Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 or AMD?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 3, 2003 2:07:03 PM

I'm about to build a new computer and have some trouble choosing which CPU to base it on.

In the P4 range the 2,53Mhz seems to get the most power for the money so that is my choice right now. Haven't looked around for AMD very much since I'm sort of "born with Intel". Anyone have any good reasons for buying an AMD instead of the P4 2,53? Also, which AMD is the closest corresponding model?

The computer will be used for a little bit of everything. Surfing the net, playing music, movies, gaming and so on.

Any help is appreciated.

Best regards,
Erik

More about : amd

March 3, 2003 2:27:11 PM

AMD all the way. The nVidia chipsets (nForce and nForce2) both only support AMD. Athlon's aren't rated the same way as P4s either. Intel uses raw Mhz to rate their CPUs while AMD uses the "+" designation to rate the equivalent speed of their processor to the P4. As far as THG shows, this is the case. Right now, AMDs run about 500Mhz slower than P4s, but with roughly the same performance. With the new Barton's that is increased to about 700Mhz difference.

Just look at sheer performance from the stock system. The only cases where the P4 beats out the XP hands-down is in the Quake III test, the memory bandwidth (because RAMBUS is faster than DDR, so it's a useless comparison) and sometimes in encoding. Otherwise, they are virtually identical, or the XP flexes it's muscle and shows it's strength.

You will find most people in these boards run Athlons. They are just the better chip IMO.

Visit http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020128/index.html (don't forget that the 3000Mhz is a full 1100Mhz faster than the XP, and see how close they are), and http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/index.html (comparison of 65 different CPUs). Below you can see what my choice was.

XP 2500+ Barton
A7N8X Dlx
2x512MB Corsair PC3200
MSI GF3 Ti500 w/64MB DDR
16x DVD-ROM
2x80GB 7200RPM Maxtor
Onboard audio

My computer is bigger than your computer....
March 3, 2003 3:52:06 PM

go with whatever you feel you need. If you feel safer with intel get intel. if you feel AMD is the choice go with that.

They both do the samething. ANd they both cost almost the same. On average intel is about 50 bucks more with exception with the latest and the greatest from intel and from AMD they are usually quite high in price.

If you notice AMD has jacked up their prices with these new bartons.

Go with whatever YOU feel safe. But be assured both chips do the samething and are equal in quality as far as quality control.

Intel is best paired with an Intel chipset and AMD is best paired with nforce2.

top makers are abit, asus, MSI, and gigabyte. There are a couple more but i can't think of them.

Thats all there is to it. Otherwise they do the samething. Stability is relative based on what the user does too.

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2003 5:10:23 PM

I don't like the way AMD is doing business. I usually tell people to got with a P4 whenver they're looking at a high end system. The XP PR system is a total scam, it means that an AMD processor is at best equal and sometimes much slower than the "MHz" of the P4 it's compared to.

Where AMD really shines right now is on value processors. If you wanted a fast CPU for under $100, AMD would be choice.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
March 3, 2003 7:40:28 PM

at this point i'd suggest a nForce 2 board with a athlon 2100+b, and just overclock it to somewhere between a 2700+ or 2800+'s speed, all you need is a half decent HSF, and the price difference is almost 100 bucks off on just the cpu! AMD is usually more bang for your buck, but like everyone said, go for Intel if your not sure on AMD.

"What kind of idiot are you?"
"I don't know, what kinds are there?"
March 3, 2003 11:52:47 PM

The AMD will outperform an equilivent rated intel chip 99% of the time. Plus the montherboards for AMD chips seem to always be MUCH MUCH cheaper than the motherboards for intel. Except for the extream high end (3.06Gighz P4) AMD CPU`s will be a better choice for performance and price than intel every time. And also with AMD you will have a slightly longer upgrade path than intel. Both are fairly short but AMD will last a little longer than intel as intel is moving to a 200mhz FSB soon and it will make all the current mobo`s obsolete. Where as nearly all new AMD mobo`s already support a 200mhz FSB so when AMD bring the 200mhz FSB bartons out you will be able to use them on current hardware.
AREA_51

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'
March 5, 2003 11:15:45 AM

Hi. The Athlon has fewer pipelines, so when there is a cache miss there is less to reload. This saves a lot of time. You see, all pipelines have to be reloaded during a miss and the Athlon has about half of the pipelines of intel. Plus the Athlon can do more per each cpu cycle.

Can you did it?. I knew that you could.
March 5, 2003 11:49:52 AM

(I hope this forum doesn´t confuse this guy even further!!)

So ehedlund, let´s get some things straight:
Both Intel and AMD are respectable choices. In the 2-2.5Ghz (or PR) range, AMD processors tend to cost less. In the 2.5-3Ghz (or PR) range, Intel processors cost the same.

It is NOT true that the XP outperforms equivalently-rated Intel models 99% of the time (even when they do outperform one another, the margin is minimal). What IS true is that the Athlon can do more work per clock. Which, alone, really doesn´t say anything (I don´t understand how lots of people love the XP for that alone and defend it solely based on that!!!) because the P4 does LOTS more cycles. EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT I´M SAYING? If you like performance per clock, then buy an old alpha processor!! (that wasn´t meant for you, ehedlund, sorry)

What is also true is that this choice is yours and that most people decide it with emotions, and not with thinking reasonably (right, people?). That´s why this thread will make some people go ranting...

Anyway, I think the 2.53Ghz P4 is a good choice and a good mid-range performer. The equivalently-priced CPU from AMD is a Barton (slightly cheaper) that doesn´t perform as well as the 2.53Ghz P4 in most cases (Bartons are, as of now, not the best choice). The XP 2400 would be cheaper, but is also outperformed by the 2.53Ghz P4. The XP 2600 should perform comparatively well and should be considered as your AMD option. It´s a good one! Actually, the mobos for athlons are cheaper, and you might consider that when buying.

Wouldn´t it be great if we all had the money to buy the 3.06Ghz P4? There is no doubt that it´s fastest. But mid-range will still cause debate...

But hey, do what you feel like. You can´t go really wrong with either option. Just don´t fall in love with one of your options!!!
March 5, 2003 12:09:20 PM

go ahead and buy both. who cares?
flip a coin.

im happy with my 20 year old atari playing pacman.
March 5, 2003 1:28:27 PM

I like AMD because alphabetically, it comes first...



The only way France is going in is if we tell them we've discovered truffles in Iraq. -Dennis Miller
March 5, 2003 8:40:34 PM

Hell, I don't even know what Barton means and can't get anyone to tell me. I keep waiting for the next great thing - and am still

But Officer, I wasn't speeding - I was qualifying ...
March 5, 2003 9:25:29 PM

The only factor for me when upgrading is how much performance i will get for my money, say i have $300 for a processor, i look what i can get, look at the benchmarks then buy the thing. Simple :p 
March 5, 2003 9:59:37 PM

Barton is the codename for the recently-released Athlon XP´s with PR rating 2500, 2800 and 3000. They all have 512KB L2 cache (up from 256KB in the "thoroughbred-b" codenamed athlon, which runs in PR ratings of 2400, 2600 and 2800). The Bartons all run at lower clock speeds, because the extra cache SHOULD give a boost in performance, so a 2800+ Barton runs at less than a 2800+ Thoroughbred core, and the cache should level the performance. The catch is: that is NOT always the case, and in the end, the barton doesn´t quite live up to its PR rating.

(actually, I think that the PR rating was doomed as soon as ANY nonstandard architecture change took place. Only perfect scaling would not screw up the PR rating. Besides, IF (and it´s not the case) the Barton 2800+ had its name justified, then what would be the point in having two processors with the same performance, i.e. 2800+? Quite a good question, isn´t it?)

Oh, and for more on the barton, check tomshardware cpu guide´s review. There are also many others spread across the net, if you have some time to take a look at them.

And if you are indeed waiting for the next great thing, then the Barton is definitely NOT it. I´d say that the next great thing is the canterwood/800Mhz FSB combination that´s for the P4, which is coming out within a month or two. It should be a very solid performer. (dual-ddr400 with 800Mhz FSB? 3.2Ghz P4 w/HT? is there even a question??)
!