August 7, 200422 yr the biggest difference between the two is $$$$.Yep!The price/performance ratio makes the Athlons winners.
August 12, 200422 yr just bought myself a treat: Athlon AMD XP 2800. Veeeeeeeeeery nice By the way: isn't the Athlon AMD XP built on a newer technology than Intel P4?
March 3, 200521 yr intel all the way, thier chips are the fastest of the fast and they often support new technologies sooner than amd, for example ddr2 and PCIe
March 3, 200521 yr By the way: isn't the Athlon AMD XP built on a newer technology than Intel P4?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>depends on what XP and what P4 they both have different cores out there.
March 5, 200521 yr My thoughts are that AMD chips are cheaper, but run hotter. Also, AMD have a crap naming scheme - the Athlon XP 2500+ runs at 1950MHz or something like. Intel chips are also more reliable and more compatible.
March 6, 200521 yr well AMD's old naming convention was meant to be a gauge of its performance to consumers who only understood megaherz. the 2500+ was so named because it performed a similar number of operations per second to a 2.5ghz pentium 4 of that era. however both manufacturers now use a "a number" instead of the frequency, this is no doubt because joe average would look at a 64bit athlon labelled "2ghz" and think of it as slower than a 32bit pentium 4 labelled "3.2ghz", which is a pity.btw i also believe intel chips are pricier than AMD's because of the quality tests intel put their chips thru, per yield they will throw away more chips than AMD, that doesnt mean to say that if you have an AMD chip it wont be stable etc, just that you can guarantee stability/performance with intel.(PS I say that as an AMD fan, no need to hate something just because you bought the other chip)
March 6, 200521 yr My thoughts are that AMD chips are cheaper, but run hotter. Also, AMD have a crap naming scheme - the Athlon XP 2500+ runs at 1950MHz or something like. Intel chips are also more reliable and more compatible.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>i can't agree, amd chips are really cooler since prescott core days. amd offers a really good perfomance at a competitive price so amd for me.if you want the top speed (by default) go for intel but it will be expensive and you'll need to buy plenty of fans, also OC sucks on intel boards. last to say, i bought my xp 3000+ by the half of a p4 3,2ghz costs, after OC, it runs at 2,4ghz (210x11,5 like an amd 3400+ would be). now take a look at what sandra says... Edited March 6, 200521 yr by SiMoNsAyS
March 6, 200521 yr I do no think that you will need plenty of fans for a P4.Can one fan do the job for a P4 3.2?
March 7, 200521 yr @SimonSaysTrue. AMD has given the better value since last few years.And now with Athlon64, again they have a chance to rule the mid/low-end 64-bit market..... such a pity that their yields are low. (i.e., out of every 100 chips made, only a low number of them are actually saleable, a large number are just junked due to strict quality testing)
March 7, 200521 yr Can one fan do the job for a P4 3.2?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>yes it can, it just depends of the use you're going to give it. if you only want to run office programs then default is ok but what if you want to go a bit further...@prathapml, i totally agree, let's see what is going to happen when dual cores hit the market... @Astalavista, if it's for the office i would recommend a plain athlon xp (barton) or a sempron, anything more than this will be a waste of money.if you want to look at 64bits (i think is a bit excessive for an office) i would go for an Athlon 64 3200+ ("winchester") or the more expensive Athlon 64 3500+ ("newcastle").@Doggie, i can understand you perfectly
Create an account or sign in to comment