Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Corporate Low end system Upgrade.. AMD or Intel

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 23, 2002 10:02:27 PM

Hi All,

Need your thoughts on this one if you don't mind...

We have a bunch of low end systems (Slower than Pent II's) that we would like to upgrade instead of trying to upgrade BIOS's to recognize 40 gig drives etc, etc, so we can install OEM software etc, etc...)

I think the best solution would be to upgrade the complete tower. We just purchased a bunch of P4 1.8 and 2.2 systems so high end systems is not a option at this time.

I would like to put in something like a Pent III or Athlon XP... the Athlon XP 1600 would blow the PENT III away and is only $50.00 more.

Also, if I do that what are your thoughts on a good ASUS board for the Athlon XP - Right now i'm looking at the A7S333 should I stay with it or get a different one.

Also, this is mainly for Windows Xp, Office Xp, and general workstation duties. DDR ram of course so probley the PC2700 would be the best with it.

Looking forward to your replies, probley do something in the next few day's so thanks for the help in advance!

Lastly, the P4 Northwood is my choice for highend do you see any problems going with a Athlon XP 1600 or 1700 to save some $$$ for a business / Corporation?

L8r,
Vince
July 23, 2002 10:20:05 PM

If money is an issue and you'd like to get the best for your company's use, for the best price, I have to say you should go with AthlonXPs for low end and high end from what I read in your last sentence. Get AXP 1500+ for a relatively and extremly cheap price, then XP 2200s for high end. I can see you're open minded, not like companies who just HAVE to get Intel.
Asus A7V333 is also a very good choice, you get thermal protection as well.

If money was really not an issue, you could get 2.4GHZ systems as high end, with PC1066 RDRAM. However even if money is not an issue, you should never consider P4 2.53GHZ CPUs, they are 650$ a piece, not worth at all for the price and the 5-10% increase in performance, so stick with 2.4GHZ for the highest end IF money is not an issue.

EDIT: BTW you didn't specify what kind of company you're running, or what are the programs you use? It can make a difference since sometimes even an AthlonXP 2200 can smoke the 2.53GHZ in FPU-intensive apps, and can be put as high end against the 2.53GHZ.
--
An AMD employee's diary: Today I kicked an Intel worker in the "Willy"! :lol:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 07/23/02 06:22 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 23, 2002 11:31:05 PM

For "low end" Xp probably is a decent buy. Asus boards are kinda pricy. I would try Epox myself.

If your looking at pc2700 memory then look at the Epox 83ka

It might help to know what your doing with these systems in order to recommend something. For instance, do you need anything integrated?


Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
Related resources
July 23, 2002 11:42:00 PM

Like I mentioned above... there workstations that will be running Windows XP, Office Xp with Excel word etc.. general workstation duties. As well as executing inhouse Foxpro applications but the XP1600 would be lots for that as well as a Pent III...

I think the XP 1600 or so would be the better choice though.

what about the Asus AV333 board? I don't mind spending a little more to stay with a stable GOOD board like ASUS though.

Vince
July 24, 2002 12:49:21 AM

Oh don't worry EPoX boards are fine. And they're cheap too. I mean they're mainly known for their overclocking abilities, but they're also very good mobos overall.

If I were you, I'd get the XP1600+ systems. First off, they'll perform better for only a bit more. And that bit more could save your company(?) money down the road. It just means you'll not have to get new comps sooner.

:smile: Falling down stairs saves time :smile:
July 24, 2002 1:00:35 AM

well, the Axp 1600 would even bow the p4 1.8 away(in some benchmarkings)
why go for the PC2700? are you going to overclock the FSB? if so, go with a KT333 or SiS745, ALi MagiK stepping C, or a nForce 415 mobo. if not, buy a cheaper KT266a mobo with PC2100 ram. i know there is not much price difference, but it would save a little at least.

also, this may not be needed to low end PCs, but using RAID really kicks up performance. the HDD is the slowest part in the PC, that getting a faster hard disk helps a lot(at least in my case)

also to save a bit more of money, the mobo chipsets from ATI may save u from buying a new graphic card.

Be nice.
July 24, 2002 3:02:59 AM

Quote:
well, the Axp 1600 would even bow the p4 1.8 away(in some benchmarkings)

I'm not sure what side are you on in this statement, is the AXP 1600+ to you completly better in overall than the 1.8A, or just in some benches?
If it's the latter, I disagree, and I had seen many benchmark tests and overall, the XP1600+ wins by a few more benches, as well as being over 100$ US less (in Canada it's 150$ less!).

--
An AMD employee's diary: Today I kicked an Intel worker in the "Willy"! :lol: 
July 24, 2002 3:43:20 AM

in my opinion, the a-xp 1600 is better than the p4 1.8a, even better than p4 2.0a. but considering that windows is a intel CPU based program, intel p4s will boot faster, and show better office performance. and what`s that? SSE, SSE2? amd doesn`t have this. i really wouldn`t know, the systems i`ve used before is amd386 -> amdK6-2(300) -> i-p2(450) -> c3(667) -> tbird 1.4. never used a p3-1000 or a p4 before.

i really don`t believe in amd PR. the 1600 is not a equal to the p4 1.6, more like an equal to 2.0. still i think that the reason palomino 1.4Ghz is named "1600" has a reason. maybe benchmarks aren`t all. anyway, i only use sandra, so what i`m saying is usually based upon reviews written by other people.

Be nice.
July 24, 2002 3:57:07 AM

Sandra says it is close to PR2000 or 2GHZ P4s, but that's not true. Ok in FPU intensive apps, the XP1.4GHZ WILL kick the 2GHZ's butt.
As for PR, don't be misled, they are relative to Thunderbird frequency. An XP1600 is like a Tbird 1.6GHZ, or almost, which explains why at 1.4GHZ it could royally beat the 2GHZ Wilamette (Tbirds used to beat by 400MHZ), but now againt NWs, it competes and beats the 1.8A, so it levels the competition back to Tbird days.

As for SSE, SSE 2, AthlonXPs have SSE, while SSE2 is coming on Hammer. SSE 2 will not matter if the app does not use it well. Look at some SSE2 enhanced apps, like After Effects, these push the P4's IPC over Athlons, surprisingly, while other apps are not enough well programmed to use SSE2. Still every bit helps, though not when the Athlons had over 25% better performance per clock in that app, and SSE2 only provided 5% more performance.

--
An AMD employee's diary: Today I kicked an Intel worker in the "Willy"! :lol: 
July 24, 2002 4:11:34 AM

got a question eden.

sandra says that tbird 1.4 and palomino 1.4 is the same in performance. i just thought that the difference between them was the electricity they consumed.but u say that the palomino is faster. was there an improvement in the structure of the processor? i just thought that adding the thermal diode was all that had changed, plus the slight difference the core size.

if so, i`ve stepped into $hit.

Be nice.
July 24, 2002 5:22:27 AM

well the tbird 1.4 and the XP 1600+ both run at the same Mhz... but as we all know there is more to things than just Mhz.

the paly runs around 20% cooler at that speed due to a refined design.
it also runs more efficiently, due to hardware prefetch, optimisations and the inclusion of SSE (if used), and has the onboard diode.

IIRC the actual performance was increased by 5 to 15%, depending on application.


<b>Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped! :cool: </b>
July 24, 2002 7:06:02 AM

On MHz and real speed: compare P4 and Apple. The first one must run at twice more MHz to achieve the same speed result. Of cource, it's important the OS too. MacOs is Unix-based, and the most known Unix-like OS could manage more smartly the hardware resources and to share them better for running application.
One of my duties is to examine PC-based CCTV-systems. When you have equal hardware, the system under Win is visibly slower and not stable. And we have DVRs, running more than half a year (and recording) and we haven't even restarted them.
On MB: By my opinion, ASUS is the best. If you want to save money, instead of ASUS buy Elitegroup with VIA 333, or SIS 745 chipset. This mobo is stable too, but it has less features and it's not overclockable (which is not reccomended for servers, of course).
!