prathapml Posted August 7, 2004 Share Posted August 7, 2004 the biggest difference between the two is $$$$.Yep!The price/performance ratio makes the Athlons winners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Leaper Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonu27 Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 Microsoft supports Intel better, also respects it more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godan Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godan Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robchurch Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonu27 Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 I know, why do they name it like that. Can't they just name it 1950+? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironfist241 Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGbadjohn Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Intel here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiMoNsAyS Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 (edited) 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, 2005 by SiMoNsAyS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonu27 Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prathapml Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 @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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astalavista Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 I am planning to purchase a AMD computer for the office.what do u recommend simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doggie Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 me likes my AMD Athlon *hugs it like his own child* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiMoNsAyS Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now