BoulderBum
Programmer
Can anyone direct me to some benchmarks comparing both chips? I am going to get a new computer soon, and want to be informed before choosing a processor.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Athalon XP vs. Pentium 4 11
- Thread starter BoulderBum
- Start date
- Status
-
1
- #2
The trouble with benchmarks is that they can be written to produce whichever results that you want.
Generally P4 systems with 865 chipsets will produce the best performance at the moment, but the Athlon systems will be cheaper.
Remember that the P4 systems are a true GHz speed rating, whereas the Athlon XP are approximations based on the older P4 family (eg an Athlon XP 1800+ runs at 1.53GHz; a 3000+ runs at 2.2GHz) but a P4 2500 runs at 2.5GHz.
The actual application performance however will depend on the operating system and applications you run as some are optimised for Intel and others for AMD (more on the multimedia/games area than office applications).
For some independent articles comparing the P4 and Athlon XP, take a look at the articles listed here:
John
Generally P4 systems with 865 chipsets will produce the best performance at the moment, but the Athlon systems will be cheaper.
Remember that the P4 systems are a true GHz speed rating, whereas the Athlon XP are approximations based on the older P4 family (eg an Athlon XP 1800+ runs at 1.53GHz; a 3000+ runs at 2.2GHz) but a P4 2500 runs at 2.5GHz.
The actual application performance however will depend on the operating system and applications you run as some are optimised for Intel and others for AMD (more on the multimedia/games area than office applications).
For some independent articles comparing the P4 and Athlon XP, take a look at the articles listed here:
John
-
1
- #3
Hi BoulderBum (mm.. nice nick ;o),
Well John has more or less summed things up there but personally I have always used Athlon XP's for myself and customers as people are usually after a better price per mhz ratio and normally opt for the XP.
As mentioned, it will also depend on what apps in particular you are wanting to run.
Cheers,
DaZ
Well John has more or less summed things up there but personally I have always used Athlon XP's for myself and customers as people are usually after a better price per mhz ratio and normally opt for the XP.
As mentioned, it will also depend on what apps in particular you are wanting to run.
Cheers,
DaZ
-
1
- Thread starter
- #4
BoulderBum
Programmer
Thanks guys.
"Remember that the P4 systems are a true GHz speed rating, whereas the Athlon XP are approximations based"
I actually heard that, but I also heard that AMD is inflating its numbers a bit in the "3200+" type labels, so I wanted to see side-by-side comparisons for myself.
It turns out that the Tom's Hardware page compared the Athalon XP 3200+ with a bunch of Intel processor and discovered that it actually performed closer to a 2.8 GHZ P4 processor (on average) which, when you compare prices, may actually may mean that Intel is currently not only the top performer, but the better value, too.
I love my Athalon 4 notebook, and knew that I could expect it to trounce an equivalent P3 despite its lower price, but for the new desktop I think I'll go with the P4.
"Remember that the P4 systems are a true GHz speed rating, whereas the Athlon XP are approximations based"
I actually heard that, but I also heard that AMD is inflating its numbers a bit in the "3200+" type labels, so I wanted to see side-by-side comparisons for myself.
It turns out that the Tom's Hardware page compared the Athalon XP 3200+ with a bunch of Intel processor and discovered that it actually performed closer to a 2.8 GHZ P4 processor (on average) which, when you compare prices, may actually may mean that Intel is currently not only the top performer, but the better value, too.
I love my Athalon 4 notebook, and knew that I could expect it to trounce an equivalent P3 despite its lower price, but for the new desktop I think I'll go with the P4.
-
1
- #5
The thing with AMD being greatly off in the comparisons between performance rating & the P4 clock speeds; the ratings were originally to compare the XP to a 400fsb P4 with the Northwood core. I haven't read anything lately, but I'm under the assumption that is still true, and if intel made a 400fsb P4 @ 3.2GHz, it would peform about at an XP3200+. Of course the 3.2GHz P4 has an 800fsb instead.
It's like the 2400+ can compare well to the 2.4GHz w/ 400fsb, but is blown away by the 2.4GHz P4 w/ 800fsb.
It's like the 2400+ can compare well to the 2.4GHz w/ 400fsb, but is blown away by the 2.4GHz P4 w/ 800fsb.
- Thread starter
- #6
BoulderBum
Programmer
I see. Very informative.
I heard the 64 bit AMD processors blow EVERYTHING away. Too bad about the price, though. :-(
I heard the 64 bit AMD processors blow EVERYTHING away. Too bad about the price, though. :-(
-
1
- #7
BoulderBum,
It's good to see that you've done some research, and Tom's Hardware is always a good place to start.
For the most part, AMD Athlon chips have had the edge over Intel since the release of the P4 as far as price vs. performance. However, the Athlon 32-bit architecture has come close to the end of its life cycle. The P4 on the other hand is not even mid-way through with the P5 (soon to be named) on its way in.
With that, Intel is able to release faster P4's while reducing the costs of slightly older CPU's like the 2.8GHz chip, a lot of credit going to supply and demand which is in Intel's favor right now. AMD however, is struggling to compete as can be seen with high prices for the Athlon 3000+ and 3200+.
The bottom line is what you want. For a decent system, but not top-of-the-line, AMD is still the leader hands down. For the latest and greatest, go with Intel. Keep in mind that most everyday tasks can be easily handled by the cheap Athlon 2600+ or 2800+ using a 333MHz frontside bus.
Hopefully, AMD is able to eventually keep up. There's nothing wrong with competition and lower prices!
~cdogg
[tab]"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
[tab][tab]- A. Einstein
It's good to see that you've done some research, and Tom's Hardware is always a good place to start.
For the most part, AMD Athlon chips have had the edge over Intel since the release of the P4 as far as price vs. performance. However, the Athlon 32-bit architecture has come close to the end of its life cycle. The P4 on the other hand is not even mid-way through with the P5 (soon to be named) on its way in.
With that, Intel is able to release faster P4's while reducing the costs of slightly older CPU's like the 2.8GHz chip, a lot of credit going to supply and demand which is in Intel's favor right now. AMD however, is struggling to compete as can be seen with high prices for the Athlon 3000+ and 3200+.
The bottom line is what you want. For a decent system, but not top-of-the-line, AMD is still the leader hands down. For the latest and greatest, go with Intel. Keep in mind that most everyday tasks can be easily handled by the cheap Athlon 2600+ or 2800+ using a 333MHz frontside bus.
Hopefully, AMD is able to eventually keep up. There's nothing wrong with competition and lower prices!
~cdogg
[tab]"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
[tab][tab]- A. Einstein
If I may add my 2 cents here, I just want to say that I feel that Intel has the upper hand in performance, but AMD gives great bang for the buck.
It is doubtless that an 800Mhz front side bus with dual channel DDR RAM and a 3Ghz CPU is going to be better than a 2.6Ghz CPU on a 400Mhz FSB. Unfortunately, I do not have the money for an Intel system, whereas an AMD system gives me great satisfaction and is well within my budget.
It's like cars. I know that a Porsche is better than a Nissan and I would very much like to have one, but I cannot afford a Porsche and a Nissan will still get me where I want to go in a reasonable amount of time (and a Nissan has a bigger trunk).
Pascal.
It is doubtless that an 800Mhz front side bus with dual channel DDR RAM and a 3Ghz CPU is going to be better than a 2.6Ghz CPU on a 400Mhz FSB. Unfortunately, I do not have the money for an Intel system, whereas an AMD system gives me great satisfaction and is well within my budget.
It's like cars. I know that a Porsche is better than a Nissan and I would very much like to have one, but I cannot afford a Porsche and a Nissan will still get me where I want to go in a reasonable amount of time (and a Nissan has a bigger trunk).
Pascal.
-
3
- #9
CitrixEngineer
Technical User
I'd just like to add a couple more cents to the mix:
Asking which processor is better/faster these days is not necessarily a useful question when building/designing a computer.
Now I've thrown the cat among the pigeons, I'd better explain:
I live in the UK, where the speed limit on the fastest roads is 70mph. I could buy a Porsche, capable of 155mph+ or I could buy a Nissan capable of 90mph. Both cars can go faster than the speed limit - but that's no big deal. Legally, I cannot drive either car that fast.
Now let's take that analogy to CPUs. I run Word, IE and several new games which require 1500Mhz processors. If I buy a 3000Mhz processor costing £500, it would give a slightly better performance in the game than if I bought a 2000Mhz processor for £50.
Now, if I buy the cheap processor, I can also buy extra RAM. Since I am running Windows XP, the system "feels" faster. Next, I upgrade my hard disk subsystem so that I have 2 x 8Mb cache 7200 RPM ATA 100 drives and put my Pagefile on the 2nd drive. I then upgrade my graphics card to a GeForce FX5600 (128Mb) and get a sound card that does most of the audio processing, rather than shunt stuff to the CPU. I still have change from the £500 that I would have spent on that fast CPU, and all my games run quickly and have great graphics and sound.
Now my system really flies - the CPU benchmark isn't as high as some, but the memory and HDD performance more than make up for that, and my buddies wonder in amazement as my "slow" system performs most tasks more quickly than their "speed demons". OK some, like audio rendering, take a minute or so longer - but I can live with that.
Bottom line - the difference between a benchmark and how the computer performs in real life is the sum of the components you have used to build your system (and any useful tweaks you have made ;-)). The numbers game is old hat - unless you have money to burn and simply must have the "biggest and best".
Ask yourself this question; "What applications am I going to run, and what is the minimum processor that is required to run them all?". You may wonder about future proofing - well, if you buy a cheaper processor today, and put the money you've saved aside, you can use that money a couple of years down the line to buy the processor you would have bought for £500 for £50, and have change for more RAM.
I know there are holes in this story, but I think that people are too concerned with the latest and greatest and not paying attention to other important computing factors.
I hope this is useful - and doesn't spark too many flames!
Asking which processor is better/faster these days is not necessarily a useful question when building/designing a computer.
Now I've thrown the cat among the pigeons, I'd better explain:
I live in the UK, where the speed limit on the fastest roads is 70mph. I could buy a Porsche, capable of 155mph+ or I could buy a Nissan capable of 90mph. Both cars can go faster than the speed limit - but that's no big deal. Legally, I cannot drive either car that fast.
Now let's take that analogy to CPUs. I run Word, IE and several new games which require 1500Mhz processors. If I buy a 3000Mhz processor costing £500, it would give a slightly better performance in the game than if I bought a 2000Mhz processor for £50.
Now, if I buy the cheap processor, I can also buy extra RAM. Since I am running Windows XP, the system "feels" faster. Next, I upgrade my hard disk subsystem so that I have 2 x 8Mb cache 7200 RPM ATA 100 drives and put my Pagefile on the 2nd drive. I then upgrade my graphics card to a GeForce FX5600 (128Mb) and get a sound card that does most of the audio processing, rather than shunt stuff to the CPU. I still have change from the £500 that I would have spent on that fast CPU, and all my games run quickly and have great graphics and sound.
Now my system really flies - the CPU benchmark isn't as high as some, but the memory and HDD performance more than make up for that, and my buddies wonder in amazement as my "slow" system performs most tasks more quickly than their "speed demons". OK some, like audio rendering, take a minute or so longer - but I can live with that.
Bottom line - the difference between a benchmark and how the computer performs in real life is the sum of the components you have used to build your system (and any useful tweaks you have made ;-)). The numbers game is old hat - unless you have money to burn and simply must have the "biggest and best".
Ask yourself this question; "What applications am I going to run, and what is the minimum processor that is required to run them all?". You may wonder about future proofing - well, if you buy a cheaper processor today, and put the money you've saved aside, you can use that money a couple of years down the line to buy the processor you would have bought for £500 for £50, and have change for more RAM.
I know there are holes in this story, but I think that people are too concerned with the latest and greatest and not paying attention to other important computing factors.
I hope this is useful - and doesn't spark too many flames!
- Thread starter
- #12
BoulderBum
Programmer
Part of the reason I'm looking into a higher-end system is that AlienWare is the only larger manufacturer I can find that makes their computers in America (I avoid supporting offshoring at all costs), and they only make high-end systems.
I'm looking to manufacturers instead of building my own box because I find that they typically have put considerable time and resources into testing component configurations and compatibility more than I am willing to (plus AlienWare has a good reputation).
I also plan on booting or running just about every MS Server, OS, and IDE on the market today (I have an MSDN subscription) so it helps to have a solid system that will hopefully be adequate for a decade or so (I can dream).
Thanks again, all, for all the useful info and tips!
I'm looking to manufacturers instead of building my own box because I find that they typically have put considerable time and resources into testing component configurations and compatibility more than I am willing to (plus AlienWare has a good reputation).
I also plan on booting or running just about every MS Server, OS, and IDE on the market today (I have an MSDN subscription) so it helps to have a solid system that will hopefully be adequate for a decade or so (I can dream).
Thanks again, all, for all the useful info and tips!
- Thread starter
- #14
BoulderBum
Programmer
I guess Dell also brought customer support work back from India after too many customers complained, which is commendable, but they've farmed enough of their labor to foreign sweatshops that I will avoid doing business with them if there is a better alternative.
-
1
- #15
CitrixEngineer has it right!
When I sell a PC to one of my customers I try to give them a "WELL ROUNDED" specification to match whatever budget they have.
Quite a few customers come into the shop waving an advert at me asking if I can match the spec, often, on paper at least, these advertised bargains are all numbers and no substance, what I mean by this is: all the perceived selling points have there base's covered, fast CPU, big hard drive, but look closer and often these systems are using older/budget chipsets with onboard sound, micro ATX format with only 2-3 PCI slots and no AGP for a graphics upgrade.
So you see, if you want the PC to perform well in all areas then a "ROUNDED SPECIFICATION" is the way to go.
If the AMD XP Versa's the Intel P4 argument could be "summed up" in a couple of sentences that I would say.
Money no object! then it has to be an 800fsb P4 on an Intel 865/875 motherboard platform.
On a budget and the top two or three CPU speeds are definately out of reach? then an AMD Barton core XP CPU paired up with a Nforce2 400 chipset equipt motherboard.
Spend what you save on: Quality PSU, nice LianLi/Thermaltake case, better graphics card, seperate sound, more branded memory or descent periferals like a Logitech cordless keyboard/mouse combi etc.
Martin
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
When I sell a PC to one of my customers I try to give them a "WELL ROUNDED" specification to match whatever budget they have.
Quite a few customers come into the shop waving an advert at me asking if I can match the spec, often, on paper at least, these advertised bargains are all numbers and no substance, what I mean by this is: all the perceived selling points have there base's covered, fast CPU, big hard drive, but look closer and often these systems are using older/budget chipsets with onboard sound, micro ATX format with only 2-3 PCI slots and no AGP for a graphics upgrade.
So you see, if you want the PC to perform well in all areas then a "ROUNDED SPECIFICATION" is the way to go.
If the AMD XP Versa's the Intel P4 argument could be "summed up" in a couple of sentences that I would say.
Money no object! then it has to be an 800fsb P4 on an Intel 865/875 motherboard platform.
On a budget and the top two or three CPU speeds are definately out of reach? then an AMD Barton core XP CPU paired up with a Nforce2 400 chipset equipt motherboard.
Spend what you save on: Quality PSU, nice LianLi/Thermaltake case, better graphics card, seperate sound, more branded memory or descent periferals like a Logitech cordless keyboard/mouse combi etc.
Martin
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
- Thread starter
- #16
BoulderBum
Programmer
Out of curiosity, what are your professional opinions on this system:
It's the "low-end" for AlienWare system I was looking at (it's seriously the cheapest thing there). It's a tad pricey for my liking, but I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is on the offshoring issue, and I can take advantage of a few rebates.
It's the "low-end" for AlienWare system I was looking at (it's seriously the cheapest thing there). It's a tad pricey for my liking, but I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is on the offshoring issue, and I can take advantage of a few rebates.
-
1
- #17
- Thread starter
- #18
BoulderBum
Programmer
I was actually planning on upgrading the drive anyway because of all the partitions I want on the thing. I assume the cache stores retrieved data which translates to faster access?
RE: the video card. Can you quantify what I will and won't be able to do with a slower card? What do modern games require nowadays (for smooth movement)? The machine is mostly for development purposes, so I don't think I'll opt for a super high-end card (I don't even own a 3D computer game... yet), but would you say the 5700 will be adequate for a while?
The video card is something I wouldn't mind upgrading later, though the 5700 isn't too much more, speaking of the present.
RE: the video card. Can you quantify what I will and won't be able to do with a slower card? What do modern games require nowadays (for smooth movement)? The machine is mostly for development purposes, so I don't think I'll opt for a super high-end card (I don't even own a 3D computer game... yet), but would you say the 5700 will be adequate for a while?
The video card is something I wouldn't mind upgrading later, though the 5700 isn't too much more, speaking of the present.
Graphic card Ratings and usage
Office use:
Radeon 9200 / Nvidia Fx-5200
Middle class gaming and 3D capabilities:
Radeon 9600,9600Pro
Nvidia FX-5600,5600Ultra,5700,5700Ultra
Lower top class gaming and 3D capabilities:
Radeon "9600XT",9800
Nvidia FX-5900
High End Gaming and 3D capabilities :
Radeon
Radeon 9800PRO,9800XT
Nvidia FX-5900ULTRA,5950ULTRA
You have to define yourself in witch category you fit in
Harddisk , you will absolutly notice increased speed going for 8MB cache .
SYAR
Office use:
Radeon 9200 / Nvidia Fx-5200
Middle class gaming and 3D capabilities:
Radeon 9600,9600Pro
Nvidia FX-5600,5600Ultra,5700,5700Ultra
Lower top class gaming and 3D capabilities:
Radeon "9600XT",9800
Nvidia FX-5900
High End Gaming and 3D capabilities :
Radeon
Radeon 9800PRO,9800XT
Nvidia FX-5900ULTRA,5950ULTRA
You have to define yourself in witch category you fit in
Harddisk , you will absolutly notice increased speed going for 8MB cache .
SYAR
I can't say much for price, but that system doesn't sound too unreasonable. I too would consider spending the extra $ for the 8MB cache drive, even if you just want to stick with Serial ATA and 80GB. It's not that much more.
Also, I wouldn't worry too much about the video card. It sounds like gaming is nowhere near being a priority for you. Plus like you said, you can always upgrade later!
Also, I wouldn't worry too much about the video card. It sounds like gaming is nowhere near being a priority for you. Plus like you said, you can always upgrade later!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question