amd or p IV ?

[watten]

due to amd rising price
which is the best? amd or p iv ?
aaannnd what is
-palomino
-barton
-thoroughbreed


thanks

 

[Teq]

I'd suggest you give some thought to your main uses for your computer... what do you want from it? If you are an enthusiast mostly concerned with gaming, video editing and graphics performance, go with AMD. If you are mainly using your system in business or "homeowner" apps with a smattering of graphics and gaming tossed in, go with the Intel.

Just one cautionary note...
Of late I've run into a number of problems with AMD's CPU temperatures creeping up over time and (rarely) just going nuts all of a sudden. I've determined this to be a problem with the lack of rigidity in the way the CPU coolers are attached causing the thermal bond between CPU and cooler to breakdown. Part of the reason is that AMD's heat island is very small compared to the larger heat spreader on Intel chips. Part of it is due to the soft rubber pads used by AMD. I've never had these problems with Intel which uses a chip-sized heat spreader and 4 point mounting that does not attach to the cpu socket. So if long term (more than a few months) system reliability is an issue, or if you will be moving the computer around, you may want to take this into account.



--->It ain't better if it don't work<---

 

[hoserb2000]

I think it's more of a question of what's best for YOU. Like Teq said, what will you be useing this systam for mostly? Do you ever plan to ovrclock? It is true, the heatsink on a AMD motherboard is not as nailed in as a P4, but Teq builds for the person who would have no idea how to reseat his heatsink, or anything like unto it, and as you are building your own system, I think you will be fine with that

As to the cost issue, not only do you have to buy a CPU, you need a motherboard and ram, which will be cheaper for you if you opt AMD

<font color=blue>Let's see, 500 posts a day, each day, for 30 days, and I will have more posts than Crashman!</font color=blue>

 

[jimbo99]

The prices aren't significantly higher and they will drop again soon. Intel's prices went up at the same time. It was Intel raising prices that lead AMD to raise theirs.

I wouldn't buy a processor. I'd buy a chipset and the motherboard designed around it. Give preference to the processor you feel most comfortable with.

 

[phial]

STOP ASKIN THIS QUESTIOJN !!!! *scream*



seriously, theres like, 5 threads with this EXACT SAME NAME in the last 2 days. search the forum, yull find your answer more quick that waiting here
*plus your spammin our forums*

 

[watten]

i use my system for autocad,3dsmax and game and never plan to overclock

 

[phial]

check pages 2 and 3 of the CPU section


theres thread that already answer your question

youll have to READ

 

[TKH]

Lot's of ppl here had answer the same question again and again, but since you're 'stranger' here, I might as well gives you a welcoming message, but read other thread first next time before you post, please.
I'll answer your second question.
Palomino, Thoroughbred-A, Thoroughbred-B and, Barton are four generations of AMD Athlon XP CPU core. I don't want to explain how they different, you can look up at Googles and there's lots of them (many of us will feel bored if I write down their differences and technology). I just tell you that if you want to buy Athlon XP, the best deal now is Thoroughbred-B 2800+.

You never know how stupid you are until you have done something stupid enough for you to realize it.
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=22996" target="_new">My System Rig</A>

 

[phial]

yeah sorry, your a newbie..

funny thing is most people that are 'strangers' never come back after their first post. thats why i said to read first

 

[sabbath1]

Ok, my take on this...

It not only boils down to price and applications used here. Here's what could, at least in my mind, give you a hint of what CPU to buy. Here's what you get if you buy...


AMD

1) Better overclocking capabilities (based on my own experiences), more Intel CPU's wear out after a while of heavy overclocking)

2) AMD's Athlon XP CPUs can handle higher temperatures than P4's can.

3) AMD seems to use fewer strong-arming tactics when it comes to how to treat their competitors. Though no company is perfect, and always doing the right thing.

4) AMD's CPUs as well as platforms generally go for a lower price.


Intel

1) The P4 has integrated thermal protection (you will be safe knowing your CPU won't start smoking if overheated.) AMD's CPUs requires the right motherboard to survive an overheat. However if you use the right motherboard, (and almost all new motherboards has thermal protection today), this sweet spot for the P4 can be ignored.

2) The P4 has a heatspreader on it (a piece of metal, which is used to better protect the CPU when installing a heatsink.) However if you take care, you will not crack the core of the AMD CPU. And a trained technician could always install it for you.


I always go for AMD myself from now on. So it means my opinion is somewhat biased.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by sabbath1 on 04/09/03 10:09 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[sabbath1]

Palomino was released first, and Barton is the newest. Differences from Palomino to Thoroughbred:

- 0.13 micron core size instead of 0.18
- Better heat dissipation

Thoroughbred to Barton:

- 256 kb extra L2 cache added.

My recommendation goes to the Barton CPU, 2500+ and 2800+ as those are the most price friendly. However if best performance is your way to go, pick 3000+.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Are we talking about the same AMD there...?

3) AMD seems to stay free of strong-arming ethics when it comes to competitors. So if ethics is your main buying point...

AMD´s ethics are not as good as you´re thinking. Their Bartons don´t perform as well as their PR ratings indicate at all (keep in mind that the much cheaper 2800+ T-bred performs on par - if not outperforms - the 3000+, which costs the same as the still unsurpassed 3.06Ghz P4!), plus their prices are not so much different from Intel´s own line lately. And that thing about "strong-arming competitors" is funny, when you come to think of it... Even <i>if</i> AMD wanted to, they couldn´t possibly do that! They don´t have the "strong arm" for that, I guess. They are struggling to survive, and are barely getting x86-64 out the door... As to motherboards, the mobo/memory combo for AMD is obviously cheaper than Intel´s (unless you go Corsair...)

Keep in mind that it´s highly likely that the platforms for P4 will change a lot in the next few weeks due to Canterwood... Things will be interesting, to say the least.

 

[sabbath1]

Absolutely talking about Advanced Micro Devices.

First of all, AMD is using PR to counter Intels strong-arming tactics of the everlasting MHz Myth.
And second, sure, the 3000+ doesn't win many more benchmarks than the 2800 T-bred does, but when it wins, it takes out a large victory. So the 3000+ definitely is faster than the 2800+ T-bred. And the same goes for 2800+ Barton which loses more benchmarks when it comes to the numbers, but when it wins the victories are larger, so that the 2800 rating is still justified. Besides, the 2800+ T-bred is no longer under manufacturing, a decision made before the Bartons were released.
And you're wrong, the 2800+ Barton is not more expensive. At least not a lot. But please give me a link to prices where you can confirm that, and I'd be happy to admit something else.

All companies are not willing to strong-arm their competitors with ugly marketing strategies. A lot of them are though. AMD hasn't been so far, maybe they will be if they ever overpower Intel.

Hammer could or could not be delayed because of Microsofts x86-64 OS, let's wait and see.

Yes, Intel will release 800 mhz FSB, but AMD will come with 400 Mhz FSB and very possibly 2.5 Ghz, which the 3000+ is very capable of.

The 3.06 P4 is only much faster at the THG review, in where they test mostly SSE2 based programs. I'd say the 3000+ is very comparable to it. And one last thing, the 3.06 boxed HSF sucks! It's extremely noisy, I've heard it. And it still allows temps of near 60 degrees at full load, when the max temp is at 69, compared to 3000+ at 85.

I sincerely hope AMD will take away some of Intels profits.

 

[HardWareBoss]

Intel P4's 2.4b and higher will benifit a lot when Canterwood is released.

 

[HardWareBoss]

Do you know anyone that has 3.06? I know someone who has one since mid Dec. He has no problem with it. And he's using stock HSF.

 

[sabbath1]

I've tested such a CPU myself. I really did dislike the fan, Intels older HSF's are better.

 

[sabbath1]

Probably will. Times will be increasingly hard for AMD, that's for sure. but I hope they can still keep up.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Oh boy...

Sabbath1, I don´t think Intel strong-armed the Mhz Myth, sorry, but we´ve already been through this. I refuse to get into it again here - I´ll do so in <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=131822#131822" target="_new">the previous thread</A>, where we were already having this conversation.

Also, I don´t get this sentence...

the 3000+ doesn't win many more benchmarks than the 2800 T-bred

I´m guessing you mean that the 3000+ isn´t faster than the 2800 in many benchmarks, right? I´ve seen many reviews on the net that said the same thing (it´s not just THG): <b>Bartons are overrated.</b> I´m slightly annoyed because you keep repeating that "it´s only because of SSE2" - well, sorry to say, but SSE2-code isn´t hard to come by. Many programs use that. P4s perform much better in those. That´s not "unlawful" competition from Intel, that´s to their credit! The SSE2 implementation on P4 is supposed to be an advantage for them, and it is! Think about it. What you´re saying is "the 3000+ will be faster than the 3.06Ghz in older applications" (nowadays, you can just recompile for SSE2, and it´s becoming commonplace). That´s <i>really</i> not "3000+ is faster than 3.06Ghz, overall". Don´t look at the performance numbers with a result (pro-AMD) already in mind. You´ve got to be less biased than that!

 

[sabbath1]

They didn't strong-arm it. But since Intel always has been the market-leader, they've had a trademark since then. And one of them is MHz.

I´m guessing you mean that the 3000+ isn´t faster than the 2800 in many benchmarks, right? I´ve seen many reviews on the net that said the same thing (it´s not just THG): Bartons are overrated. I´m slightly annoyed because you keep repeating that "it´s only because of SSE2" - well, sorry to say, but SSE2-code isn´t hard to come by. Many programs use that. P4s perform much better in those. That´s not "unlawful" competition from Intel, that´s to their credit! The SSE2 implementation on P4 is supposed to be an advantage for them, and it is! Think about it. What you´re saying is "the 3000+ will be faster than the 3.06Ghz in older applications" (nowadays, you can just recompile for SSE2, and it´s becoming commonplace). That´s really not "3000+ is faster than 3.06Ghz, overall". Don´t look at the performance numbers with a result (pro-AMD) already in mind. You´ve got to be less biased than that!

Yes, I mean that if you count just the number of benchmarks where the 3000+ Barton is faster than the 2800+ Thorougbred and vice versa, the both CPU's as very similar. But if you count the performance difference in programs where cache does have a big impact, then the 3000+ is the clearly faster processor. Hope I'm making sense here.

It's not only because of SSE2 that the 3.06 P4 is faster, but it's a big part of the story. Proven by AMD's own benchmarks, and a few others, the 3000+ Barton is indeed faster than the P4 3.06 when it comes to older apps. Sure I agree that new apps are more important, but I was just trying to point out that the 3000+ indeed has a chance in some applications, and that there ain't a clear winner between them both. And please, I don't look with pro-AMD in everything. I'm just trying to point out that the XP3000+ isn't all that bad to compare the 3.06 with.
But here it is. The P4 3.06 is overall, when it comes to new apps, the faster processor.

Final thing. The P4 handles SSE2 programs better because it's the only CPU of them two that even supports SSE2. AMD Athlon XP doesn't.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by sabbath1 on 04/06/03 10:42 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Mephistopheles]

I was just trying to point out that the 3000+ indeed has a chance in some applications, and that there ain't a clear winner between them both

That´s exactly what I mean when comparing the 2800 with the 3000, I guess. Think about it!

Oh, and of course AXPs don´t support SSE2. I knew that, it´s a limitation of the current Athlons, not an excuse.

 

[sabbath1]

I was referring to the 3000+ VS P4 3.06. The P4 3.06 is definitely faster, but not by very much.

But the 3000+ Barton doesn't win a much bigger number of benchmarks over that of the Tbred 2800+. But when it takes a win, it's quite big. So overall I would say the 3000+ is faster than the T-bred 2800+. But agreed, not much faster.

No excuse at all. But instead of making their CPUs compatible with SSE2, AMD should design their own apps accelerator.

 

[Mephistopheles]

This whole performance difference between 2800/3000/3.06Ghz is pointless, isn´t it? Let´s leave it at that. Peace.

But instead of making their CPUs compatible with SSE2, AMD should design their own apps accelerator.

Yes, that would be a very good thing. I think the main disadvantage to that would be that programs would have to be written considering both accelerators... Maybe they could all get together (AMD and Intel) and plan things a little bit (talk about a dream, huh?). So if one´s going 64 bit, the other might consider that too... For compatibility´s sake. I guess the world is just not perfect, after all... :frown:

 

[sabbath1]

This whole performance difference between 2800/3000/3.06Ghz is pointless, isn´t it? Let´s leave it at that. Peace.

Very pointless, agreed. Peace.

Yes, that would be a very good thing. I think the main disadvantage to that would be that programs would have to be written considering both accelerators... Maybe they could all get together (AMD and Intel) and plan things a little bit (talk about a dream, huh?). So if one´s going 64 bit, the other might consider that too... For compatibility´s sake. I guess the world is just not perfect, after all...

Yes of course. Programs would take more time before they'd be finished. Intel has more money, and a bigger reputation, so it's no wonder they often get first-hand on these offers with program distributors. AMD needs to get better than this, for competitions sake, because I suppose Intel and AMD will never get together. That could've been a good thing though, but very alike all competitive forces, it's probably never gonna happen.