Intel P4 vs. AMD XP what's the deal?

[Linuxboy00 0]

I've got a AthlongXP 1900+

and a Abit KR7A-133R ( KT266a )

I think the performace is great with my system.

I'm using a OCZ Goliath HS with a 80mm delta fan.

I like to rip my dvd's to divx, and I'm getting

currently 22 - 24 frames per sec. And my processor under full

load during this never gets about 40C. Now I DO NOT know how

well a P4 would do this since I've never had the ability or $$$ to run a P4 system, but I would like to know what other people are doing with thier systems. I know it's kinda off topic, but I'm courius as hell.

Have fun...

[CyberGenX 0]

Adobe Premiere 6.02 is the most cpu/mem intesive program I use (games don't even compare) My chip can rip DV/16bit Stereo from Adobe Premiere 6.0 pretty damn fast!!! There's nothing like using a slider through a 5 gig video file and having it keep up video wise without hardly a stutter.

[CyberGenX 0]

Sapiens74:

 

What 20 steps do you mean. ON my system it's 1. Windows install 2. Windows SPs or Windows Update 3: VIA DRIVERS (not patches). That's all here, never had a problem. See MicroSoft likes to favor intel and embed their drivers.

[sapiens74 0]

Installing Via drivers, adding any USB patches, or Raid Pci latency patches. That might not be 20 , but If I install something like a raid card on an Intel system it's gonna work 99% of the time. On an AMD system, you cant be quite sure if its gonna work at all.

 

 

Intel's are cheaper then AMD. IF you take the PR rating vs clockspeed and the AMD fan into consideration intels are cheaper.

 

I use mine for gaming and video editing

[clutch 1]

CyberGenX:

 

Your reference to the Intel chipset was incorrect; it was the i820 chipset and it only had issues because it used a faulty Memory Translator Hub in many of the units in an attempt to support SDRAM in addition to RDRAM. They found out that it didn't work, so they recalled all the motherboards and replaced the user's memory with the same amount of the MUCH more expenisive RDRAM. Now, when Via had issues with anything they would simply release patch after patch and then just give up, and not recall anything. Honestly, that's the only event that I can recall of a major Intel screw up and yet they had far better customer service in the end to correct it. Also, if you are so concerned about a topic of your own spinning out of control then you *might* want to consider not making posts that don't follow your original point.

 

So, why would Intel be concerned about the naming conventions of their competitors? Well, it's confusing to the consumer, and in the end confusion can only hurt both sides. Apple never named their processors in a fashion to compete with Intel yet they used all kinds of benchmarks years ago in an attempt to show a direct comparison (normally Photoshop and Quark stuff, especially since neither was never really optimized for x86 to begin with), so why should AMD? AMD is holding on to a shorter pipeline, and they can only take the clock speed so high. Plus, they tend to generate more heat with their current design and previous generation fab process (until the Thoroughbreds get out) which causes more complications and brings them closer to the glass ceiling. I mean, I see that someone has a 1900+ overclocked to 1.7GHz+ and I have no idea what kind of a speed increase that is. They have come to a point where they cannot be compared to each other directly anymore unless you are looking for bang for the buck, stability, compatibility (I mentioned this earlier) instead of clock speed. Both companies know this, and this is why AMD started using this naming convention. However, people STILL like compare the base clock rates, as in this quote from yourself:

 

"I realize that, I was saying the that Intel is touting the fact that their 2.2 beats out the 2000+. Well no sh*t Intel, there's about a 400MHz gap between the 2."

 

In reality, AMD is claiming that their processor will perform equal to or BETTER than a 2GHz CPU in a battery of tests, so if anything the difference would be < 200MHz between the processors. Yet, you state that there is a 400MHz gap between them. Well, AMD didn't seem to think so in naming them, so that's how they named it. Now, if the naming convention can confuse all these hardcore AMD sites and AMD users, how do you think the average person is going to feel about it?

[Brian Frank 0]

From what I understand the PR rating is not comparing the XP to the P4, but to the Athlon Thunderbird. Unfortunately, AMD has obviously not done a good job on letting out that information---so I've heard.

 

I may not use strictly Intel setups, but I can't really dispute the fact that they have a leg up on almost everyone else in the chipset arena. As clutch has said regarding the i820 and the MTH: when Intel realized there was a problem, they remedied it at a major cost. AMD has shipped the 760MPX with faulty USB, yet you don't see them or any other company producing these boards doing a recall. Let's look at what companies products are being asked about how to fix this or that: it ain't Intel. I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't use Intel is gonna have problems, but Intel is a major player for a reason: their stuff works 99.99999999 percent of the time.

[clutch 1]

Quote:

From what I understand the PR rating is not comparing the XP to the P4, but to the Athlon Thunderbird. Unfortunately, AMD has obviously not done a good job on letting out that information---so I've heard.

Yes and "sorta" . The first part is correct in that AMD never intended to directly compare themselves to the P4 with the numbering scheme, however they knew it would happen (shocker). However, AMD *did* try to let everybody know initially that it was just a rating scale basing the CPU's performance on a battery of benchmarks and that it should perform on par using that number as a clock reference. Unfortunately, only a few of the major sites were reinforcing that point while many were stuck on the true clock speed and simply using the XX00+ as a name only rather than a rating as it should have been. So, they did initially try getting the info out, but it hasn't stayed out. And hey, leaving it as it is doesn't hurt them either since many people seem to think that they are still the underdogs in the game because they have a lower true clock speed.

[djmacken 0]

Hello,

 

I work at company where we currently have over 1200 stores world wide. ALL of our stores' servers are ASUS, VIA based motherboards with 1.4Ghz T-Birds and 1GB Memory. We used to have Intel Seatle 440BX-2 boards out there with PII and PIII's. There haven't been just as many problems with these boards as there was with the intel boards. Overall everything has worked very well. Stability/Performance has been very good. The real issues here is price. It's still very hard to get a comparible P4 based solution that is equally priced.

[Sampson 0]

This is always one of those fun posts, but the arguments are too far ranging.

It is clear early on that between AMD and Intel there was a race to see who could make the fastest chip. AMD won and the PIII 1.3MH was defective. Intel moved to the P4 to regain the crown in terms of speed. AMD changed the benchmark to "who could process the most instructions per cycle" as the real performance guide not raw processor speed. Hence, their new performance rating. The Achilles heal of the early P4 was the long pipeline coupled with a small onboard cache and the pricey Rambus memory needed to recover from cache mistakes. The P4 has now been shrunk in size, with a higher onboard cache, DDR memory support, and apparently a "as yet area" for hyperthreading to allow for more parallel instructions. Further, they are seemingly fabricating chips with a lower MH rating so that they can achieve some amazing OC speeds by raising the FSB.

AMD is shrinking its size soon. Their chips run hot. To achieve some of the incredible results that benchmarking shows heat is going to be a byproduct. They are also trying to one up Intel with their 64 bit instruction monster as a the product of the future.

Given that, the processor is still only as good as the chipset that works with it, and more particularly as these things gain in raw speed, the memory subsystem tied to them. The bottleneck as I see it is with memory. DDR333 (and if there is a DDR400) is beginning to show its limitation. The hated Rambus is actually proposing a solution that may be able to feed these hungry processors the instructions that can keep up with their appetites.

So, it is still too early to declare a winner since not all of the cards are on the table yet.

[pmistry 0]

Quote:

You guys with strong opinions, grow up. If the world were as simple as which is better: VIA or Intel (just like the good ol' "my daddy is bigger than yours") and there would be only one clear, undisputable answer in all cases only one of those companies would be left within days. Same goes for which is the best monitor, car, RAM-type, school, Harddisk, ****-star, PC-game: anything you name.

H.

The only way to ever solve a conflict is just to sit on that damn fence.

[pimpin_228 0]

i am not arguing i am happy with my via chipsets but i do agree on the price if a p4 was the price of amd then i could consider but till then i can't

[sapiens74 0]

take in consideration the money you get set back for the athlon xp, heat sink and a tube of artic silver, and that ram and mb are the same for both, it costs as mcuh or more for an athlon.

[BladeRunner 0]

I was pricing up some components for a third more protable PC for LAN gaming.

By the time I had priced everything up, I found that an Intel solution (ASUS motherbaord, DDR-RAM, Northwood 1.6 CPU) came to about £20 more than an AMD solution.

Considering I know that the Intel solution will be easier to setup and offer me better stability I shall be taking this route.

Price shouldn't be the only thing looked at when making purchases.

The cheapest option is certainly not always the best.

 

Oh, did i read earlier in this thread that somebody reported problems with PC's based on the Intel SE40BX-2 motherboard?

I can only say bad luck as you were in a minority.

Behind the 850 chipset which I'm using now, I think I'll rate the BX chipset as probably the best ever, certainly for a no problem setup with absolutely no stability issues.

[CyberGenX 0]

Here are prices from pricewatch today, I can add a NICE HS&F, DDR, Quality MB still be lower in price and equal in performance.

Who the h@ll needs artic silver, I live in Phoenix, AZ and don't use anything but regular white thermal grease.

 

$578 Pentium 4 2.4GHz

$495 Pentium 4 2.2GHz Sock 478

$265 Pentium 4 2.0GHz Sock 478

$354 - Pentium 4 2.0GHz

$202 -Pentium 4 1.9GHz Sock 478

$225 - Pentium 4 1.9GHz

$149 - Pentium 4 1.8GHz Sock 478

$164 - Pentium 4 1.8GHz

$135 - Pentium 4 1.7GHz Sock 478

$142 - Pentium 4 1.7GHz

$109 - Pentium 4 1.6GHz Sock 478

$115 - Pentium 4 1.6GHz

$103 Pentium 4 1.5GHz Sock 478

$103 - Pentium 4 1.5GHz

$114 Pentium 4 1.4GHz Sock 478

$98 - Pentium 4 1.4GHz

$95 - Pentium 4 1.3GHz

 

AMD

 

$231 Athlon XP 2100

$180 Athlon XP 2000

$126 Athlon XP 1900

$102 Athlon XP 1800

$93 Athlon XP 1700

$83 - Athlon XP 1600

$93 - Athlon XP 1500

$260 - Athlon MP 2000

$185 Athlon MP 1900

$159 - Athlon MP 1800

$156 Athlon MP 1600

$151 Athlon MP 1500

$134 Athlon MP 1.2GHz

$127 - Athlon MP 1GHz

$83 Athlon 1.4GHz 266 FSB

$89 - Athlon 1.4GHz 200 FSB

$76 - Athlon 1.33GHz 266 FSB

[sapiens74 0]

I added it up, a p4 retail 1800 is only 20 bucks more then an athlon XP 1800 with a nice heatsink and thermal grease. at the higher end yeah they are more epensive. Then again AMD doesnt make a 2400 yet

[CyberGenX 0]

you win

[JP- 0]

But an athlon 1800xp will destroy a p4 1800 in games With both at stock speed. Authough factor in stability and thats why i have my current system, but you gotta say that amd processors are much better.

 

Whenever you see em in comparason they just make the p4 look so poor, what we really need is amd chips with intel chipsets wonder if that will ever happen ;(

[sapiens74 0]

never know.

 

amd needs intels heat technology tho

[clutch 1]

Quote:

But an athlon 1800xp will destroy a p4 1800 in games With both at stock speed. Authough factor in stability and thats why i have my current system, but you gotta say that amd processors are much better.

Whenever you see em in comparason they just make the p4 look so poor, what we really need is amd chips with intel chipsets wonder if that will ever happen ;(

Are you stating that "stability not withstanding, the AMD system is much better"? That's kind of a hard pill to swallow . I would like to see an AMD CPU on and Intel chipset though, but I think we all have a pretty good feeling that will never happen.

[pmistry 0]

AMD cpu on Intel chipset, now that would be like asking for a new color in the rainbow

[JP- 0]

I didnt say that the system was better. Just that if there was a 100% guaranteed stable amd system i would have 1 instead of my p4. I dont see how thats a hard pill to swallow, its only my opinion, ive had both, i know what to expect and the pros/cons of each.

 

Im not disapointed in my p4 system btw, best system i have ever owned. Also, authough price really isnt an issue for me, i think you will find that an amd system is alot cheaper than an intel 1 with both systems having the same kind of performance.

[clutch 1]

Ahh, your first statement wasn't clear to me as I didn't know what you were using (sounded like an Athlon), and that you meant "my Athlon is the best CPU out there, if you discount any stability issues". And yes, that would definately be a hard pill to swallow. I am also in the same boat where I would get an AMD system if I KNEW that it would be a rock-solid performer (as in not camping out at various websites looking for new BIOS and driver updates to make it work with something I already had) right out of the box.

[sapiens74 0]

lets say for argument the p4 is about 50-100 bucks more then an AMD system. Is that 10-20 percent cost not worth the no-hassle of an INtel based system?

 

Then again if cost is the main factor, why do most run Nvidia and not ATI.

 

same reason, quality

[CyberGenX 0]

AMD chips used to go on Intel chipset boards. Remeber socket 7 anyone.

[clutch 1]

Yes, we do. However, do you see anything about Athlons running on Intel chipsets? Nope. That is what we were addressing, but you knew that already, right?