Should I choose P4 or AMD?

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,
Gary Hendricks
Learn how to create and edit your own desktop videos!
14 answers Last reply
More about should choose
  1. Are u going to be overclocking at all if ever????

    anyways i recomend the AMD Athlon XP 2600+ w/ 333MHz FSB.....

    it WILL be faster than the P4 is just about everything and should be less in cost.....pair it up with a good nForce 2 motherboard and 2 sticks of DDR Ram and ull be booming.......

    <A HREF="" target="_new">-MeTaL RoCkEr</A>
  2. I'd also go the AMD route. Unless you plan on buying Intel's fastest processor, Athlons are a much better choice. They offer the same performance at a much lower cost. Also the motherboards for AMD processor are generallly much cheaper.

    The aim of military training is not just to prepare men for battle, but to make them long for it. <A HREF="" target="_new"><b>MY SYSTEM</b></A>
  3. I like AMDs as well. They seem to be nicely balanced processors, with really good multitasking capabilities, moreso than P4s in my experience. I've had nothing but joys with all of my AMD processors, and I think you'll find the same thing.

    XP 2500+ Barton
    A7N8X Dlx
    2x512MB Corsair PC3200
    ATI 9700 Pro
    16x DVD-ROM
    2x80GB 7200RPM Maxtor
    Onboard audio
  4. We got good post here as even when AMD was on top 1 GHZ P3 vs 1 GHZ thunderbird.AMD was much faster (stabilty was a unknow term).In the last benchmark from toms you can look the result be on today software. P3 is faster most of the time as there more advanced ISA and better developer support have eat all advance that AMD have may gathers in the 2000.As i know P3 1GHZ are still in use and will stay in use for a long time and dont have to deal with soem my thermal dead or stanility issue of VIA chipset or ALI that was not able to give performace and stability at the same time.

    Back to 2003 a quick look and the internet you will found that 2,8 2,6 if you want the high-end is the same price as equivalance that AMD offering but with a allready weaker performace and older ISA (ISA= Instruction set architecture like SSE X86 MMX) and you dont get the Intel chipset with perfect driver and perfect support from linux and Microsoft.In my experience a AMD/Linux platfrom are really bad my own teacher also adopt this think even worse when it come for a unix platfrom.

    Also a RAID under a intel chipset have a peak of 120 mb any others are around 100 mb that is also free.The AGP port is also faster.You may look at GPU (video card) there driver are much better for Intel, maily from ATI many R8500 was not working with early driver on a AMD platform.I skip workstation driver wich is a disater for AMD or any others as all OEM use intel chipset and Intel cpu all manufacture make and optimaze there produce for intel cpu also for tech support.

    At the end price are equal so make your choice.Expection low-end where amd have good performace and intel stability will be hit by cheap component.VIA is also a good choice if you think that Intel is just a big evil corporation.

    [-peep-] french
  5. I would go for whatever gives you the most bang for buck. I tend to prefer AMD cpu's as they give better all round performance, often at a better price. Plus you dont need super fast memory to extract all the performance out of the cpu.

    <b>Damn War! I'm too young to watch other people die!</b>
    <A HREF="" target="_new">My Images!</A>
  6. I also recommend the Athlon 2600 along with an Epox 8RDA+ NForce2 Mobo. And dont worry AMD is perfectly stable nowadays. Just as stable as intel.

    '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'
  7. These guys are all lying to you, the P4 is a better value at that speed.

    <font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
  8. Quote:
    The computer will be used for a little bit of everything. Surfing the net, playing music, movies, gaming and so on.

    It may be better to wait until the 800 MHz FSB and Hyperthreading CPUs come out in a couple months. That HT sure is nifty, speeds up general multitasking significantly. Right now it's only available on the 3.06 GHz at a premium.

  9. the P4 may be better value at those speeds... but last i looked there was more to a computer than just a processor! AMD motherboards tend to be cheaper than an equally specced intel one which offsets any cost advantage you get from the P4. anyway it comes down to personal preference. both are stable both have on-die thermal protection both are morethan powerful enough to run any app today or tomorow. and amd run cooler than intels right now :wink:

    I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.
  10. LoL Juin you have completely torn apart AMD as a CPU in your post. If you want the best for less AMD... Mid Range (this coming from some1 who reads many of these posts and has never gone intel) I would have to say AMD. FOR THE BEST Intel. I realize you are familiar with intel and most people like to stick with what they know, however I would like to recommend you do a tad more research on AMDs. I am building a new system as well, found myself in your position and basically for a kicking system at reasonable prices, I am sorry I am going AMD. AMD 2500 Barton or the 2600 with like a ASUS A7N8X DDR333 can't go wrong
  11. Actually the boards cost about the same. For example, the 8SQ800 goes for around $100.

    In the end either system cost within $50 of each other. It's a wash for price. But the P4 2.53 performs more consistantly over a wide range of applications than the XP2500+.

    And they main reason I brought it up was because so many people said the XP2500+ was a far better deal. If nearly the whole forum ganged up on the side of Intel, I could point out nice things about AMD too. You see, the value of either configuration is so close that there is no clear leader.

    <font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
  12. i mainly smash VIA and any others chipset manufacture.

    I just look at price a 2500 cost the same price as a P4 2.53 and performe the same if Nforce 2 is use Asus An7xxxx cost 150$ a I845Pe can be found around the same price

    AMD can sold CPU if the are cheaper really much cheaper i dont why i will bothers with a cpu that die for nothing a cpu that dont overclock well a cpu that have a no support and is much cheaper.I you want a cheap computer go buy a dell.Te same goes for RDRAM 85$ vs 70 for Corsair memory that a 30$ buck difference that value the extra powwr and scale well with overcloking unlike DDR-1 400 that samsung have say it may be unstable with Canterwood.

    [-peep-] french
  13. timberwolf1 I am in the same boat, building my own PC, and first decision hurdle is AMD or Intel. As you can see, there are A LOT of AMD fans on here, and maybe rightly so!

    I actually was bent on the Intel until some of these guys jumped on my ass! So now I am neutral.

    MY QUESTION THOUGH, hopefully will help, is this:
    For future upgradeability, which is better, AMD or Intel? I am planning on buying a really good motherboard, and wondered which processor would have the best chance of allowing me to upgrade the chip on the existing motherboard.

    The hyperthreading on Intel looks like could be a winner. Right now, too expensive, but in a couple years, when I am able to upgrade chip, maybe the hyperthreads will be dirt cheap and could just replace the chip.

    Is there anything AMD has planned a year or two out that would be compatible with todays motherboards?

  14. None of the current mobos will support future technology.
    But I´ll tell you this: for future upgradability, you should wait another two months and get a Canterwood (intel) mobo. It´ll support an 800Mhz FSB and the next generation of processors from Intel, Prescott, which should give it a nice upgradability of at least 2 years with rock-solid processors. Besides, Canterwood is a killer mobo with a list of features from hell. With prescott, by the way, you´ll also get an enhanced version of HT and lots of other features, too. You could get a Canterwood with a 3.06Ghz p4 HT in two months; by then, the 3.2Ghz, 800Mhz FSB-behemoth will be out, but it will probably be expensive, and, by then, the 3.06Ghz with its robust performance will already be much cheaper. You wouldn´t be using your mobo´s full capacity, with <i>only</i> a 3.06Ghz, 533Mhz FSB-HT-beastie on the helm, but it´ll be upgradeable, that´s for sure. :smile:

    With AMD, the next technology is x86-64, which is taking forever for them to get going (delays, etc...) and should only be out by the end of the year. It won´t be compatible with current technology at all. I wouldn´t really bet on AMD in that way now. Personally, I´ll upgrade to a Canterwood as soon as I get the chance... and the money, of course...
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Computer AMD