Setting the AMD crowd straight - Page 3

This shouldn't be such a religious post. No need to wage war. I'm curious about something though. If we catorigize which cpu is best for everyone, which way does it go?

1)Dual systems (3dmax etc) - Intel
2)Gamers - AMD. No questions there.
3)Corporate - ?? Are the AMD problems so bad in a corporate environment using word and excel? Couldn't it go both ways? But why would a company need the juice of the P4 at that cost?
4)Science - Probably Both. Maybe the dual Intel systems for high end.
5)The average Joe Smo - Either. Probably AMD since it's a lot cheaper for the sub 1000 machines.

So in summary, today, AMD is probably better IMOP. But if you really feel that AMD has some kinks to work out go for INTEL. However, for a company that is fairly new, they sure are giving INTEL a run for their money.

BTW - For the average user (internet and word processing), isn't a 500MHz machine enough? So for the average guy, there are a lot of processors out there to pick from.

There's no reason to be so religious about it though since the tides can turn at the very next release. I'm waiting to upgrade until the Fall so that I see how things go with AMD. I'm ultra curious about the dual boards w/ AMD.

Hey, you need to take your Intel sales pitch somewhere else. I build, use and support over 50 Athlon machines at work. I run the whole gamut of AMD machines, from early 750 chipset boards to the latest Micron Millennia Max XP's with the 760 chipset. Most are VIA based. I spend no more time fixing my AMD machines than I did when most were Intel. If you want to slam AMD, go ahead, just do it to someone who doesn't know any better.

BTW, almost all of my Athlons are running WIN2K. The ones that aren't are the oldest boxes, which are running NT 4.0. The only reason for that is that I haven't had time to update them.

"Intel Inside, Idiot Outside"

I didn't know they have been around that long...wow. One thing is certain though and that is that they are changing the market TODAY.

Like I said in a post before though, it changes with each release.

you forget to mention the little details like how the FTC made Digital/Intel hand over the Alpha technologies to Amd, and Amd still forgets to put the thermo protection in!

I can not admire a follower, lets forget about Intel. look at IBM, Digital, Sun, INNOVATORS!!! leaders.

there's just something missing about Amd.

>>...that AMD can't do, especially
>>in the corporate desktop space, the same job as Intel. "

>Okay then show me a dual-CPU AMD server.

Ahem. He said <b>desktop</b>. I dont think anyone in this thread is saying you should get a corporate AMD server (although, if I recall correctly, Anandtech runs its website on Athlon servers.. http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1401)

>And show me an AMD system that DOESN'T have ANY problems running Windows 2000.

Come on over to Belgium if you want to see mine ;-)
As for this w2k patch thing.. I cant find it on AMD's site.. just drivers and tools.. nothing CPU related. But if there is a patch, and is required, have you ever given it a thought that it maybe MS related instead of AMD related ?

>Show me a single Intel CPU and mobo system today that is still using any faulty technology.

Well, since you're comming over anyway, drop by at brothers.. he still has this crappy i820 mb that he bought secondhand without knowing what he was buying; and I assure you he is going through a lot of trouble to have it replaced.

>Might it be because the motherboards using the MTH were replaced, AT INTEL'S COST?

Yeah.. great deal ! You end with half the memory you had, and it costs an arm and a leg to upgrade your RDRAM. Besides, this was a hardware defect, that could not be "patched". Rest assured they would have released a patch otherwise. I dont recall any AMD systems having a hardware defect that required recalling.

>There are a great many early revision VIA motherboards that have a huge number of issues with just about every type of hardware in existance

So true ! Unfortunately, this also valid for VIA s370 motherboards... with intel cpu's.. Is that intel's fault ? No. Is is then AMD's fault VIA delivers some crappy products ? no ! Although also here one should note, that problem is almost exclusively driver related, and not hardware.. and that AMD chipsets are generally of excellent quality, and rarely have any issues.

>For a business, Intel is often a less expensive way to go.Yes, the computer costs more initially. But think of how much a company a highly-skilled software engineer.

So true ! Thats why they buy OEM systems.. that come prestested and preinstalled. BTW, imagine what it would have costed a business if they would have bought hundreds of these trusty intel i820 machines.. they would have been out of business for days if not weeks. Would intel compensate for that ?

You want my bottom line ? Its great that we have this competetion between AMD and intel. Whatever system you buy, it cheaper because of the competitor. So I love Intel when I buy my new AMD system, and you should love AMD for driving down the prices of your intel systel that much.

now, lets move on to the next topic: BMW or Mercedes ?
Mercedes are not so reliable anymore.. remember they recalled the Mercedes A because it would turn on its roof ? If you were to buy BMW ... blablabal.... performance..... blablabla.... but the Mercedes customer service.... blablabla...

In case you haven't noticed Connie, the title of this thread is "Setting the AMD crowd straight". I can't think of a more perfect place in the world to put an Intel sales pitch. :-p

So you might want to consider thinking first and speaking second.

As for your company spending no more time getting their AMD systems to work than their Intel systems, that's nice.

I know that our company has no such situations. We tried running an AMD system with our software and hardware requirements, and haven't yet gotten our AMD system to work running our software.

We thought that the AMD system would be excellent because we are develop scientific analytical x-ray solutions. We run a LOT of fp math in our software. So shipping x-ray systems with AMD computers seemed like a wise move, as it would imrpove our software's performance AND cost us less.

Some of our software is dependant on Matrox cards (both video and frame-grabbing). Our OS is Windows 2000. As such, we have yet to get an AMD system that will run flawlessly and better than an Intel system, even after the 'patch'.

Sure, if we bought an AMD system today, IF the problem is with the VIA motherboard, then buying a system with a different motherboard is a good solution.

Except that now, we are preparing to optimize our software for SSE2 which will make it run MUCH faster on an Intel P4 than it would on an Athlon. So we've just decided that trying to use AMD hasn't been worth the effort and has been a complete waste of money to even persue. Maybe in the future that will change when the hammer chips come out. But for now, AMD has become a joke to most of our PC techs as we haven't been able to get a single AMD computer to work properly with our x-ray systems.

Connie, if you'd actually bother taking the time to read even my other posts in this very section, you'd see that I always reccomend that a consumer research what they need and buy the system that best meets their needs. Sometimes it's AMD. Sometimes it's Intel. And sometimes it's neither. (My company even tried persuing an Alpha chip system, but gave that up as bad because of severe software incompatabilities with the chip.)

I am not an Intel salesman. I don't favor either system.

If I were to put a new system together today for my own personal use, it might even be an AMD system. The only things keeping me from doing so is that my own needs are for a dual CPU system which means that it has to run Win2k. And it has to run 3D software well. Since as of yet I haven't seen anything that I would trust to meet my needs from an AMD system, I hesitate to try and put one togheter.

Other people might be better off with AMD. Or they might be better off with Intel. I don't argue for or against either case.

What I do however argue for is that BOTH systems and companies have their up sides AND down sides. All I ask is that you AMD lovers can actually admit this and stop convincing people that AMD will meet ALL of their needs.

IF the people here were to be arguing so much for Intel, you would find me proving the value of AMD systems. But since most people here are AMD lovers, you'll find me arguing more often for Intel. In reality, all I really argue for is the obvious fact that neither system is perfect. And that you need to study which best meets your needs and not just take everyone's advice without first researching anything yourself.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.

Maybe slvr, you should get your company to hire connie as a consultant to re-educate your tech staff on how to maintain and install new AMD systems.

And by no means am I saying your tech staff are inadequate- you pretty much said it yourself.

"Ahem. He said desktop."

I know that our company uses a LOT of dual-p3 servers AS desktop sytems because we run multi-threaded software and develop multi-threaded software and as thus, the dual cpu systems comprise a lot of our coprprate desktop PCs.

Sure, this isn't true of everyone. I wouldn't even begin to suggest such. However, I think my point is pretty clear that there are CORPORTATE DESKTOPS in this world that are dual CPU systems.

"Come on over to Belgium if you want to see mine ;-)
As for this w2k patch thing.. I cant find it on AMD's site.. just drivers and tools.. nothing CPU related. But if there is a patch, and is required, have you ever given it a thought that it maybe MS related instead of AMD related ?"

I would if I could. I enjoy travel. But I think if you read my in-depth reply to JGarrett about this AMD patch issue, you'll see that it is serious concern. Sure, your system might work fine now. What happens if you want to upgrade your video card though? You have to admit that you'll have to avoid certain video cards because of it. And if you hadn't known, you could have stepped into a big pile of dung. And I know it isn't MS related. It's a definite hardware issue that can at best be worked around by modifying settings used. Sure, you can run a software patch to change those settings for you, but the problem itself is in the hardware.

"Well, since you're comming over anyway, drop by at brothers.. he still has this crappy i820 mb that he bought secondhand without knowing what he was buying; and I assure you he is going through a lot of trouble to have it replaced."

Well, I can't say how buying second-hand equipment complicates the issue. Obviously the way it SHOULD be handled is that your friend return the mobo to whoever they got it from because it's faulty and then that person gets a replacement from Intel. Then they give the replacement to your friend. The complication isn't Intel's fault, it's the fault of whoever sold your friend the hardware.

"Yeah.. great deal ! You end with half the memory you had, and it costs an arm and a leg to upgrade your RDRAM. Besides, this was a hardware defect, that could not be "patched". Rest assured they would have released a patch otherwise. I dont recall any AMD systems having a hardware defect that required recalling."

If you only get half of the memory, some OEM is ripping you off. Intel was replacing everything last I knew. And obviously it was a hardware issue that couldn't be patched. That was the whole point of the recall. What's your point?

As for no AMD systems having a hardware defect that requires a recall, that's because VIA doesn't do recalls. They just screw their customers. I don't see how ANYONE can consider that in any way better than having your hardware recalled and replaced. You confuse me.

"So true ! Unfortunately, this also valid for VIA s370 motherboards... with intel cpu's.. Is that intel's fault ? No. Is is then AMD's fault VIA delivers some crappy products ? no ! Although also here one should note, that problem is almost exclusively driver related, and not hardware.. and that AMD chipsets are generally of excellent quality, and rarely have any issues."

Yes, the problems also exist for Intel systems that use those crappy VIA motherboards. But Intel at least provides their own motherboard chipsets. I don't think anyone can complain about their i815. Nor are there problems with the i820,i840, or i850 running RDRAM.

Meanwhile until only very recently, what motherboard chipset choices did you have for an AMD system? VIA, VIA, or VIA. This went on for YEARS with nothing but those crappy VIA chipsets for Athlon systems. True, today you have other choices. But just how much time went by without such choices? It's not AMD's fault for VIA's bad motherboards. It's AMD's fault for taking so long to provide a decent solution to using a VIA motherboard.

Intel didn't have problems doing that. They've always provided motherboards for their P3 chips that were working alternatives to VIA's crap. Sure, there was a long stretch where they required RDRAM to be used, but it can't be argued that it's still an alternative to VIA.

"So true ! Thats why they buy OEM systems.. that come prestested and preinstalled. BTW, imagine what it would have costed a business if they would have bought hundreds of these trusty intel i820 machines.. they would have been out of business for days if not weeks. Would intel compensate for that ?"

Our company had problems with an OEM Athlon system. It didn't save us ANY time at all. All OEM means is that it boots up with an OS already installed, and that you can call someone for tech support. It doesn't mean that your system is flawless and that you won't have to spend time updating the drivers.

As for Intel compensating, I don't know if they would voluntarily. However I'm sure that it'd be pretty easy to prove the damages in a law suit if getting that compensation was really all that important.

Even still, the only problem with the MTH (which relates to i820 and i840 motherboards) is signal noise in the translator that caused occasional lock-ups. This wasn't even true for ALL motherboards using those chipsets and MTH. But because it couldn't be fixed, it was just easier to do a recall on all of them than to try and figure out which motherboards specifically suffered from it.

Meanwhile, my VIA motherboard is causing the system to lock up occasionally, just like those MTH motherboards did. Is VIA recalling their faulty motherboards? Ha! Even though it's becoming a widely known problem, VIA still refuses to do a recall. Even though there have been widely known problems with early revision motherboards using VIA chipsets, there were no recalls on those either. And VIA's drivers don't fix everything. So that's hardly an excuse for why there has been no recall.

The simple fact is that Intel replaces bad products. VIA doesn't. And AMD has been stuck relying on VIA motherboards for so long that part of the blame should go to AMD as well for either not providing an alternative or pressuring VIA into recalling their deffective crap.

"You want my bottom line ? Its great that we have this competetion between AMD and intel. Whatever system you buy, it cheaper because of the competitor. So I love Intel when I buy my new AMD system, and you should love AMD for driving down the prices of your intel systel that much."

I completely agree! I have NEVER argued against that. This competition has been GREAT. We've seen soooooooo much new technology come out because of it. It simply hasn't been a better time to be a PC enthusiast.

You see me arguing so often for Intel. It isn't because I like Intel. It isn't because I hate AMD. It's because I'm trying to get it through the heads of these AMD fanatics that Intel Inside DOESN'T mean Idiot Outside. And that AMD has JUST as many problems (if not more) than Intel does and has JUST as shady business practices as Intel does. Anyone not willing to see the facts and believe it is obviously just so biased that they'll problably never even buy another company's system even if it were faster, cheaper, and more reliable than any other computer in the world.

My only reason for continuing this debate is just to try and open the minds of people like that at least a little because there are a lot of newbies asking for advice on purchasing or upgrading systems and they don't deserve to be blindsided by such closed-minded people.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.

okay, let me know if this was just an accidental reply to me, or you really meant to say "My point is that you're a closed-minded idiot who doesn't know drek about computers."

where do you get off saying that? My last reply just stated "Well, I will agree with you on that point. AMD is not THE THE THE THE THE solution, and neither is INTEL" and you call me a close minded reactionary bigot? I'm not saying I know drek about computers (whatever that means), but I think it's a little illogical to call me close minded when I just agreed with you that Intel works for some people, and AMD for others.... can you at least make your arguments sound logical instead of spouting phrases that you believe characterize almost anyone who supports AMD over Intel?



-Suicidal tendencies pay off in war (at least better than a 1 to 1 ratio-

If you look at the thread layout instead of all of the messages in order of time stamp you'll see that it was to you, but to a previous post. Did you or did you not say:

"1) Windows sucks, and you're not going to see me using Windows 2k any time soon
2) if you have a decent motherboard and HSF it can protect your cpu from burning up
3) Who cares that AMD doesnt support multiple CPU's? How many of us need Multiple CPU's when you can get that much power in one Thunderbird chip? (yes of course, more is better, but for the cost?)
4) SSE2?? Driver updates?? Via??? These aren't major issues that I'm worrying about, and neither are half of the folks here. I have a feeling in time these will be taken care of, way sooner than INTELS problems are taken care of.."

Since you did I have to stand by my statement that you're a closed-minded idiot who doesn't know drek about computers. However, given some of your later posts at least you're showing that you're not as closed-minded about some things. So maybe in light of this I'll revise things to "you're a stubborn bugger who doesn't know as much as you think you do".

Why only that far?
1) Windows doesn't suck. It's a LOT easier to use than Linux or Unix and isn't being driven in several directions at the same time causing confusion and dispair. Yes, it actually costs money.
Yes, Microsoft is full of jerks who charge you for an upgrade to what should have been a series of free patches. I have a lot of issues with Microsoft. However, Windows doens't suck.
Windows provides a standardized means of writing software which has been openly and widely accepted amongst the vast majority of software engineers. And It makes a computer easy to use.
Just because it isn't free doesn't mean that it sucks.
And, for your information, Windows 2000 is without a doubt the best OS available. Yes, it's bloody expensive. But it's stable, it's easy to use, it'll run an AWFUL lot of software, and it'll even run multiple processors.

2) A good heat sink and fan still won't keep your CPU from burning up if that heat sink gets shifted during shipping or if the fan fails. There are cases where your chip's life will be threatened and considering how easy it would be to put the thermal protection in, there really is no good reason for AMD not to put it in.

3) There are a LOT of people in this world that use multiple-CPU systems. If such weren't the case than AMD wouldn't be trying to meet those demands. Just because you don't need them doens't meen that everyone doesn't. And honestly, I'd like to see you prove that a single 1.2GHz T-Bird can out perform a dual 1GHz P3 running multi-threaded applications.

4) Anyone who doesn't worry about VIA is either lucky, using a system that isn't pushing their motherboard, or not using a VIA motherboard. Everyone else should worry about VIA. And if you worry about VIA, that means you also should worry about driver updates and patches, since these could be the only things that will get your system to run with any measure of stability.
SSE2 won't matter much now. But be sure that a year from now it'll matter greatly.
And as for those problems being taken care of before Intel takes care of it's problems, I'd like for you to even list EVERY problem Intel currently has that you can think of and then think about things for a minute.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.

I have an amd classic 650 fitted to an Asus K7v...and i have had no problems whatsoever with it...my complaints sheet adds up to a big fat ZERO....so what are you on about.

Ray

I have 1 AMD system and 2 Intel systems. Which ones give me problems? ALL OF THEM!! Not one problem is really bothersome. They all have minor quirks now and then that thousands of other users encounter. I always find a fix or a work around. I don't care if is only a work around and not a real fix as long as I get the result I want. I am not loyal to either side. I buy what I want. I buy what best fits my needs at the time. There are things I love about both platforms and things I hate. My primary system right now is a KT7-RAID. Why is that? Intel hasn't made a chipset that has impressed me since the BX. I still have my BP6. My father in law has my old BX6. Does the VIA chipset on my KT7-RAID impress me? Not really, but I like it better than what Intel has to offer at this point even if it is less stable than my BX board is. Also, price played a small role. I got a Thunderbird for the price of a Celeron. I have nothing against Celeron. I have a BP6 after all. I just wanted as much processor power as possible. Also, the ability to overclock was an issue. If there is anyone I am loyal to it is ABIT. I have used 5 of their motherboards to date. I have used many other brands at work and home as well, but Abit has always seemed to provide me with what I want and need. I compared Abit's Intel and AMD offerings and chose AMD this last time. It was Intel before. There is no way to know what will be next. All hardware has problems. Some more than others. Intel had a verry bad year in 2000 with hardware problems. AMD has had it's share of problems as well. No one can tell me this is better than that. You don't know me. You don't know my needs and desires. I have chosen systems that were known to be less stable than others just because it had one or two things that I wanted or needed. I got a BP6 when I didn't need SMP, just because I wanted it. I got a KT7-RAID when a KT7 would have been fine. I wanted to try IDE RAID in a home setting. I had experience with SCSI RAID at work and wanted to have RAID at home just because I wanted it. I didn't even read half of the posts in this thread because I got bored with them. I completely skiped page 2. I don't claim to know more or less than any of you. I just like what I like because I like it. I use my computers at home for important work, but they are also a hobby, just like Martial Arts, Anime, or Sci-Fi. When I built my first home network it was just because I wanted to. Now I really use it. What is the point of all of this? These are just computers. It is not like the medical equipment I work on. If I don't calibrate my life support systems correctly someone could die. If I don't back up my system and my RAID 0 array crashes I loose all of my data. Even the most important irreplaceable data does not compare to a human life. Who cares if AMD or Intel has problems. Lets all just be happy with what we have and try to help each other with our major and minor problems instead of trying to be the ALL KNOWING USER WHO IS SO VERY CORRECT IN MAKING HARDWARE CHOICES. I'm not flaming anyone. I am just asking what is the point?




Sorry I didn't break this up into paragraphs. I didn't realise I was going to say so much.

Hi, everyone--

What an interesting debate, though a bit hot at times. I don't mean to fan the flames, but since I need a new computer soon, I'd like to see if I've gleaned the correct information for my needs from this thread. Unfortunately, a lot of this thread has made me wonder about the questions more in depth instead of solving them.

Since many of you will agree that the Pentium vs. Athlon debate can be best resolved on an individual's need basis, please indulge me as I explain my needs (Sorry to post to this thread, but I feel that my question really seeks a summary of the thread).

I consider myself not biased in this debate because by home preference, I am a Macintosh user, so my bias is normally toward the Mac. Unfortunately, I have found voice recognition software on the Mac to be inadequate, as I would like to run even mouse functions using my voice. I am a writer and a Web programmer, and I have severe chronic tennis elbow from typing and mousing. I am trying to use Dragon NaturallySpeaking (DNS) on my P-II or III 500 MHz Windows NT 4.0 machine at work, but it is painfully slow. Because of the nature of Voice Recognition (which I will mistakenly refer to as Speech software at least once during this message, I'm sure), I feel I need a very cutting edge and fast system. Unfortunately, from what I gather on Dragon NS forums, both Pentium and Athlon claim to have better performance in Speech Recognition, and both ship a Dragon NS testing component with their benchmark software to prove their superiority. Each one's benchmark works better for the company who created the benchmark. Some have accused Intel of using an older version of Dragon not maximized for AMD in their benchmark software. I have no idea if this is true.

There is some debate about whether Dragon heavily uses Floating Point. Their customer service couldn't tell me, and different people on the forums say opposite things. I'm sure this would make a difference.

Dragon customer service did tell me not to use Windows ME, but to use Windows 2000 Pro or 98 Second Edition instead. They said Dragon does not play well with Windows ME. They also recommended a SoundBlaster Live audio card.

Has anyone out there compared Dragon NS 4.0 or higher on Pentium vs. Athlon systems? (anyone experienced with speech software and not just running the benchmark programs)

I am a bit of a computer tech, but I don't know if I want to spend a lot of time (and arm pain) troubleshooting my system and messing with patches. However, I want the best system I can get, so I will be more likely to use the speech software and less likely to get frustrated with it and grab the keyboard. From what it sounds like on this forum and in Tom's Hardware guide (please correct me if I'm wrong):

* Athlons appear to be faster in most cases, with the P-4s sometimes falling under the P3s in performance (although CNet seems to disagree with this in running only 3 benchmarks with Pentium on top of 2 of them (one "desktop" or "office" performance, one 3D, and one Quake....and is Dragon an "Office" application?) http://computers.cnet.com/hardware [...] -3990834). (as a side note, the Gateway P4 comes up much faster than the Dell P4 according to PCMagazine, so does that mean the Gateway P4 might be even faster than the Micron Athlon? http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories [...] 4,00.html) To you Intel-people who disagree that the Athlons are faster, do you consider the benchmarks used on Tom's Hardware invalid? They seem well-done to me.

*Athlons appear to be less stable than the Pentiums in a lot of cases. Is this still a problem as long as I never plan to overclock and remember to check that my fan didn't get unsettled during shipment of the computer?

* I may experience incompatibilities with the Athlon if I'm building my own machine. Am I likely to experience the same problems if I purchase the system from a reasonably reputable place like Micron?

* I need to avoid the VIA motherboards.

* I may have trouble running Windows 2000 on an Athlon. This seems to be true especially with certain Graphics cards. Does this include the NVIDIA cards that are standard in most consumer machines? (Dell, Gateway, HP, Micron, Compaq, etc.). (Some use GeForce2 Ultra AGP cards, others use just NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 4X AGP cards ). If I never care about upgrading the video card, will Windows 2000 be a problem for the Athlon? If so, what else do I need to watch out for? (or should I just get a Pentium if I need to use Windows 2000?)

*According to Tom's Hardware, DDR SDRAM is faster than RDRAM, even if the numbers in their naming conventions are lower. According to the friendly Micron sales rep (not an unbiased source) , this means that a Micron Athlon advertised 200 MHz Bus is actually comparable to the advertised 400 MHz bus of a P4. (as Tom seems to say, bus is everything. ) One sales rep claims that RDRAM will eventually be abandoned. Any thoughts on the accuracy of all of this?


Thanks for your help! By now, my head is spinning....

--SMS

In reply to:

Second, Intel's P4 still at least has an FPU. They didn't leave it entirely out, they just crippled it. Do you even see a crippled thermal sensor in ANY AMD chip? I don't think so.

Let me start by saying that yes, an amd cpu would be a better CPU if it had thermal protection. Only a complete idiot would disagree with that. Why AMD choose to leave it off there CPU I could only guess. Perhaps they felt that such protection would be better provided by the motherboard and not the cpu itself, again this is only a guess. As I have yet to burn out an AMD CPU it has not been an issue to me in the least. Just exactly how well does the Intell thermal protection work and do you trust it to run your computer without a heatsink? I can however in response to your statement say this. I can buy a motherboard equipped with thermal protection to overcome this shortcoming with the AMD CPU, can you please tell me were I can buy an additional fpu unit to make up for the one lacking in the p4?


A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!

And Intel freaks will never admit that Intel run sweat shops and charge too much for thier products. So I guess we're even.

----------------------
I don't hate Intel............ Do I?

"Athlons appear to be faster in most cases, with the P-4s sometimes falling under the P3s in performance (although CNet seems to disagree with this in running only 3 benchmarks with Pentium on top of 2 of them"

Only Cnet might argue that an Athlon isnt the fastest general purpous CPU on a clock-for-clock basis. And even faster in most cases then higher clocked Intel CPU's. The story might change as more SSE2 optimized software comes out.(Intel is in an investor in Cnet, and Cnet tends to be quite a bit biased)

"Athlons appear to be less stable than the Pentiums in a lot of cases. Is this still a problem as long as I never plan to overclock and remember to check that my fan didn't get unsettled during shipment of the computer?"

im not sure that is true. Just make sure you get a decent MB, just like you would for an intel system. Stability has nothing to do with the CPU.. An Athlon is just as "stable" as an intel or heck, even a Cyrix. Like I said, Anandtech is running its webservers on Athlons.

"I need to avoid the VIA motherboards."

True. Get an AMD based chipset for your Athlon. if possible the 760.

"I may have trouble running Windows 2000 on an Athlon"

Apparantly yes - although there is patch out. While some people say it may hinder the system performance, to me it looks like this would only be an issue if running 3D games, and even then I doubt it would make much difference on any card that has 32+ Mb of onboard memory.. remember the AGP 1x vs 2x vs 4x review ? Also, I'd guess MS would include a better fix in the next Service Pack.

"According to Tom's Hardware, DDR SDRAM is faster than RDRAM"

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on CPU, platform, and especially application.. The difference are in any case rather minor. For an Athlon, go with DDR if you can, it might be very usefull for future faster CPU's.. on a 900 Mhz system, the improvement isnt that big. For P3, take SDRAM. You have nothing to gain from either RDRAM or even DDR. For a P4, you only have one choice so far... not even such a bad one, since the P4 really seems to love RDRAM.. too bad its still kinda pricey.

As for your application, my guess would be that right now, an Athlon DDR would be the fastest platform.. However, an SSE2 optimized version of dragon would more than likely turn the tables around. Got cash to burn ? By a P4 (with PC800 !! dont buy PC700 or less, as shipped with Dell systems). Cost consious ? Get an Athlon DDR.. Right now, I dont think I'd seriously concider a P3. the CPU upgrade path is non-existing (although that is also more or less valid for the P4 - 1.7 Ghz max; after that you need a new MB). however, the P4 has great potential for SSE2 optimized applications.. Seems to me an app like Dragon might benefit quite a bit from it.

Conclusion ? Flip a coin ;-)

I would reply to all of you but, I am not.

http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/cpu2000.html

Here we see the P4 overtaking the Alpha as the worlds fastest processor.

Notice the AMD is only capable of numbers around half that of the P4.

AMD people cannot downplay the SSE2 role in future apps and CPU design since your fav CPU is gonna be SSE2 optimized soon. Then the playing ield will be even with both CPU's using the same instruction set.

For those that think Intel is being greedy for having to charge more for processors, well to answer that Intel makes more than processors and they do invest heavily in R&D

Fugger is german, www.fugger.com is the website to my family name.

Im glad VIA makes the chipset for AMD, they are well suited for each other =P

Here is thought, If AMD spent money on chipset design would they have to increase the price of the CPU to compensate for R&D?

<b>For those that think Intel is being greedy for having to charge more for processors, well to answer that Intel makes more than processors and they do invest heavily in R&D</b>
It's a <b>LAME EXCUSE</b> and you know that.

R&D is a lame excuse, well at least Intel has thermal protection.

If AMD put at least a dollar into R&D I would think Tbird would have thermal protection.

Part of Intel R&D is going into putting new instructions in the CPU called SSE2. I dont see AMD coming out with 3DnowV2 or anythign even close, in fact they are gonna adopt SSE2 that costs how many millions to develop?

Nice you know that your a lame excuse for AMD fan. next time try to put up a decent response other than something that is lame as you are.

But then you prob think that R&D is a role playing game or something. obviously not needed in AMD manufacturing.

WTG gimp!

Pentium 4.... It is such a bizarre processor. It cannot out perform its predecessors in the currently available applications, yet claims to outperform the highend server processors out there!

You know, intel do know what they are doing. How else would they be able to screw so many people out of their hard earned cash.

There are lots of benchmarks out there and most of the seem to show intel processors as the second best. And comparing processors across several platforms in fashion of your refered website is a bit wierd. You see, all scientists will tell you that, In every experiment you can have one variable and everything else has to remain constant. That benchmark had all sorts of apps all over the place. talk about incosistancy.

There is a second version of 3D Now! it is implemented in athlons. the first one was installed in the K6-x range. As for SSE etc., AMD know that intel finally got it right with SSE2 and that is the reason they will implement it in their Hammer series of processors.

R&D, R&D, R&D, hmm...

Why does R&D into chipsets have to increase the price of the CPUs? why not reflect the chipset R&D into its own price (i.e into motherboards). Your argument does not seem to make much sense.

And if they are so much into R&D, why do they release to be obselete products? Every one knows in the next couple of months there will be a "new" pentium 4, INCOMPATIBLE with the current "old" perntium 4, leaving NO upgrade paths. Also, their heavy R&D allows them to make chipsets with their lawsuit happy memory making (financial)stock partners - RAMBUS, while they cannot figure out a way to immediately implement DDR SDRAM based P$ Chipsets. No sir! they will not be available till Q3/4 2001.

ps. Please take no offence to my light hearted comment about your name in my previous post.

Stop flatulating on yourself.

I admit AMD made a mistake when they didn't include Thermal protection. But, do you think that Intel ass kicking FPU came from years of sitting on a toilet ripping out their hair?

Sure they're adopting SSE2. Why wouldn't they? It would be stupid not to, as a lot of the software companies are going to be optimizing for it. You can't diss them for being smart.

Next time you want to diss a product, you might want to try to learn a little more about it first.

Actually Role Playing Game is RPG. Even my nephew knows what R&D is. I build computers. What do you do? Install operating systems? Boy, it takes a brainchild to insert CD-ROMs! (Only kidding here. Trying to soften things up with a little humor.)

----------------------
I don't hate Intel............ Do I?

in reply to:

Heh heh. Speaking of AMD chipsets, I wonder how long I'll have to wait before their DDR SDRAM chipset is proven to be stable and usable. I really hate early revision motherboards. I'd rather wait six months and buy something solid than buy the latest and geatest flaky hardware.

I would say you won't have to wait nearly as long as you will the p4 DDR solution you moron.

In reply to:

It's just as funny as the fact that AMD had to hire someone else to write an emulator for their Hammer because their own in-house written emulator was too unstable.

Not nearly as funny as RAMBUS blaming its memories poor perforamnce ( before the p4) on the P3.

In reply to:

But from talking with other people, it just seems like no one realises the true nature of what it is. It is merely a workaround that leaves the initial problem still there. Nothing is actually fixed. But every AMD fan and even countless Intel fans think that it actually fixes the problem. It doesn't. I think that in itself is testament to AMD trying to hide the truth if so many people think it's a cure when it isn't.

How many times to you need to be reminded that this is a VIA problem not a AMD problem you dolt!

In reply to:

It's just a funny world we live in when these chip giants aren't even capable of doing work for themselves and have to hire other people to do it for them. Heh heh.

Last time I checked sub-contracting was a means to streamline your business and is widely accepted.


A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!

"i would say you won't have to wait nearly as long as you will the p4 ddr solution you moron" -- rdram is a ddr solution and intel chipsets will have a qdr solution before anyone else undoubtably (i.e. "ddr" rdram). rdram solutions which have been out for a long time now still beat ddr in terms of bandwidth by a lot. whine all you want about poor latency and bad performance in office apps, but it is likely that future apps will be more sensitive to bandwidth requirements (i.e. 3d software, video etc.). altough it will come out, a pc2100 solution for the p4 will be like MXing a geforce2. also until amd comes up with a better alternative to via chipsets for their processors it is amd's problem. plus i don't think anyone is questioning the acceptability or benefit's of sub-contracting, but rather when to do this.

In reply to:

rdram is a ddr solution and intel chipsets will have a qdr solution before anyone else undoubtably (i.e. "ddr" rdram).

Intel's first ddr solution will not appear until q3 of 2001. DDR and RDRam are different solutions and although they may carry a small bit of technology in common they are different. AMD will have a ddr solution well before Intells p4 will.

in reply to:

rdram solutions which have been out for a long time now still beat ddr in terms of bandwidth by a lot. whine all you want about poor latency and bad performance in office apps,

yes Rdram solutions have been out for a long time and still get beat by SDR solutions on any processor except the p4. whining about high latency is a completely legitimate complaint when the higher latency slows down the perfromance increase allowed by the higher bandwith. What we need to see is a p4 with a ddr solution to effectively compare the two technologies.

in reply too:

but it is likely that future apps will be more sensitive to bandwidth requirements (i.e. 3d software, video etc.).

hmmm...... so buy a processor now for something that may happen when the processor you are buying is outperformed by a cheaper processor today (either p3 or athlon). I fail to see any logic in this at all, excpecially considering that future p4's will have a much better fpu for todays apps as well as these future apps that do not seem to be materializing as fast as some people would have suggested they would.

in reply to:

until amd comes up with a better alternative to via chipsets for their processors it is amd's problem.

hmmm last I checked via made chipsets for the intell processors as well so then it is intell's problem as well?
Has anyone ever heard of ALI? and soon we will see micron chipsets as well as nvidia chipsets.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!