usage why should AMD be concerned about it running hot?

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 5:18 pm

Originally posted by balakov10
he...
what's the problem...if that were the case..?

As long as the chip does not burst into flames during normal usage why should AMD be concerned about it running hot?

Well, for one, hot chips lead to failure quicker (and while a chip's lifespan may ony be reduced slightly, and this is not really a problem since obslescence comes sooner then the chip will die), and can cause unexpected crashes. This may not be a problem for the serious overclocker/enthusiast, I am arguing that Intel has a superior chip-- superiority in longetevity, power consumption, cool running, and neck and neck performance with the competitor in speed.

BaLa · Post by **BaLa** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 5:30 pm

if you got the right HSF on the chip you shouldn't have any probs

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sat Sep 08, 2001 5:34 pm

AMD garantees teh chip to work perfectly at the speed its given, up yo 90C load, their chips are better made to not die for the higher tempsand pls show me a bench were the 1.2 p3 is as fast as a 1.2 Tbird that is not from toms hardware or from a Quake bench

SG Broadband Community

amd or pentium

amd or pentium

P4 1.4 price

/

Re: /

Re: Re: /