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!
ATHLON VS PENTIUM 6
- Thread starter killowhat
- Start date
Accessdabbler
Technical User
What do the respective motherboards cost? Sometimes Athlon boards are more money than Intel boards.
Wouldnt normally say this but here goes....
I would get the AMD because the chip is cheaper leaving you more money to spend on a good board and it has a faster clock frequency than the pentium, and using Quantispeed it will do the same amount of work as pentium 2~GHz processor per second where as the pentium will do 1.7GHz and no more(according to AMD).
David
I would get the AMD because the chip is cheaper leaving you more money to spend on a good board and it has a faster clock frequency than the pentium, and using Quantispeed it will do the same amount of work as pentium 2~GHz processor per second where as the pentium will do 1.7GHz and no more(according to AMD).
David
- Thread starter
- #4
-
3
- #5
RICHINMINN
Programmer
- Dec 31, 2001
- 138
Intel has done a good job of marketing the Pentium 4, so that many people feel that if a system DOESN'T have a Pentium 4 CPU in it, it is inferior to a system that does. My preference will nearly always be for a system with the Athlon XP, though. The Athlon XP can provide performance equal to that of the P4 at a significantly lower price. If you absolutely have to have the fastest CPU available, you'll probably go with the P4 (and at a premium price). If you want to the best buy for your money, I would recommend the Athlon XP. Tom's Hardware Guide ( agrees, in its comparison of the Athlon XP 2600+ and the Intel P4 2800, in which it stated, "As always, price-conscious buyers who are interested in getting the best price/ performance ratio are a bit better off with an AMD Athlon XP than with a P4." (
Bear in mind that the P4 would probably cost double what it currently does, if it weren't for AMD's competition. Intel has undergone numerous price cuts over the past year, amounting to something more than 50%. But the Athlon XP's market share in still increasing.
To fairly compare the two exmaples that you've listed, remember that the AMD Athlon XP 1700+ is actually running at a speed of 1400 MHz, in contrast to the P4's speed of 1700 MHz. And yet the XP 1700+ outperforms the P4 1700 in nearly all benchmarks. Also, the memory rates are misleading (400 MHz for the P4 vs 266 MHz for the XP), in that both of them are working with the same amount of data (32 bits), but it's just that the Athlon XP is simultaneously working with 2 "chunks" of 16 bits each (Double Data Rate, or DDR), while the P4 is simultaneously working with 4 "chunks" of 8 bits each (Quad Data Rate, or QDR). A better comparison would be of the FrontSide Bus (FSB) speeds: 100 MHz for the P4 vs 133 MHz for the Athlon XP.
In addition, SocketA motherboards (for Athlon XP, Athlon, and Duron processors) nearly always cost less than comparable Socket478 motherboards for the P4.
My recommendation (if you haven't already guessed):
Go with the Athlon XP!
Rich (in Minn.)
Bear in mind that the P4 would probably cost double what it currently does, if it weren't for AMD's competition. Intel has undergone numerous price cuts over the past year, amounting to something more than 50%. But the Athlon XP's market share in still increasing.
To fairly compare the two exmaples that you've listed, remember that the AMD Athlon XP 1700+ is actually running at a speed of 1400 MHz, in contrast to the P4's speed of 1700 MHz. And yet the XP 1700+ outperforms the P4 1700 in nearly all benchmarks. Also, the memory rates are misleading (400 MHz for the P4 vs 266 MHz for the XP), in that both of them are working with the same amount of data (32 bits), but it's just that the Athlon XP is simultaneously working with 2 "chunks" of 16 bits each (Double Data Rate, or DDR), while the P4 is simultaneously working with 4 "chunks" of 8 bits each (Quad Data Rate, or QDR). A better comparison would be of the FrontSide Bus (FSB) speeds: 100 MHz for the P4 vs 133 MHz for the Athlon XP.
In addition, SocketA motherboards (for Athlon XP, Athlon, and Duron processors) nearly always cost less than comparable Socket478 motherboards for the P4.
My recommendation (if you haven't already guessed):
Go with the Athlon XP!
Rich (in Minn.)
-
1
- #6
gargouille
IS-IT--Management
Pearl, (you'll always be Pearl to us!)
Who's side were you on in the Civil War?
Poor analogy, probably, but the point is they both basically do the same thing, perhaps in different ways, but the end result is that software gives us the result we were after.
Looking at benchmarks will take you into the marketing world. (which is where everything winds up: even Wall Street goes to Madison Avenue to deliver the sales pitch)
But it finally boils down to your personal preference. To me there is something basically applealing about using a CPU that is FAR less costly to buy in the 1st place...and that's just my personal preference.
Who's side were you on in the Civil War?
Poor analogy, probably, but the point is they both basically do the same thing, perhaps in different ways, but the end result is that software gives us the result we were after.
Looking at benchmarks will take you into the marketing world. (which is where everything winds up: even Wall Street goes to Madison Avenue to deliver the sales pitch)
But it finally boils down to your personal preference. To me there is something basically applealing about using a CPU that is FAR less costly to buy in the 1st place...and that's just my personal preference.
Rich,
Processor market share is like swings&roundabouts
Within the next year Intel will be openning a plant called Fab24 in Kildare, Ireland. It will be the most expensive manufacturing plant Intel has developed and will be mostly automated drastically reducing Intels transistor developements cost which will in turn reduce Intel processor costs.
So if One of the main things AMD has going for it is that it is cheaper than Intel it had better find a way of making the chips ALOT cheaper.
David
Processor market share is like swings&roundabouts
Within the next year Intel will be openning a plant called Fab24 in Kildare, Ireland. It will be the most expensive manufacturing plant Intel has developed and will be mostly automated drastically reducing Intels transistor developements cost which will in turn reduce Intel processor costs.
So if One of the main things AMD has going for it is that it is cheaper than Intel it had better find a way of making the chips ALOT cheaper.
David
rockerfellerz
IS-IT--Management
I would (and did) go with AMD. The XP2100 is actually much faster than the P4 1.7 even though it is only a tiny bit faster in clock speed. That and being a lot cheaper sealed the deal for me. Just my 2 cents worth...
RocKeRFelLerZ
RocKeRFelLerZ
- Thread starter
- #9
thanks guys for the posts excellent point. i have never had a pc with athlon , that is why it is hard to understand why so many tekers go with athlon. for what i have seen in prices you can get a combo in amd for the price of a pentium4 cpu. for years i thought there was only one cpu;pentium. for the price difference you can get a better athlon mobo. gargy i was born in the south, so you know who won the civil war in my warped mind. pearl [ my samoyed dog]is geeting out of hand, she kicks my old butt every day.
republican or democrat? tough questions, more research needed.
republican or democrat? tough questions, more research needed.
-
1
- #10
killowhat,
Based on the two systems you posted, go with the XP 2100. It would simply "crush" the 1.7GHz P4. The gap in MHz between the XP and the early P4's is ridiculous in terms of equal performance. When the Northwood P4 2.2GHz (w/533MHz FSB) came out, this gap closed considerably, although there is still a gap of at least 200MHz in many benchmarks.
RICHINMINN,
I'm just curious as to where you obtained the DDR and QDR specs on "chunk sizes". If the Athlon XP is in fact able to push the same amount of data per clock cycle (XP 32bits = Intel 32bits), then wouldn't they have the same bandwidth? Obviously, this is not the case. The bandwidth on the Athlon's 266MHz DDR bus (133MHz FSB) is only 2.1GB/s. However, the bandwidth of the P4's 533MHz QDR bus (133MHz FSB) is 4.2 GB/s.
If the # of bits per clock cycle are equal, then so would the bandwidth. Clearly this doesn't match up. Where am I going wrong?
~cdogg
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein
Based on the two systems you posted, go with the XP 2100. It would simply "crush" the 1.7GHz P4. The gap in MHz between the XP and the early P4's is ridiculous in terms of equal performance. When the Northwood P4 2.2GHz (w/533MHz FSB) came out, this gap closed considerably, although there is still a gap of at least 200MHz in many benchmarks.
RICHINMINN,
I'm just curious as to where you obtained the DDR and QDR specs on "chunk sizes". If the Athlon XP is in fact able to push the same amount of data per clock cycle (XP 32bits = Intel 32bits), then wouldn't they have the same bandwidth? Obviously, this is not the case. The bandwidth on the Athlon's 266MHz DDR bus (133MHz FSB) is only 2.1GB/s. However, the bandwidth of the P4's 533MHz QDR bus (133MHz FSB) is 4.2 GB/s.
If the # of bits per clock cycle are equal, then so would the bandwidth. Clearly this doesn't match up. Where am I going wrong?
~cdogg
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein
gargouille
IS-IT--Management
No offense to Rich, here, but 1 of the reasons I didn't go into the specs of each is that I wanted to stay away from the marketing world, and for sure wanted to avoid giving a magazine reviewer the (to me) elevated status of fairly presenting the specs on anything. They mostly parrot the specs handed them when they get the product from the mfr.
They exist because/for marketing.
They exist because/for marketing.
Well, I know the flaw of the P4's in most benchmarks deals with their pipeline architecture. It's much longer which helps in processing large chunks of data continuously, but in office apps like Excel and Access for example, it actually hurts.
I'm just trying to focus with Rich on the bus speed at the moment...
~cdogg
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein
I'm just trying to focus with Rich on the bus speed at the moment...
~cdogg
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein
Intel Retail 1.8A Gigahertz
with a cooler
$143
Athlon XP2200 (OEM)
1.8 Gig without a cooler
$148
Source:
Just the Facts.
Name your sources.....
If you compared retail to retail it would be different.
If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.
with a cooler
$143
Athlon XP2200 (OEM)
1.8 Gig without a cooler
$148
Source:
Just the Facts.
Name your sources.....
If you compared retail to retail it would be different.
If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.
gargouille
IS-IT--Management
When considering comparison questions concerning the end consumer, you'll necessarily need to include retail to retail considerations, no?
The end customer is the one who pays retail. (the markup)
The end customer is the one who pays retail. (the markup)
-
1
- #16
CitrixEngineer
Technical User
In actual fact, if you check the original listing, the P4 is one of the 1.7 Ghz models with a 400Mhz FSB. An Athlon XP at the same speed will kick that P4 out the window.
This is why AMD came up with the XP2000+ rating - it's easily as fast, if not faster than a P4 @ 2Ghz.
It's true that the P4's with the 533 FSB run faster than the current crop of Athlons - but compare the prices for what you get.
It's also true that Athlons run hotter than Pentiums, but a decent cooling system and attention to detail will easily remedy that. A lot of AMD fans actively enjoy the process of making their systems run cooler, since it has the side effect of making overclocking safer - and Athlons (and Durons) overclock eagerly!
CitrixEngineer@yahoo.co.uk
This is why AMD came up with the XP2000+ rating - it's easily as fast, if not faster than a P4 @ 2Ghz.
It's true that the P4's with the 533 FSB run faster than the current crop of Athlons - but compare the prices for what you get.
It's also true that Athlons run hotter than Pentiums, but a decent cooling system and attention to detail will easily remedy that. A lot of AMD fans actively enjoy the process of making their systems run cooler, since it has the side effect of making overclocking safer - and Athlons (and Durons) overclock eagerly!
CitrixEngineer@yahoo.co.uk
It's down to personal preference. AMD have come far and their processors are fast and sold at a good price. I personally stay Intel simply because imho if a processor can run fast and stay cooler it's better designed and more efficient. I also find the Intel chipsets to be more stable which is nice because I don't enjoy constantly updating drivers to fix a barrage of bugs.
Different people have different experiences so whichever path you take you won't go far wrong.
Different people have different experiences so whichever path you take you won't go far wrong.
I work with both intel and AMD CPU's, and don't really have a preferance. right now I'm siding with AMD, but I'll happily build whatever my client wants.
right now, being winter, I'm liking my AMD machines. they are bringing my oil bill down since I don't have to heat my office any more...
They are both good processors, that I've had very few problems with, but I think AMD perform a bit better at higher temps. I haven't done much testing to proved it, this is just what my experiance with overclocking my machines is indicating.
right now I've found the forumla
XP price + extra fans = Intel equivelent CPU price
after that, the AMD will OC beautifully, while you are still left needing to cool the intel before it can get much highter.
right now, being winter, I'm liking my AMD machines. they are bringing my oil bill down since I don't have to heat my office any more...
They are both good processors, that I've had very few problems with, but I think AMD perform a bit better at higher temps. I haven't done much testing to proved it, this is just what my experiance with overclocking my machines is indicating.
right now I've found the forumla
XP price + extra fans = Intel equivelent CPU price
after that, the AMD will OC beautifully, while you are still left needing to cool the intel before it can get much highter.
- Thread starter
- #19
holly smoking chips batman what have you done, well robin im trying to overclock this cpu, quick get the bat fan.
thanks guys for your input into this debate, all of you are right to a point, it does come down to personal preference and santa clauses wallet. gargy ,cdogg, citrix, rich, all of you ,thanks i will at least consider an athlon before i buy. pearl needs to go out.
thanks guys for your input into this debate, all of you are right to a point, it does come down to personal preference and santa clauses wallet. gargy ,cdogg, citrix, rich, all of you ,thanks i will at least consider an athlon before i buy. pearl needs to go out.
You can not compare an athlon to a P4 without adding the extra money for the extra cooling required.
This is where having a more modern case is essential.
I don not dislike the P4 or the Athlon. I have a PII 350, a Celeron 1.2 Gig Tulatin, and an Athlon 1.2 Gig at home. It is really hard to tell much difference between the 1.2 Gig Athlon and the 1.2 Gig Celeron Tulatin. This is because the Celeron has a 256k L2 Cache. I am sure if you put a benchmark on it the Athlon would come out slightly better seeing the difference between the memory and the processor bus speed. However, either one will chat or open notepad at the same exact speed. It is only more intesive programs that benefit.
My Point is that once you get over the 1 Gig level all the computers will play all the same games if you have a good enough of a video card. The video card is probably a lot more important than whether you use an Athlon or a P4.
I personally prefer Intel Chipsets in my motherboards to the VIA chipsets. However, with all chipset makers there are losers and winners. The Via KT266 chipset was somewhat unstable when compared to the Via KT266A Chipset. So, you need to know what you are buying. I may even try one of those Nforce2 chipsets a little down the road.
The Case is key to having a nice cool experience. Antec, Chieftec, and some others make nice cases with plenty of room and good exhaust fans that would help any computer system to run cooler. Remember that heat rises so do not put a drive in the top of the case! If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.
This is where having a more modern case is essential.
I don not dislike the P4 or the Athlon. I have a PII 350, a Celeron 1.2 Gig Tulatin, and an Athlon 1.2 Gig at home. It is really hard to tell much difference between the 1.2 Gig Athlon and the 1.2 Gig Celeron Tulatin. This is because the Celeron has a 256k L2 Cache. I am sure if you put a benchmark on it the Athlon would come out slightly better seeing the difference between the memory and the processor bus speed. However, either one will chat or open notepad at the same exact speed. It is only more intesive programs that benefit.
My Point is that once you get over the 1 Gig level all the computers will play all the same games if you have a good enough of a video card. The video card is probably a lot more important than whether you use an Athlon or a P4.
I personally prefer Intel Chipsets in my motherboards to the VIA chipsets. However, with all chipset makers there are losers and winners. The Via KT266 chipset was somewhat unstable when compared to the Via KT266A Chipset. So, you need to know what you are buying. I may even try one of those Nforce2 chipsets a little down the road.
The Case is key to having a nice cool experience. Antec, Chieftec, and some others make nice cases with plenty of room and good exhaust fans that would help any computer system to run cooler. Remember that heat rises so do not put a drive in the top of the case! If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question