The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Which do you prefer??
My views, research:
The 3D Winbench 2000 Processor Test scores show the Athlon 1.33 GHz out in front, surpassing both the competitive AMD and Intel benchmarks. The battle between AMD and Intel is outlined by both AMD processors surpassing their Intel competition in Windows ME and Windows 2000 Pro. Given that the Athlon's L2 bus is narrower than that of the Pentium 4, this win may suggest an advantage relating to the exclusive cache format utilized by AMD processors.
The Athlon 266FSB version on an Iwill or Ausus board is very fast and stable Microstar also produces stable boards. The Athlon is no longer Over Clock friendly because you have to break out a soldering iron to be able to do it. However I donít think you NEED to Over Clock these things, they perform well at specs. The palomino should be even better because its not as hot. You really need to pay attention to your cooling solution when using the T-bird.
I really donít think Intel is worth a look at right now. They donít perform as well, they aren't any more stable, and they cost more. RAMBUS is a horrible solution compared to either DDR, or a 266FSB/PC133 solution.
By the time either of these chips are fully realized by software there will be a completely new technology out, im sure.
If you're a gamer the P4 is a better and more powerful chip. It's gaming tends to be better than the Athlon in many apps. But if you are a gamer who wants to pay 50% less for 10% decrease in fps then the Athlon is still very good. But if you do lots of professional graphics, animation, or CAD, the Athlon is the 1 to go for. As the P4 is very poor in these areas, and the Athlon is superior.
The new Pentium 4 will likely invigorate the debate between processor aficionados over which company--Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) or Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD)--rules the performance roost.
AMD's fastest Athlon chip tops out at 1.3GHz, giving Intel a substantial margin in speed.
While more speed boosts sales, it is only one measure of performance, and on many standard applications, The Pentium 4 does better on video compression and many multimedia applications.
"I'm leaning more toward the Intel model as time goes on," Krewell added. With applications such as Microsoft's PowerPoint presentation program, "we're getting to the point where the (1GHz) processor can do it all."
The megahertz gap is also hurting AMD, added Krewell. Although its 1.3GHz chips rival the 1.5GHz Pentium 4 in many respects, it has to price them against the 1.3GHz Pentium 4.
"AMD is being forced into a frequency match-up, which is beneficial to Intel," he said. "AMD is stuck with pricing based on megahertz."
The Pentium 4's advantages
The Pentium 4 has been endowed by Intel with a number of natural advantages, not least of which is its incredible ability to ramp clock frequencies and, hand-in-hand with it, a hair-raising 1.5GHz top clock speed. Impressive as the GHz numbers are, though, the real story with the P4 is its ability to move data around inside the system. From the front-side bus to its RDRAM memory interface to its north-south bridge link, the P4 has a considerable advantage over the Athlon platform, at least on paper.
Let me slow down and run some of the numbers by you. The P4 has a 100MHz, "quad-pumped" front-side bus between itself and the rest of the system. To confuse you, we will, as always, refer to this bus interchangeably as 100MHz and 400MHzówhatever suits our purposes. This 400MHz monster can pump through up to 3.2GB of data per second. Coupled nicely with that bus are the P4's dual channels of PC800 Rambus DRAM, which can also push through 3.2GB of data per second at peak. Further down, in the less-exotic bowels of the system, the Intel 850 chipset has a 266MHz "hub"-style link between its north and south bridge chips. (Though Intel doesn't use directional terminology, the chips' purposes are basically the same as in most other contemporary PCs.)
Within the next 2 years the architectural structure of the Pentium IV will allow Intel to hit theoretical speeds of up to 5 Gigahertz.
A major problem Intel has is that Athlon can do double the work in the same amount of time. It is not necessarily faster. For example:
Athlon goes to the shops with a truck and buys 500 000 items, Intel then goes to the same shop in a van and buys 250 000 items, Intel then repeats itís journey buying another 250 000 items. They have both done the same amount of work even though Intel took more time itís first journey was just as fast as Athlonís
The reason I looked into all the above was because I bought a Pentium 100mhz about 5 yrs ago and it's still going fine, (a bit slow but thatís only comparing it to new comps).
For Christmas last year I got a AMD Athlon 1.1Ghz and have had so many problems i cud write a book on them. It cud just be the games I now play (faster, more graphics, bigger) but I don't know.
Maybe Athlonís more popular but it hasn't got my vote.
My views, research:
The 3D Winbench 2000 Processor Test scores show the Athlon 1.33 GHz out in front, surpassing both the competitive AMD and Intel benchmarks. The battle between AMD and Intel is outlined by both AMD processors surpassing their Intel competition in Windows ME and Windows 2000 Pro. Given that the Athlon's L2 bus is narrower than that of the Pentium 4, this win may suggest an advantage relating to the exclusive cache format utilized by AMD processors.
The Athlon 266FSB version on an Iwill or Ausus board is very fast and stable Microstar also produces stable boards. The Athlon is no longer Over Clock friendly because you have to break out a soldering iron to be able to do it. However I donít think you NEED to Over Clock these things, they perform well at specs. The palomino should be even better because its not as hot. You really need to pay attention to your cooling solution when using the T-bird.
I really donít think Intel is worth a look at right now. They donít perform as well, they aren't any more stable, and they cost more. RAMBUS is a horrible solution compared to either DDR, or a 266FSB/PC133 solution.
By the time either of these chips are fully realized by software there will be a completely new technology out, im sure.
If you're a gamer the P4 is a better and more powerful chip. It's gaming tends to be better than the Athlon in many apps. But if you are a gamer who wants to pay 50% less for 10% decrease in fps then the Athlon is still very good. But if you do lots of professional graphics, animation, or CAD, the Athlon is the 1 to go for. As the P4 is very poor in these areas, and the Athlon is superior.
The new Pentium 4 will likely invigorate the debate between processor aficionados over which company--Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) or Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD)--rules the performance roost.
AMD's fastest Athlon chip tops out at 1.3GHz, giving Intel a substantial margin in speed.
While more speed boosts sales, it is only one measure of performance, and on many standard applications, The Pentium 4 does better on video compression and many multimedia applications.
"I'm leaning more toward the Intel model as time goes on," Krewell added. With applications such as Microsoft's PowerPoint presentation program, "we're getting to the point where the (1GHz) processor can do it all."
The megahertz gap is also hurting AMD, added Krewell. Although its 1.3GHz chips rival the 1.5GHz Pentium 4 in many respects, it has to price them against the 1.3GHz Pentium 4.
"AMD is being forced into a frequency match-up, which is beneficial to Intel," he said. "AMD is stuck with pricing based on megahertz."
The Pentium 4's advantages
The Pentium 4 has been endowed by Intel with a number of natural advantages, not least of which is its incredible ability to ramp clock frequencies and, hand-in-hand with it, a hair-raising 1.5GHz top clock speed. Impressive as the GHz numbers are, though, the real story with the P4 is its ability to move data around inside the system. From the front-side bus to its RDRAM memory interface to its north-south bridge link, the P4 has a considerable advantage over the Athlon platform, at least on paper.
Let me slow down and run some of the numbers by you. The P4 has a 100MHz, "quad-pumped" front-side bus between itself and the rest of the system. To confuse you, we will, as always, refer to this bus interchangeably as 100MHz and 400MHzówhatever suits our purposes. This 400MHz monster can pump through up to 3.2GB of data per second. Coupled nicely with that bus are the P4's dual channels of PC800 Rambus DRAM, which can also push through 3.2GB of data per second at peak. Further down, in the less-exotic bowels of the system, the Intel 850 chipset has a 266MHz "hub"-style link between its north and south bridge chips. (Though Intel doesn't use directional terminology, the chips' purposes are basically the same as in most other contemporary PCs.)
Within the next 2 years the architectural structure of the Pentium IV will allow Intel to hit theoretical speeds of up to 5 Gigahertz.
A major problem Intel has is that Athlon can do double the work in the same amount of time. It is not necessarily faster. For example:
Athlon goes to the shops with a truck and buys 500 000 items, Intel then goes to the same shop in a van and buys 250 000 items, Intel then repeats itís journey buying another 250 000 items. They have both done the same amount of work even though Intel took more time itís first journey was just as fast as Athlonís
The reason I looked into all the above was because I bought a Pentium 100mhz about 5 yrs ago and it's still going fine, (a bit slow but thatís only comparing it to new comps).
For Christmas last year I got a AMD Athlon 1.1Ghz and have had so many problems i cud write a book on them. It cud just be the games I now play (faster, more graphics, bigger) but I don't know.
Maybe Athlonís more popular but it hasn't got my vote.
Can't argue with Andi here (shame..), a more powerful system for £100 less. Fortunately, I can be pedantic about one detail - RAMBUS for the P4 is significantly faster than DDR, hence the hike in price, it actually runs at 800mhz as opposed to 266mhz for DDR ram.
OK then, lets do some tests:
AMD System:
AMD K7 Athlon Thunderbird 1.4 GHz (yes I know the XP is out, but tests show this is the closest AMD CPU to the P4) = £100
256mb DDR RAM (PC2100) = £23
Cheap MSI mobo = £51
Cheapest case I could find = £19
P4 System:
P4 1.4GHz CPU = £115
256mb RAMBUS (a measly PC800) = £68?!!?
Cheap MSI mobo (same spec as above) = £90
Cheapest case I could find = £23
So that's a basic system, the rest of the bits wont make a difference so I price it up as £193 for the AMD. P4 system is an almightly huge £296. £103 is close????? That's a huge difference for a product that isnt as good.
AMD System:
AMD K7 Athlon Thunderbird 1.4 GHz (yes I know the XP is out, but tests show this is the closest AMD CPU to the P4) = £100
256mb DDR RAM (PC2100) = £23
Cheap MSI mobo = £51
Cheapest case I could find = £19
P4 System:
P4 1.4GHz CPU = £115
256mb RAMBUS (a measly PC800) = £68?!!?
Cheap MSI mobo (same spec as above) = £90
Cheapest case I could find = £23
So that's a basic system, the rest of the bits wont make a difference so I price it up as £193 for the AMD. P4 system is an almightly huge £296. £103 is close????? That's a huge difference for a product that isnt as good.
well, I dont know how you work that one out but who cares if they are better at 5GHz???? That's at least 5 years away!
I've only ever had one Intel CPU, and at the time I remember it was crap! It was one of the first MMX processors. Ever since I've only used AMD, I currently have this AMD K7 Athlon Thunderbird overclocked to 1GHz, and it was very easy, a bit of colouring in with a pencil and away you go. You can see how much the AMD is made for O/Cing by the motherboards around for it. I have the excellent Asus A7V mobo, I can easily change the FSB and everything through the BIOS! Incredibly easy!
The reason I wouldnt touch an Intel if you paid me, is that not only are they more expensive but there slower. Tests have proven it. And why should I go out and buy a new CPU, new mobo, new RAM, new case etc etc etc when I can just go out and buy a new XP?
The reason I wouldnt touch an Intel if you paid me, is that not only are they more expensive but there slower. Tests have proven it. And why should I go out and buy a new CPU, new mobo, new RAM, new case etc etc etc when I can just go out and buy a new XP?
Hey, Thanks for your reply Reaper[oV].
The reason I support Intel is because I feel they will eventually have as much power and be able to buy as many items as AMD (see previous post). Once they do this there processor will still be as stable at 5GHz than at 1GHz. where as if you were to get an AMD at 5GHz it would melt. In the short-term AMD have the upper hand but Intel still have a few tricks up their sleeves.
The reason I support Intel is because I feel they will eventually have as much power and be able to buy as many items as AMD (see previous post). Once they do this there processor will still be as stable at 5GHz than at 1GHz. where as if you were to get an AMD at 5GHz it would melt. In the short-term AMD have the upper hand but Intel still have a few tricks up their sleeves.
I've always preferred AMDs, and I read that an T-bird 1.4 outperforms a P4 2ghz in all benchmarks except some office apps.
Anyway, my new comp will be powered by AthlonXP 1500 sweetness...
It won't have WinXP on it though, oh no. Win2K or they lose £1,216, their choice.
Anyway, my new comp will be powered by AthlonXP 1500 sweetness...
It won't have WinXP on it though, oh no. Win2K or they lose £1,216, their choice.
Mat3383 wrote:
> Which do you prefer??
Heh. A copied post, well done - shouldn't really be at the point where I immediately check to see if an intelligent post about hardware is just copied and pasted...run some of the first lines though google.
Anyway, you've gone to the trouble of finding places to grab this from, so I'll go to the trouble of disecting it just to be difficult. That and I'm bored.
The Athlon 266FSB version on an Iwill or
> Ausus board is very fast and stable Microstar also produces stable boards. The
> Athlon is no longer Over Clock friendly because you have to break out a
> soldering iron to be able to do it.
Er..sure. Never heard of the pencil trick? Just get a mechanical pencil or some conductive paint, seperate each L1 bridge with masking tape, and join the gap between the terminals. Voila, multiplier unlocked, enjoy using the most overclockable CPU I've seen for a long time. Some AXIA 1GHz models have run stabily at 1.6GHz (with sufficient cooling).
Yes, the new athlonXPs are harder because of the trenches between the L1 terminals, but you can still fill these with tipp-ex or some other similar (non-conductive) substance and go over the top with conductive paint. Trickier, yes, but not impossible, although you may not get all of the mults.
However I donít think you NEED to Over Clock
> these things, they perform well at specs. The palomino should be even better
> because its not as hot. You really need to pay attention to your cooling
> solution when using the T-bird.
You need to pay attention to your cooling solution when using any CPU, the on-chip thermal protection diode on the XP is poor, and will only work on some motherboards anyway. You don't really -need- to overclock any PC, most people putting the speed up by 100mhz wont notice any difference.. the whole point for me is the challenge, pushing my PC harder and harder, if only to squeeze a few more 3d marks out of it..
I really donít think Intel is worth a look at
> right now. They donít perform as well, they aren't any more stable, and they
> cost more. RAMBUS is a horrible solution compared to either DDR, or a
> 266FSB/PC133 solution.
By the time either of these chips are fully realized by
> software there will be a completely new technology out, im sure.
If you're a
> gamer the P4 is a better and more powerful chip. It's gaming tends to be better
> than the Athlon in many apps. But if you are a gamer who wants to pay 50% less
> for 10% decrease in fps then the Athlon is still very good. But if you do lots
> of professional graphics, animation, or CAD, the Athlon is the 1 to go for. As
> the P4 is very poor in these areas, and the Athlon is superior.
Most recent games rely far more on the graphics card than the CPU itself - the 3d mark series is proof of this. Checking my scores from 3dm2k, upgrading my processor from a duron 750 to an athlonxp gave a massive performance gain on my old GF2mx. Running 3dm2k1 with the new cpu but old graphics card made little difference, but the performance shot up after I chucked a GF3 in. Conversely, the GF3 only made a difference of about 2000 points in 2k. Older apps - cpu, newer ones - graphics cards. Seeing as most cards have their own GPU now, this takes most of the strain off of your system processor.
The new
> Pentium 4 will likely invigorate the debate between processor aficionados over
> which company--Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) or Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD)--rules
> the performance roost.
AMD's fastest Athlon chip tops out at 1.3GHz, giving
> Intel a substantial margin in speed.
Old site? The XP1900+ is around now, 1.6GHz, supposedly equivalent to a 1.9GHz T-Bird.
The megahertz gap is also hurting AMD, added Krewell. Although its 1.3GHz
> chips rival the 1.5GHz Pentium 4 in many respects, it has to price them against
> the 1.3GHz Pentium 4.
AMD chips have always been a hell of a lot cheaper than their Intel counterparts, similar speed and better performance for a lower price..
"AMD is being forced into a frequency match-up,
> which is beneficial to Intel," he said. "AMD is stuck with pricing
> based on megahertz."
Yes, the general public want big numbers, so AMD brought in their PR rating system...gives an idea of the equivalent T-Bird speed - for example, XP1600 == T-Bird 1.6GHz (supposedly), despite the clock speed of the XP1600 only actually being 1.4GHz. And they're still cheaper.
Not going to dispute the numbers, they're fact. Yes, you get a higher FSB, but the paper stats are irrelevant if the performance of the machine in action disproves them.
The reason I looked into all the above was because I bought a
> Pentium 100mhz about 5 yrs ago and it's still going fine, (a bit slow but thatís
> only comparing it to new comps).
For Christmas last year I got a AMD Athlon
> 1.1Ghz and have had so many problems i cud write a book on them. It cud just be
> the games I now play (faster, more graphics, bigger) but I don't know.
I presume that you use you P100 for very little other than basic office work, browsing etc...compare that with your new system, which has to run all of the latest apps and games - cpu intensive stuf. Stability isn't dependant on the processor alone, your choice of motherboard, ram and other system components will have an effect, as will what background processes you have running. I've had an Athlon 1.1GHz running perfectly stable at 1.35+ since last christmas, never any major problems.
Maybe
> Athlonís more popular but it hasn't got my vote.
Fair enough, but I seem to have missed any convincing argument towards intel...cost more, performance is worse, no advantage in reliability, not as good for overclocking, need ludicrously expensive RAM...am I missing something?
> Which do you prefer??
Heh. A copied post, well done - shouldn't really be at the point where I immediately check to see if an intelligent post about hardware is just copied and pasted...run some of the first lines though google.
Anyway, you've gone to the trouble of finding places to grab this from, so I'll go to the trouble of disecting it just to be difficult. That and I'm bored.
The Athlon 266FSB version on an Iwill or
> Ausus board is very fast and stable Microstar also produces stable boards. The
> Athlon is no longer Over Clock friendly because you have to break out a
> soldering iron to be able to do it.
Er..sure. Never heard of the pencil trick? Just get a mechanical pencil or some conductive paint, seperate each L1 bridge with masking tape, and join the gap between the terminals. Voila, multiplier unlocked, enjoy using the most overclockable CPU I've seen for a long time. Some AXIA 1GHz models have run stabily at 1.6GHz (with sufficient cooling).
Yes, the new athlonXPs are harder because of the trenches between the L1 terminals, but you can still fill these with tipp-ex or some other similar (non-conductive) substance and go over the top with conductive paint. Trickier, yes, but not impossible, although you may not get all of the mults.
However I donít think you NEED to Over Clock
> these things, they perform well at specs. The palomino should be even better
> because its not as hot. You really need to pay attention to your cooling
> solution when using the T-bird.
You need to pay attention to your cooling solution when using any CPU, the on-chip thermal protection diode on the XP is poor, and will only work on some motherboards anyway. You don't really -need- to overclock any PC, most people putting the speed up by 100mhz wont notice any difference.. the whole point for me is the challenge, pushing my PC harder and harder, if only to squeeze a few more 3d marks out of it..
I really donít think Intel is worth a look at
> right now. They donít perform as well, they aren't any more stable, and they
> cost more. RAMBUS is a horrible solution compared to either DDR, or a
> 266FSB/PC133 solution.
By the time either of these chips are fully realized by
> software there will be a completely new technology out, im sure.
If you're a
> gamer the P4 is a better and more powerful chip. It's gaming tends to be better
> than the Athlon in many apps. But if you are a gamer who wants to pay 50% less
> for 10% decrease in fps then the Athlon is still very good. But if you do lots
> of professional graphics, animation, or CAD, the Athlon is the 1 to go for. As
> the P4 is very poor in these areas, and the Athlon is superior.
Most recent games rely far more on the graphics card than the CPU itself - the 3d mark series is proof of this. Checking my scores from 3dm2k, upgrading my processor from a duron 750 to an athlonxp gave a massive performance gain on my old GF2mx. Running 3dm2k1 with the new cpu but old graphics card made little difference, but the performance shot up after I chucked a GF3 in. Conversely, the GF3 only made a difference of about 2000 points in 2k. Older apps - cpu, newer ones - graphics cards. Seeing as most cards have their own GPU now, this takes most of the strain off of your system processor.
The new
> Pentium 4 will likely invigorate the debate between processor aficionados over
> which company--Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) or Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD)--rules
> the performance roost.
AMD's fastest Athlon chip tops out at 1.3GHz, giving
> Intel a substantial margin in speed.
Old site? The XP1900+ is around now, 1.6GHz, supposedly equivalent to a 1.9GHz T-Bird.
The megahertz gap is also hurting AMD, added Krewell. Although its 1.3GHz
> chips rival the 1.5GHz Pentium 4 in many respects, it has to price them against
> the 1.3GHz Pentium 4.
AMD chips have always been a hell of a lot cheaper than their Intel counterparts, similar speed and better performance for a lower price..
"AMD is being forced into a frequency match-up,
> which is beneficial to Intel," he said. "AMD is stuck with pricing
> based on megahertz."
Yes, the general public want big numbers, so AMD brought in their PR rating system...gives an idea of the equivalent T-Bird speed - for example, XP1600 == T-Bird 1.6GHz (supposedly), despite the clock speed of the XP1600 only actually being 1.4GHz. And they're still cheaper.
Not going to dispute the numbers, they're fact. Yes, you get a higher FSB, but the paper stats are irrelevant if the performance of the machine in action disproves them.
The reason I looked into all the above was because I bought a
> Pentium 100mhz about 5 yrs ago and it's still going fine, (a bit slow but thatís
> only comparing it to new comps).
For Christmas last year I got a AMD Athlon
> 1.1Ghz and have had so many problems i cud write a book on them. It cud just be
> the games I now play (faster, more graphics, bigger) but I don't know.
I presume that you use you P100 for very little other than basic office work, browsing etc...compare that with your new system, which has to run all of the latest apps and games - cpu intensive stuf. Stability isn't dependant on the processor alone, your choice of motherboard, ram and other system components will have an effect, as will what background processes you have running. I've had an Athlon 1.1GHz running perfectly stable at 1.35+ since last christmas, never any major problems.
Maybe
> Athlonís more popular but it hasn't got my vote.
Fair enough, but I seem to have missed any convincing argument towards intel...cost more, performance is worse, no advantage in reliability, not as good for overclocking, need ludicrously expensive RAM...am I missing something?
Which do you prefer??
My views, research:
The 3D Winbench 2000 Processor Test scores show the Athlon 1.33 GHz out in front, surpassing both the competitive AMD and Intel benchmarks. The battle between AMD and Intel is outlined by both AMD processors surpassing their Intel competition in Windows ME and Windows 2000 Pro. Given that the Athlon's L2 bus is narrower than that of the Pentium 4, this win may suggest an advantage relating to the exclusive cache format utilized by AMD processors.
The Athlon 266FSB version on an Iwill or Ausus board is very fast and stable Microstar also produces stable boards. The Athlon is no longer Over Clock friendly because you have to break out a soldering iron to be able to do it. However I donít think you NEED to Over Clock these things, they perform well at specs. The palomino should be even better because its not as hot. You really need to pay attention to your cooling solution when using the T-bird.
I really donít think Intel is worth a look at right now. They donít perform as well, they aren't any more stable, and they cost more. RAMBUS is a horrible solution compared to either DDR, or a 266FSB/PC133 solution.
By the time either of these chips are fully realized by software there will be a completely new technology out, im sure.
If you're a gamer the P4 is a better and more powerful chip. It's gaming tends to be better than the Athlon in many apps. But if you are a gamer who wants to pay 50% less for 10% decrease in fps then the Athlon is still very good. But if you do lots of professional graphics, animation, or CAD, the Athlon is the 1 to go for. As the P4 is very poor in these areas, and the Athlon is superior.
The new Pentium 4 will likely invigorate the debate between processor aficionados over which company--Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) or Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD)--rules the performance roost.
AMD's fastest Athlon chip tops out at 1.3GHz, giving Intel a substantial margin in speed.
While more speed boosts sales, it is only one measure of performance, and on many standard applications, The Pentium 4 does better on video compression and many multimedia applications.
"I'm leaning more toward the Intel model as time goes on," Krewell added. With applications such as Microsoft's PowerPoint presentation program, "we're getting to the point where the (1GHz) processor can do it all."
The megahertz gap is also hurting AMD, added Krewell. Although its 1.3GHz chips rival the 1.5GHz Pentium 4 in many respects, it has to price them against the 1.3GHz Pentium 4.
"AMD is being forced into a frequency match-up, which is beneficial to Intel," he said. "AMD is stuck with pricing based on megahertz."
The Pentium 4's advantages
The Pentium 4 has been endowed by Intel with a number of natural advantages, not least of which is its incredible ability to ramp clock frequencies and, hand-in-hand with it, a hair-raising 1.5GHz top clock speed. Impressive as the GHz numbers are, though, the real story with the P4 is its ability to move data around inside the system. From the front-side bus to its RDRAM memory interface to its north-south bridge link, the P4 has a considerable advantage over the Athlon platform, at least on paper.
Let me slow down and run some of the numbers by you. The P4 has a 100MHz, "quad-pumped" front-side bus between itself and the rest of the system. To confuse you, we will, as always, refer to this bus interchangeably as 100MHz and 400MHzówhatever suits our purposes. This 400MHz monster can pump through up to 3.2GB of data per second. Coupled nicely with that bus are the P4's dual channels of PC800 Rambus DRAM, which can also push through 3.2GB of data per second at peak. Further down, in the less-exotic bowels of the system, the Intel 850 chipset has a 266MHz "hub"-style link between its north and south bridge chips. (Though Intel doesn't use directional terminology, the chips' purposes are basically the same as in most other contemporary PCs.)
Within the next 2 years the architectural structure of the Pentium IV will allow Intel to hit theoretical speeds of up to 5 Gigahertz.
A major problem Intel has is that Athlon can do double the work in the same amount of time. It is not necessarily faster. For example:
Athlon goes to the shops with a truck and buys 500 000 items, Intel then goes to the same shop in a van and buys 250 000 items, Intel then repeats itís journey buying another 250 000 items. They have both done the same amount of work even though Intel took more time itís first journey was just as fast as Athlonís
The reason I looked into all the above was because I bought a Pentium 100mhz about 5 yrs ago and it's still going fine, (a bit slow but thatís only comparing it to new comps).
For Christmas last year I got a AMD Athlon 1.1Ghz and have had so many problems i cud write a book on them. It cud just be the games I now play (faster, more graphics, bigger) but I don't know.
Maybe Athlonís more popular but it hasn't got my vote.
My views, research:
The 3D Winbench 2000 Processor Test scores show the Athlon 1.33 GHz out in front, surpassing both the competitive AMD and Intel benchmarks. The battle between AMD and Intel is outlined by both AMD processors surpassing their Intel competition in Windows ME and Windows 2000 Pro. Given that the Athlon's L2 bus is narrower than that of the Pentium 4, this win may suggest an advantage relating to the exclusive cache format utilized by AMD processors.
The Athlon 266FSB version on an Iwill or Ausus board is very fast and stable Microstar also produces stable boards. The Athlon is no longer Over Clock friendly because you have to break out a soldering iron to be able to do it. However I donít think you NEED to Over Clock these things, they perform well at specs. The palomino should be even better because its not as hot. You really need to pay attention to your cooling solution when using the T-bird.
I really donít think Intel is worth a look at right now. They donít perform as well, they aren't any more stable, and they cost more. RAMBUS is a horrible solution compared to either DDR, or a 266FSB/PC133 solution.
By the time either of these chips are fully realized by software there will be a completely new technology out, im sure.
If you're a gamer the P4 is a better and more powerful chip. It's gaming tends to be better than the Athlon in many apps. But if you are a gamer who wants to pay 50% less for 10% decrease in fps then the Athlon is still very good. But if you do lots of professional graphics, animation, or CAD, the Athlon is the 1 to go for. As the P4 is very poor in these areas, and the Athlon is superior.
The new Pentium 4 will likely invigorate the debate between processor aficionados over which company--Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) or Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD)--rules the performance roost.
AMD's fastest Athlon chip tops out at 1.3GHz, giving Intel a substantial margin in speed.
While more speed boosts sales, it is only one measure of performance, and on many standard applications, The Pentium 4 does better on video compression and many multimedia applications.
"I'm leaning more toward the Intel model as time goes on," Krewell added. With applications such as Microsoft's PowerPoint presentation program, "we're getting to the point where the (1GHz) processor can do it all."
The megahertz gap is also hurting AMD, added Krewell. Although its 1.3GHz chips rival the 1.5GHz Pentium 4 in many respects, it has to price them against the 1.3GHz Pentium 4.
"AMD is being forced into a frequency match-up, which is beneficial to Intel," he said. "AMD is stuck with pricing based on megahertz."
The Pentium 4's advantages
The Pentium 4 has been endowed by Intel with a number of natural advantages, not least of which is its incredible ability to ramp clock frequencies and, hand-in-hand with it, a hair-raising 1.5GHz top clock speed. Impressive as the GHz numbers are, though, the real story with the P4 is its ability to move data around inside the system. From the front-side bus to its RDRAM memory interface to its north-south bridge link, the P4 has a considerable advantage over the Athlon platform, at least on paper.
Let me slow down and run some of the numbers by you. The P4 has a 100MHz, "quad-pumped" front-side bus between itself and the rest of the system. To confuse you, we will, as always, refer to this bus interchangeably as 100MHz and 400MHzówhatever suits our purposes. This 400MHz monster can pump through up to 3.2GB of data per second. Coupled nicely with that bus are the P4's dual channels of PC800 Rambus DRAM, which can also push through 3.2GB of data per second at peak. Further down, in the less-exotic bowels of the system, the Intel 850 chipset has a 266MHz "hub"-style link between its north and south bridge chips. (Though Intel doesn't use directional terminology, the chips' purposes are basically the same as in most other contemporary PCs.)
Within the next 2 years the architectural structure of the Pentium IV will allow Intel to hit theoretical speeds of up to 5 Gigahertz.
A major problem Intel has is that Athlon can do double the work in the same amount of time. It is not necessarily faster. For example:
Athlon goes to the shops with a truck and buys 500 000 items, Intel then goes to the same shop in a van and buys 250 000 items, Intel then repeats itís journey buying another 250 000 items. They have both done the same amount of work even though Intel took more time itís first journey was just as fast as Athlonís
The reason I looked into all the above was because I bought a Pentium 100mhz about 5 yrs ago and it's still going fine, (a bit slow but thatís only comparing it to new comps).
For Christmas last year I got a AMD Athlon 1.1Ghz and have had so many problems i cud write a book on them. It cud just be the games I now play (faster, more graphics, bigger) but I don't know.
Maybe Athlonís more popular but it hasn't got my vote.