Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should I get celeron or send $$ for Pentium 4?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 18, 2003 9:04:54 PM

This my first try in building a new budget computer! I hoping to keep the cost down to $500 for the CPU by getting a 2.6 ghz celeron. However, one my friends told me celeron sucks compared to Pentium 4. I really know if that true or not. But if it is I could spend $60 or on a pentium 4, BUT I DON'T want to get a cheap generic cpus like AMD. I really not don't want to trust generic hardware stuff, espicially since its my first time building a comp :) 

Here is the configuration I was planning on:
2.6 ghz celeron
Asus 865P Motherboard P4P8X
Nvida 5200 128 vid card
Buffalo DDR 2700 512 MB
seagate 80 GB HD 7200
CD-RW/DVD combo
Evermax Case with powersupply

More about : celeron send pentium

December 18, 2003 9:20:44 PM

A) Celeron sucks. Whatever you do don't buy one.
B) Nvidia FX 5200s suck. Either buy a ti4200 or spend a little more money on an ati 9600pro, but don't buy the 5200.
C) AMD makes good chips, but if you are dead set against them get a P4. If you want to see how bad the celerons are head over to anandtech (sorry, at work and don't have time to grab the link) and take a look a their bugdet cpu article "battle of the 'rons" or something like that. Personally, were I to build a $500 system I would go AMD.
D) Make sure that that case comes with a decent power supply for the system you decide to build.
December 18, 2003 9:25:08 PM

No,never get a celeron,they're real performanance is around .6-.65 of their clock speed.

"However, one my friends told me celeron sucks compared to Pentium 4. I really know if that true or not. But if it is I could spend $60 or on a pentium 4, BUT I DON'T want to get a cheap generic cpus like AMD."

Amd is not cheap and generic anymore and the "cheap" amd athlon xp+bartons perform about as well as the non-800 fsb p4s;but they're hard to install.
Related resources
December 18, 2003 9:28:56 PM

AMD is not generic that's why they are called AMD. You are sadly mistaken in your interpitation of AMD. The fact is the cheapest amd or duron chip for sale today will best the top celeron out there.

You don't have to like amd but it does seem your only fooling yourself cause you could get a much better amd cpu for the price of the celeron.

If you can afford it or even if you have to save for a while get the p4 and avoid the celron they are junk.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
December 18, 2003 9:32:42 PM

If I were you, I'd probably spend some more cash on a 800Mhz FSB P4 (like the 2.6Ghz P4... this is a great processor). This is roughly equivalent in performance to a 3000+ Barton from AMD, and has HT... as a bonus. That's what I'd do.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
December 18, 2003 9:36:31 PM

They are NOT hard to install.

To the original poster. Celerons suck arse. A p4 is a good choice, but not for a budget pc. Get the AMD 2500+. It's cheap, fast, OC'ible. Can't do better for a budget CPU.

<font color=blue>If the <font color=yellow>laurel</font color=yellow> is to big for your head, it becomes a hoola-hoop, and you have to keep your butt really busy.</font color=blue>
December 18, 2003 9:46:45 PM

"They are NOT hard to install."

Actually,a lot of people have problems installing them and their HSF and damage them when doing it;but you can see the correct way to do it at tiger direct.
a b à CPUs
December 18, 2003 10:44:05 PM

The Celeron really is that bad. The best Celeron is slower than the P4 1.8. The "slowest" current P4 is the 2.6C, but you might find deals on outdated speeds.

Tigerdirect had some closeouts on older P4's. You would be best serviced to look around. Also, the 5200 is a terrible card, the old GeForce4 Ti4200 is a much better performer.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
December 19, 2003 1:05:14 AM

If money is really tight, get a 2.4 or 2.6 P4 and an 865 board with integrated graphics and sound. You can get a nicer card at a later point. You could also scrimp and get 1 stick of RAM, then go dual channel later.
December 19, 2003 4:14:18 AM

Hmm, I looked around and found AMD was real company. But is kind of usual that everyone I know has NEVER heard of amd cpu, I didn't even hear of AMD myself till I started to look around about how to build new comp. But,are you guys sure AMD is good company though? I was just looking at thier 3200 cpu and found out its only 2 ghz!!! Don't see how a 2 ghz cpu could even complete with a 2.6 ghz celeron. I just had look notebook 3000 review vs a 1.7 ghz pentium at this website. 1.7 ghz did win some and lose some in the test, but it seem like the 3000 and 1.7 ghz were even! How the heck could AMD put something as 3000 when it performs like a 1.7 ghz pentium??? IT SEEMS LIKE AMD IS RIPPING PEOPLE OF BIG TIME!!!

Anyhow I guess I will spend $60 more and get a p4 2.6 ghz cpu. Also I looked and it seems like I will get ti 4200 for $25 like you guys suggested. About the case thing, how do I if the case has good power supply? I though evermax made good cases? Anyhow thanks for the help!
December 19, 2003 4:17:41 AM

Since you admit that you don't know much about computers, then don't come in here saying that AMD's CPUs are "cheap and generic". What is that supposed to mean? Every CPU (except the Celerons!) are good, according to each person's budget. And in case you don't know, AMD holds the performance crown right now clever boy!

Anyway, in case you are on a really tight budget as you said, then your best choice would be a 2500+ Barton. But if you want to go for a Celeron then be my guest!

On the other hand if you have a little more money then you can pick the Pentium 2.6c as others suggested but I don't think that a CPU like that fits into your budget.
December 19, 2003 4:27:32 AM

Re: IT SEEMS LIKE AMD IS RIPPING PEOPLE OF BIG TIME!!!

You have no idea how stupid that is!

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
December 19, 2003 4:33:02 AM

Here is the link Bandikoot was talking about at anandtech

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927" target="_new"> Click this link </A>

Good luck

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
December 19, 2003 4:40:29 AM

It sure seems like they are. Back in my computer class in my high school we learned that CPU performance is measured hertz. So, I can't see how AMD can claim thier CPU is 3200 or 3000 when its really only around 2 ghz! Thier stupid rating system is just confusing people like me :( 

Oh yeah going back to idea where i got AMD was generic company goes back to my comp class. The only CPU, my teacher mentioned was intel and said thier other small companies just copy intel's product and sell it cheaply. He didn't mention AMD in name, but that just sound like what generic drugs companies do. So i though other companies were just making generic CPU too. Anyhow, i do know AMD isn't really generic company at least!...
December 19, 2003 4:44:54 AM

Trust me no one here is trying to fool you. All the advice you have been given is solid. Read that link I gave ya. Read all of it and you will see things different.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
December 19, 2003 4:47:22 AM

Note: my last post was before I was drak's link.

Anyhow it does seem like AMD is killing celeron with less mhz actually! My main question is HOW? I though cpu performance is measured in ghz, so higher the ghz isn't its supposed to better? That what I learned in my comp class...

Hmm, I didn't think of it before but that also reminds me of the p4. How come they are also better than celeron with same clock speed. I think I am missing some important piece of information here! Anyhow I am just really learning about all these stuff, so i guess sound very dumb :(  Any explanation would be helpful.

Another thing, guess I could get the AMD now. Any suggestion on motherboard for it?
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2003 5:51:48 AM

It has to do with how many instructions per cycle, IPC, the processor has. If a PII 400 did 2 IPC, but a PIII 800 did 1 IPC, they would run programs the same speed.

The P4 needs lots of cache to keep it's data pipeline full. The P4 based Celeron has very little cach, hence many of it's cycles are wasted doing no work at all. It's a fairly technical problem that has to do with how many "stages deep" the "pipeline" is.

AMD based there XP rating system on the performance of early, poor performing P4's. The P4 has been improved several times since. So an XP 3200+ is about as fast as a P4 2.6C, but operates at a much slower speed.

Clock speed is only an accurate measure of performance when you're comparing the same chip at different speeds, say the P4 2.6C to the P4 3.2C. It hasn't been since the 486 days that you could do direct comparisons between AMD and Intel.

AMD has been around forever, they used to make CPUs for Intel!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
December 19, 2003 6:05:42 AM

Noob is not a strong enough word to describe someone like you. In fact, I can think of a couple of more adjectives right now but it wouldn't be polite to post them here! Posts like yours really piss me off because guys like you are not interested to learn. They just stick a few things inside their head and that's it, they know everything. Well trust me (and I believe everyone in here can confirm this), it is more than obvious than you don't have a clue about computers. And I don't mean that you don't know much, I really REALLY mean that you don't know ANYTHING! If you are really interested then start studying and reading otherwise go buy a 2.6GHz Celeron that rips the Athlon XP 3200+ apart (or the A64 3200+ [freq: 2.2GHz] for that matter) and save us some time from reading your posts.
December 19, 2003 6:10:11 AM

Not that I disagree with what you said but ...
Quote:
... an XP 3200+ is about as fast as a P4 2.6C, but operates at a much slower speed.

Ok, everyone admits that the Athlon XPs don't stand up to their PR against 800MHz FSB Pentium 4s but 2.6c = 3200+? I think you are exaggerating a little bit here, 2.6c = 3000+ would be more accurate.
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2003 6:26:50 AM

Depending on the test and configuration, XP3200+ ~~2.6C-2.8C

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
December 19, 2003 11:02:08 AM

Celery sucks. If you are going for budget I'd highly recommend an Ath XP 2500+ paired with an nforce2 motherboard with integrated video, network, and sound (MSI has a nice one, just be sure whatever one you pick that it has an agp slot too.) I would also suggest that you TI-4200 is you are going with a non-integrated video card... the 5200 is a POS. Good luck and let us know what you end up with... oh and be sure you use 2 x 256mb rather than a single 512... you'll get better performance and you also might want to consider brandname ram (corsair, kingston, geil, mushkin!, etc)

Edit: Until the release of the AMD64 chips intel had a performance advantage over amd, but amd didn't modify their PR rating because it is a rating against one of their own chips NOT against the intel chip (or so they say). AMD is not as large of a company as intel but they have been it's only real competition for quite some time now and totally dominate intel in the budget sector. Any amd chip that has a PR rating of less than 2400+ will pretty much tie the equivilent intel chip of the same speed. When intel released the 800mhz fsb chips with hyperthreading they took back the speed crown. In fairly recent history amd released the AMD64 line of chips (they're x86 chips with 64bit extensions so you can manipulate larger ammounts of ram and files, and once windows64 is out for it (yes microsoft is releasing a version of windows for amd chips... that should give you an idea of how popular amd chips are.) it will most likely perform some operations quite a bit faster than the equivilent p4 without 64 bit extensions. Right now is actually a quite interesting time in the cpu world. Presently the AMD64 chips outperform the equivilent p4 chips by a fairly sound margin, but of course they've not been on the market long so there may be bugs like the early pentium /0 bug. Presently amd is pushing the market instead of intel, tomshardware is a hardware site and most of us are enthusists, we won't tolerate our pc's crashing, alot of us build computers for a living in addition and running up massive ammounts of time spent performing hardware support is no fun... we wouldn't be recommending something that is junk and if someone did they would be ripped apart by the regulars who do know what they are doing (see sodnighthawk's posts in general, someone almost always makes a point of warning the newbs from listening to him.) For the most part excepting a few amd/intel nvidia/ati fanboys the vast majority of people here are performance and stability junkies... they don't care about the brand as long as it's stable and fast. G'luck and let us know what you end up with.

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/shadus.html" target="_new">Shadus</A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Shadus on 12/19/03 08:14 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
December 19, 2003 1:06:01 PM

Quote:
AMD based there XP rating system on the performance of early, poor performing P4's

Can someone clue me in on this. I was under the impression that AMD based their rating system on 'thunderbird' cores. I could be wrong.

<font color=blue>If the <font color=yellow>laurel</font color=yellow> is to big for your head, it becomes a hoola-hoop, and you have to keep your butt really busy.</font color=blue>
December 19, 2003 1:40:57 PM

That is AMD's official stance since their PR doesn't quite measure up the same way it once did. AMD was losing the 'MHz race', and were forced to go back to the old PR numbers to appear competitive. Most average computer users (like the starter of this thread) are under the mistaken impression that MHz is the only real way of measuring CPU performance. Therefore, on paper, it looks like Intel is way ahead according to what these average users believe.

Go back to school immediately and kindly let your teacher in on this. He is woefully uninformed about current trends in technology. There was a time when your teacher was correct... AMD and other chip companies manufactured CPUs for Intel; in accordance with Intel's specs. However, this changed once the 386 and 486 processors were released. Intel decided they didn't like their licensing agreements with AMD (and other companies) anymore... so they forced AMD to start designing their own CPUs. Quite often, AMD CPUs outperformed their Intel counterparts. AMD hasn't manufactured a CPU for Intel since the 286... and it's all Intel's fault. Intel is partly responsible for creating their own competition. :smile:

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
December 19, 2003 1:44:19 PM

Well, AMD have always <i>claimed</i> it was based on the Thunderbird core, but I'm pretty convinced that the decision to switch to the rating system (rather than pure Mhz) was driven much more by the marketing guys than the technical ones, so in actual fact it's <i>really</i> based on (or at least <i>inspired</i> by) the P4s of the time, and the need to appear competitive.

I'm not criticising of course, the average Joe would never favour a '2Ghz' Athlon XP over a '2.4Ghz' P4 (or even a 2.6Ghz Celeron :eek:  ).

I think Intel should do <i>something</i> about their P4 celerons really. Still just using Mhz is much more misleading than AMD's rating system ever has been.

---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
December 19, 2003 3:01:23 PM

Ty for the help guys! It really helped me clear up things :)  I think I will just get 2500 xp barton and a one of those MSI boards of newegg.

As for pitsi you read before go around critizing people! I already said this:
Quote:
Anyhow it does seem like AMD is killing celeron with less mhz actually!

Pisti, your post after mine implies I still think AMD sucks :p  Right now I am well update and probably know as much you do pisti! <b>If you have something to complian about, it is fact the average people have no clue about CPU, they aren't computer gurus!</b> If you want fix you should go start an education campaign :p  Instead of complaining about people not knowing anything. Not my fault these stuff aren't taught to ppl! Not to mention most store or even site doesn't clearly state AMD and intel CPU difference, you need to dig down a bit to find it out!
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2003 3:51:59 PM

That was AMD's false claim in order to protect themselves against litigation. The XP1600+ (1400MHz) was never 14% better performing than the Athlon 1400/133.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
December 19, 2003 3:56:52 PM

Yeah, now you know as much as I do. Congratulations man! And btw, I won't feel sorry for you or anything so don't waste your bandwith! It's your attidute that I found annoying and not the fact that you didn't know a few things. I am more than willing to help anyone that is interested to learn something but apparently, you are not one of them. Since you registered to a forum at THG, why didn't you bother reading a couple of their reviews first since you are searching for a new CPU? Anyway, don't reply since I won't!
December 19, 2003 4:33:07 PM

Crash we have had this discussion before.

Re: That was AMD's false claim in order to protect themselves against litigation. The XP1600+ (1400MHz) was never 14% better performing than the Athlon 1400/133.

A p4 1.6 giz is not 14% faster than a p3@ 1.4 giz.

Like chipdeath said in the other thread AMDs pr rating formula is based on a early thunderbird core.

What AMD did was improve the thunderbird with
New design to reduce power consumption over Thunderbird core by 20%
Implementation of the full Intel SSE instruction set. The SSE processor flag is set (if the motherboard BIOS supports Palomino) so that software can recognize AthlonMP as a SSE-capable processor. AMD calls its SSE-implementation '3Dnow! Professional'.
Hardware auto data pre-fetching unit
L1 Data TLB (Translation Look-Aside Buffer) was increased from 32 to 40 entries, the architecture of the data and instruction L1 and L2 TLBs was made exclusive and TLB-entries can be written speculatively.
Implementation of a thermal diode to monitor processor temperature

What did that translate to?

3-7% more performance per clock than previous desktop-Athlons based on the "Thunderbird"-core, because it is based on the new "Palomino"-core

Then AMD ran a set of benchmarks on the old thunderbird core. For arguments sake lets say the old tbird core at 1.2 giz got a bench score of 1270 using the pr formula. Now you take the new Palomino core at 1.4 and it gets a score of 1600 thus pr 1600+ using the same benchmark formula. This Formula leveled the playing field a little as a xp-pr1600+ was a little faster overall than the p4 @1.6.

AMD had liitle choice but to use a formula like this because to many noobs like the original poster would have been convinced a p41.6 is much faster than the cheaper Palomino at 1.4 giz

The only problem I have with this is Intel chips improved more cache etc and AMD would look stupid changing the formula. This means the rating system is not valid anymore for comparing modern chips of today.



If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2003 10:18:59 PM

OK, obviously you missed part of the discussion. He ask if it wasn't true AMD based their XP rating system on the performance of the Thunderbird. And I'm claiming no, they did not. It has nothing to do with the P4 vs P3 either.

AMD CLAIMED that their XP rating system was based on the Thunderbird's performance. But the fact that the XP1600+ is number 14% higher but performs at best 7% better proves that these claims are not based in reality. Rather, it confirms our suspicions that they are aimed at the Pentium 4.

The old Thunderbird 1200 couldn't get an XP rating of 1270 by AMD's claim to be using Thunderbird performance as the bases of the XP rating system. Rather, if the XP rating system truely was Thunderbird based, the 1200 should come to exactly 1200.

The Original XP rating system gave Intel too much credit. With the advent of the Northwood, Intel sort of cought up with AMD's rating system. But improvements in chipsets, and increased bus speeds, gave Intel another boost. And AMD revised their rating system to make it more ludicrous a couple times.

Had AMD stuck with their original rating system, they would be fairly close to this day.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
December 19, 2003 10:30:27 PM

grr all of these celeron sux posts are making me cry...not <i>all</i> celerons suck, mainly just the NW's.


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2003 10:40:08 PM

The Willy Cely sux0red worse.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
December 19, 2003 10:48:21 PM

ha i never knew such a beast existed, how much cache?


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy
December 19, 2003 11:21:38 PM

'Beast' is not exactly the kind of discription I'd give a CPU like that. (If it exists)

Something along the line of toothless old donkey, Fiat cinquecento or Citroen <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/philg/digiphotos/200108-nikon775-v..." target="_new"> 2CV </A> spring more readilly to mind.

<font color=blue> Look steadfastly into the slit, pinpointed malignant eyes of reality as an old-hand trainer dominates his wild beasts.</font color=blue>
December 19, 2003 11:53:53 PM

Re: OK, obviously you missed part of the discussion.

I don't think so I was responding to your statment because I think its misleading.

That was AMD's false claim in order to protect themselves against litigation. The XP1600+ (1400MHz) was never 14% better performing than the Athlon 1400/133.

Re read my post your ignoring the formula part of it to get the rating. Like I said a tbird 1200 would get a bost to maybe 1270+ give or take (if they were to run the formula on this chip which they did not) they only used the formula on the Palomino and up.

Re: AMD CLAIMED that their XP rating system was based on the Thunderbird's performance.

It was based on the Thunderbird... period. How can you say when they set up the formula they did not use a tbird to do it?

While they only marketed it with the Palomino and up as this was shortly after the p4 had been released. It was to try and show an apples to apples comparison at the time.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
December 20, 2003 1:03:39 AM

Oh the good 'ol fiat 500 (as an american tourist would call em). Hehe when i was little and visiting Italy my family litterly lifted one up out of some mud in sicily! Hehe good times.

Call it what you want, i just think its crazy that a celery will was created!


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy
a b à CPUs
December 20, 2003 1:29:27 AM

128k as I recall. What, you thought the Celeron 1.7GHz was a Northwood?

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
December 20, 2003 1:43:13 AM

AMD claimed their XP rating system was based on the Thunderbird's performance. But when you compare XP processors to the Thunderbird, you'll find that it isn't. It's truthfully based on the P4. They simply can't SAY it's based on the P4, because then Intel would claim it was a false representation of performance and sue them.

It's like, they can say "clock for clock, UP TO 30% more performance per MHz". Yes, that's easy. But if the thing was on average 20% better, and up to 30% better, and still 0% better in a couple apps, they couldn't just use that average and tell joe consumer "20% faster than the P4". Because Intel could sue them and prove that it's not always true.

So AMD can't say it's based on the P4. They had to come up with SOMETHING as the bases for their numbers, so they CLAIMED those numbers were based on actual frequencies of the Thunderbird. Those claims aren't true. Everyone but you knows it. But because AMD OWNS the Thunderbird, they don't have to worry about the manufacturer suing them (they don't sue themselves).

So what can we say in defence of the XP rating system? The original one was very lienient, the XP1600+ was about equal to a P4 1.9GHz Willy. But when the Northwood was introduced, it was barely faster than the P4 1.6A. Good job, close enough, value goes to AMD customers.

The first revision, what was it, around the XP2000+? That was a fairly good system, compared favorably to the P4, the XP2400+ was nearly equal to the P4 2.4B.

The THIRD revision, with the intro of the Barton core, was really screwed. XP2500+ slower than the XP2400+ in most applications? This is inexcusable. And the main reason why an XP3200+ is barely faster than a P4 2.6C.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
December 20, 2003 1:47:27 AM

If you compare P4s to AthlonXPs, Athlon is heck lot better. You know why? because AMD's processors are a lot cheaper and they perform better than P4s at the same clock speed. Did I hear someone say "this is a ripoff"? well, Intel is a ripoff that's what! $130 for a 2.4ghz P4? that's a serious ripoff right there! I got my 2500+ for $90 and I will OC it to 2.4ghz. That didn't cost me a lot! And newbs, do you know why P4 is 800mhz FSB speed? because it's quad-pumped. it means this: 200mhzx4 = 800 while AMD's is 200mhzx2 = 400.
that way, P4 will never use quad-pumped architecture that they have. Only quad channeled RDRAMS can bring P4 to its feet. But, we only use dual channel DDR RAMS these days. and that's only 2. not 4. so it's a waste of money to buy P4. Especially the new Extrem Edition. 64-bit world will be arriving soon. Buy Athlon64 if you want the best. It beated the crap out of the Extreme Edition in MANY benchmarks. take care. no offense.

I'm an AMD FANBOY. Intel folks, watch out!
December 20, 2003 2:00:43 AM

And, do you want to know the difference between them? well, Intel just likes to play with big numbers. first of all, clockspeed is dependant on the FSB of the mobo and the multiplier of the cpu. that means that 800mhz P4 does 200mhz of FSB speed in reality. 200mhzx12.5 = 2500 while, AMD's "cheaper" processors do 166mhzx12.5, 2800+, and still beat the crap out of 2.4C in games! The only reason you buy P4 is to do video editing. nothing more. the SSE2 instructions help doing lots of videos and they only help about 10 more seconds faster than AMD's. Another truth is that P4s use longer data pipelines than AthlonXPs. which means it's a lot deaper and feels more data than AthlonXPs. BUT, since processors make errors all the time, the pipe has to be refilled everytime it makes an error. The longer the pipeline is, the longer it takes to fill the pipe. Which means lesser EFFICIENCY. It's like P4 is a beefy guy with small hands. He can't lift big things but when he does, he drops it and he has to lift it again slowly. While AthlonXP is a lesser beefy guy but he has a big hand. He can get hold of any big materials there is. So he doesn't have to drop it and pick it up again as many times as the beefy guy does. So, P4 uses about 40% of what they're capable of but AMD's processors use about 70% of what they're capable of in stock speeds. But even if you Overclock them, the RAM will max out. Quad-channeled RDRAMS are not here yet. That will bottleneck the RAM and you will need to buy really expensive RAMs while AthlonXPs only need a single RAM to do all their work. (dual channel is twice as much bandwidth that they need for Athlons.) that will only result in more inefficiency. I know a guy who overclocked a 2.4C to 4ghz with a prommy. And, he overclocked his gpu to the max with the help of nitrogen. But, his score is only around 23000 in 3D Mark 2001. Another guy that I know has Athlon64 3200+ which is clocked at 2.2ghz(oc'ed) and has a radeon 9800 non pro overclocked to 440/760 with only air-cooling and got around 22000. folks. You just saw the TRUTH. 2.2ghz is near equal to a 4ghz. I can prove it if you want. I will give you a link.

I'm an AMD FANBOY. Intel folks, watch out!
a b à CPUs
December 20, 2003 2:33:13 AM

LOL, OK. BTW, does an XP2800+ do twice as many operations (+) per second as an Athlon 1400?

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
December 20, 2003 2:38:16 AM

I just thought of something. Trolls are just future marketers, simple as that! Lucky for them there's free speech in America.

Damn Rambus.
December 20, 2003 2:39:13 AM

nooope. it's just that they do more work faster than the old one. 166x12.5 = 2800+. ??x?? = 1400+.

I'm an AMD FANBOY. Intel folks, watch out!
December 20, 2003 2:41:04 AM

I just thought of something. Trolls are just future marketers, simple as that! Lucky for them there's free speech in America.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I think you're SoD.

Damn Rambus.
December 20, 2003 2:43:06 AM

Not the 1400+ (I don't think there even was one, last I checked it started at 1600+), the Athlon 1400/133 (clockspeeds)...you sure you know what you are talking about?? AMD crazies like you would know what he is talking about!

Damn Rambus.
December 20, 2003 2:45:39 AM

hey man, AMD is cool. so don't say that they're generics. Actually, Intel's processors are basically over-priced generic cpus if you didn't notice.

I'm an AMD FANBOY. Intel folks, watch out!
December 20, 2003 2:54:43 AM

AMD <b>is</b> cool, they're the other half of the market (well, less technically, but A64 should help a lot, which I think is great--good competition is the best thing for us consumers). In fact, if I were to buy a new computer, it would have AMD processors in it; but I think it's stupid to buy right now (in my situation at least), so what I would buy is partially irrelevant.

As for Intel's processors being generic CPUs, no, they aren't. The only thing that could even begin to qualify them as generic is the fact that some 70% of the market has them in their puters, making them commonplace, but in no way generic (especially with the development Intel does to produce every one of their processors, spare Celery-class [spare Tully] CPUs).

By the way, trolling isn't so bad (we tolerate Popey pretty well I think), just make sure you get your facts straight when recommending products, especially to n00bs, which is something SoD doesn't do (he could be censored or even sued for that in some countries).

Damn Rambus.
December 20, 2003 2:57:34 AM

wow if i were not so sleepy i could rip your first post to shreads...maybe in the morning.

In simple form although the p4 uses a QDR bus the athlon xp only uses a DDR bus, therefore it effectivly has 2x the bandwith so clock per clock the p4's bus is gonna transfer twice the data. Also Where the [-peep-] have you been, you ever hear of dual channel?

I hate newbies like this (although i admit at one time i had the same mind set) you know nothing and cling to amd cause they are the underdog. Amd makes good processors but right now they are only the best for Low price ranges.

Oh and i didn't follow the generic processor comment. The only generic processors i know of are made by via...OK Ok i admit that was a low blow :smile: .


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy
December 20, 2003 3:01:22 AM

alright. I gotya. so state the facts eh? sure, no problem. BUT, (there is ALWAYS a BIG FAT "BUT") AMD provides more quality/price balanced cpus than Intel. So don't get me wrong here! I'm right too you know..

I'm an AMD FANBOY. Intel folks, watch out!
December 20, 2003 3:13:10 AM

lol...have you heard of "inefficiency" sir? I'm not a noob by the way, and you think that P4s are better huh sir? well, did you check out the other sites too SIR? not just TOM SIR? If you can buy a 2.4C for $140, then you can buy a 2500+ for less than $140 and overclock it to kill 2.4C to its feet. Did you even see how much difference the Hyper threading makes SIR? almost NONE SIR!! it only improves 5-10% and it's not really 2 processor in one! you better read some benchmarks sir. And after you read at least 5 of them, tell me what you saw SIR. and I mean not in Tom's hardware. somewhere else SIR. By the way, Throughbred has the same amount of L2 cache as the P4Cs and the JIUHB stepping can Overclock to 2.4ghz.

I'm an AMD FANBOY. Intel folks, watch out!
December 20, 2003 3:15:12 AM

Quote:
AMD provides more quality/price balanced cpus than Intel.

Please prove that. Again, get your facts straight...and make sure you can prove them.

If you are making the argument of price/performance, you're PROBABLY right, but P4Cs OC like a biznatch, which is essentially free performance. If you factor in the OCing ability of both: lowend (sub $100) is won by AMD (nothing Intel currently makes fits in that category [current Celeries suck too much to even count as CPUs]), low-middle (101-175) is won by Intel (2.6C @3.25[easy to reach] will beat any AMD processor OCed in that price range), middle-high (175-250) is tied (A64 3000+ is GREAT, 2.8C OCs to 3.4+ easily, which makes it better than any OCed AMD in the pricerange, but not everyone will OC), high (250-500) is tied (3.2OCed will beat A64 3200+, even OCed, but not everyone will OC, if both are not OCed, A64 3200+ will win), ultimate (500+) is won by AMD easily (FX=Opteron=my favorite CPU).

I disregarded AXP series in middle-high and up because they get their asses handed to them when compared to a similarly priced Intel CPUs.

Damn Rambus.
!