mobo/cpu
- Thread starter Seb
- Start date
cdorders,
you don't know what you're talking about.
Just saying it bluntly, but AMD Athlon XP 2100-2300 (which is already available) still can pull benchmarks & real life performance tests at almost the same results as the latest Intel P4s (at about 1/3-1/2 the price).
Thoroughbred being released in next 2 weeks (official date was set) & FPUs (floating point unit) is one of AMDs strong points. FPU deals with mathematical structure/aspects & funny that AMD's is more efficient & faster than Intel's (also note that FPU is partially dependent on RAM). The architecture is more important. Intel uses more steps to produce same results as their P3 engine did (they realized this after putting out their Tualitine series), but eh Xeon processors aren't that great & not worth the money (really).
Otherwise I doubt AMD would have won the award for best processor of the year again.
Yes most crashes are due to wrong combinations of hardware & people shouldn't buy the cheapy parts. If you do your homework & buy the right parts, all will be heaven.
Not to say Intel don't make good CPUs, but their P4 is actually a step backwards for them (but already invested too much money) & it isn't better than an AMD chip. Intel is just trying to produce things faster to try & knock off AMD (cause they know it is eating away at them *& the result is, that intel isn't going to meet their forecast*so they're actually losing money), but as mentioned before, new flagship on the way & so the wheels continue (always these 2 companies go back & forth).
And you don't get more hardware/software compatibility with with one chip or the other (as they both use same instructions *only P4 has SSE2 which isn't even used by more than 5% of programs out there yet (will only be a factor next year when AMD clawhammer will support it)*
& as far as ram goes, try getting crucial (as best bang for you buck & you don't need a lifetime warranty *just a 1-3 years will do)
h**p://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1115&page=2
you don't know what you're talking about.
Just saying it bluntly, but AMD Athlon XP 2100-2300 (which is already available) still can pull benchmarks & real life performance tests at almost the same results as the latest Intel P4s (at about 1/3-1/2 the price).
Thoroughbred being released in next 2 weeks (official date was set) & FPUs (floating point unit) is one of AMDs strong points. FPU deals with mathematical structure/aspects & funny that AMD's is more efficient & faster than Intel's (also note that FPU is partially dependent on RAM). The architecture is more important. Intel uses more steps to produce same results as their P3 engine did (they realized this after putting out their Tualitine series), but eh Xeon processors aren't that great & not worth the money (really).
Otherwise I doubt AMD would have won the award for best processor of the year again.
Yes most crashes are due to wrong combinations of hardware & people shouldn't buy the cheapy parts. If you do your homework & buy the right parts, all will be heaven.
Not to say Intel don't make good CPUs, but their P4 is actually a step backwards for them (but already invested too much money) & it isn't better than an AMD chip. Intel is just trying to produce things faster to try & knock off AMD (cause they know it is eating away at them *& the result is, that intel isn't going to meet their forecast*so they're actually losing money), but as mentioned before, new flagship on the way & so the wheels continue (always these 2 companies go back & forth).
And you don't get more hardware/software compatibility with with one chip or the other (as they both use same instructions *only P4 has SSE2 which isn't even used by more than 5% of programs out there yet (will only be a factor next year when AMD clawhammer will support it)*
& as far as ram goes, try getting crucial (as best bang for you buck & you don't need a lifetime warranty *just a 1-3 years will do)
h**p://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1115&page=2
cdorders
1
shadoe_phantom
This is your opinion. If you like AMDs it's ok. But since I build systems almost everyday, I have the right to know which processor is compatible and creates less hardware / software incompatibility issues. For a gamer, the AMD processor should be perfect. But since a maschine goes for hard work and effort, then buying an INTEL processor is a must! I didn't refer to the older P4 chipsets but to the new NorthWood Processor. I own 6 PCs, one with an AMD Thunderbird 1.4GHz, one with DUAL PIII 750 processors, one with a Celeron 900A, one with a Celeron 333A, one with an AMD K62 300MHz and one with an AMD Duron 1200.
The answer is as simple as this: AMD CPUs at my systems and at the other systems I built, are responsible for computer crashes if hard work is applied to them... I most of my computers for Professional Audio/Video Editing and at this point I have much incompatibility with my Audio cards and software from AMD processors...
And YES, I really know what I'm talking about... If you want stability and real performance buy an INTEL! AMDs are good but for budget or office machines that the heaviest application might be a game that will not require a total hardware cooperation as a video/audio editing work does
This is your opinion. If you like AMDs it's ok. But since I build systems almost everyday, I have the right to know which processor is compatible and creates less hardware / software incompatibility issues. For a gamer, the AMD processor should be perfect. But since a maschine goes for hard work and effort, then buying an INTEL processor is a must! I didn't refer to the older P4 chipsets but to the new NorthWood Processor. I own 6 PCs, one with an AMD Thunderbird 1.4GHz, one with DUAL PIII 750 processors, one with a Celeron 900A, one with a Celeron 333A, one with an AMD K62 300MHz and one with an AMD Duron 1200.
The answer is as simple as this: AMD CPUs at my systems and at the other systems I built, are responsible for computer crashes if hard work is applied to them... I most of my computers for Professional Audio/Video Editing and at this point I have much incompatibility with my Audio cards and software from AMD processors...
And YES, I really know what I'm talking about... If you want stability and real performance buy an INTEL! AMDs are good but for budget or office machines that the heaviest application might be a game that will not require a total hardware cooperation as a video/audio editing work does
ok whatever cdorders.
You either don't know how to put your combinations together or you have been warped somehow by Alien commercials lol.
I too put together PCs (100+ at office I do networking for), also in studio I own for iD work (industrial design) we have the latest P4 (2.53Ghz), AMD, & Mac PCs & everyone prefers to use the AMD machine.
I haven't had a single bad PC full of crashes that hasn't been an MSN fault lol, & what you're saying about audio problems is due to an old via chip. Like I said, you are obviously not choosing the right parts for your machines. AMD Athlon XP is far ahead of the Thunderbird unit you own & thoroughbred will be further ahead still.
I like both companies (since own both types of PCs) & I have no biases, just what I know is what I am putting here. Northwood is a better step for Intel, but don't try to impose crap here (FPU) that doesn't make sense. Professional video editors (almost always use macs & more & more are using AMDs now) & graphic intensive work is more or less even for both intel & amd. I know 'cause I go to conferences relating to those (since I create 3D designs using 3D studio Max & Maya).
As you might have noted also that many of the guys on this board do video/audio editing & it isn't that intensive on the CPU (just rendering aspect of it is) 'cause much of that (on the professional level) deals with your graphics card.
Anyhow, I don't want to argue this point anymore & we'll just take it as your opinion & my opinion.
Intel has a "slight margin" right now 'cause of just clock speed, but that will soon change *'cause they go back & forth every quarter*
(ofcourse feel free to defend anything you feel I misrepresented wrong about you in first paragraph lol)
You either don't know how to put your combinations together or you have been warped somehow by Alien commercials lol.
I too put together PCs (100+ at office I do networking for), also in studio I own for iD work (industrial design) we have the latest P4 (2.53Ghz), AMD, & Mac PCs & everyone prefers to use the AMD machine.
I haven't had a single bad PC full of crashes that hasn't been an MSN fault lol, & what you're saying about audio problems is due to an old via chip. Like I said, you are obviously not choosing the right parts for your machines. AMD Athlon XP is far ahead of the Thunderbird unit you own & thoroughbred will be further ahead still.
I like both companies (since own both types of PCs) & I have no biases, just what I know is what I am putting here. Northwood is a better step for Intel, but don't try to impose crap here (FPU) that doesn't make sense. Professional video editors (almost always use macs & more & more are using AMDs now) & graphic intensive work is more or less even for both intel & amd. I know 'cause I go to conferences relating to those (since I create 3D designs using 3D studio Max & Maya).
As you might have noted also that many of the guys on this board do video/audio editing & it isn't that intensive on the CPU (just rendering aspect of it is) 'cause much of that (on the professional level) deals with your graphics card.
Anyhow, I don't want to argue this point anymore & we'll just take it as your opinion & my opinion.
Intel has a "slight margin" right now 'cause of just clock speed, but that will soon change *'cause they go back & forth every quarter*
(ofcourse feel free to defend anything you feel I misrepresented wrong about you in first paragraph lol)
cdorders
1
Well, both NEW P4s and AMDs need a good mainboard to run stable. Secondly the Thunderbird may now be past, but at it's age, same things was said again. Now mahy just say that it was a crap that belongs to ancient times... Anyway, you're right, it doesn't worth to argue for our opinions. Besides we both say our experiences and what we want. But I never ever saw someone saying that AMDs are more compatible than INTELs... It's like saying that a CD-RW device can create quality disks at 40x rather than 4x speed And something else. INTEL started the game and INTEL has the dominance. Some programs may have better (!?) support for AMDs, but not windows, the most common OS, that most user programs run on it. Considering the thing with the 3FPUs, I believe what I said, unless I find out that what I said is crap... I'll check it again
Anyway, my choice would be an INTEL...
And something else. INTEL started the game and INTEL has the dominance. Some programs may have better (!?) support for AMDs, but not windows, the most common OS, that most user programs run on it. Considering the thing with the 3FPUs, I believe what I said, unless I find out that what I said is crap... I'll check it againAnyway, my choice would be an INTEL...
just as I mentioned to someone else, you're getting your info just off the web (from people who run tests unreliably **especially tom's hardware).
Even at the end of their article they mention they did their tests with RDRAM (which isn't even sold for it anymore as intel is switching to DDR now *deal fell through with Rambus).
Also note the 3D benchmarks (which is what you were trying to argue before) only has the results show:
intel - 12826
amd - 12537
not really the super killer now is it(considering it is really clocked some 900Hz lower). These aren't even available in the market yet (greyed out)
the ones available now show:
intel P4 2.5Ghz - 12213
Amd XP 2100 - 11991
--this is still not a huge difference.
-I wonder why at tom's they didn't include the XP 2300 which is already out in the market (perhaps cause scores would be about the same?* & it was available at time they did the benchmarks cause amdmb was able to test them & some testers get products before they go to market).
Not to mention that this northwood is intel's latest flagship that is supposed to compare to AMD thoroughbred (not the athlon XP) which comes out in 2 weeks.
Let's just wait till then (as I mentioned before, every quarter someone takes the lead, but to say Intel is a lot better is just rediculous)
Even at the end of their article they mention they did their tests with RDRAM (which isn't even sold for it anymore as intel is switching to DDR now *deal fell through with Rambus).
Also note the 3D benchmarks (which is what you were trying to argue before) only has the results show:
intel - 12826
amd - 12537
not really the super killer now is it(considering it is really clocked some 900Hz lower). These aren't even available in the market yet (greyed out)
the ones available now show:
intel P4 2.5Ghz - 12213
Amd XP 2100 - 11991
--this is still not a huge difference.
-I wonder why at tom's they didn't include the XP 2300 which is already out in the market (perhaps cause scores would be about the same?* & it was available at time they did the benchmarks cause amdmb was able to test them & some testers get products before they go to market).
Not to mention that this northwood is intel's latest flagship that is supposed to compare to AMD thoroughbred (not the athlon XP) which comes out in 2 weeks.
Let's just wait till then (as I mentioned before, every quarter someone takes the lead, but to say Intel is a lot better is just rediculous)
cdorders
1
joripe
I tottaly agree with you... For someone who wants to build a fast PC with little money, then the solution is AMD and not INTEL. But in order to see the real performance and stability eith it, he must couple it with a good mainboard (and we talk about ASUS pnly and some models of it). The INTEL costs about 1/3 or more of the AMDs, so it isn't a value for money for the time being. I believe that your opinion is much better than any other opinion previously said...
I tottaly agree with you... For someone who wants to build a fast PC with little money, then the solution is AMD and not INTEL. But in order to see the real performance and stability eith it, he must couple it with a good mainboard (and we talk about ASUS pnly and some models of it). The INTEL costs about 1/3 or more of the AMDs, so it isn't a value for money for the time being. I believe that your opinion is much better than any other opinion previously said...
dx
1
cdorders...
like you I was a die-hard Pentium supporter. I always believed that I would never purchase what I considered second best. I always believed that real performance and stability would best come with Intel chipsets and Mobo's.
But a good friend who had an Athlon XP 1700+ helped me see the error of my ways. He purchased a video editing system based on AMD which I believed would be buggy and unstable. To my suprise it not only was stable as hell, it outperformed my P4 1.8 video editing system at work.
So, being the die-hard Pentium supporter that I was...I arrogantly told my friend, "ah, but can it play games." Once again he trounced my performance numbers. Plus in WinXP, his system was more stable than mine.
And so I began to see the truth....they are both good processors!
In the end it seems to be a Chevy/Ford, ie apples and oranges debate. Is one better than the other...its all a matter of perspective.
like you I was a die-hard Pentium supporter. I always believed that I would never purchase what I considered second best. I always believed that real performance and stability would best come with Intel chipsets and Mobo's.
But a good friend who had an Athlon XP 1700+ helped me see the error of my ways. He purchased a video editing system based on AMD which I believed would be buggy and unstable. To my suprise it not only was stable as hell, it outperformed my P4 1.8 video editing system at work.
So, being the die-hard Pentium supporter that I was...I arrogantly told my friend, "ah, but can it play games." Once again he trounced my performance numbers. Plus in WinXP, his system was more stable than mine.
And so I began to see the truth....they are both good processors!
In the end it seems to be a Chevy/Ford, ie apples and oranges debate. Is one better than the other...its all a matter of perspective.
cdorders
1
Alright, I agree. But I was an AMD fan in the past and turned to be an INTEL one for performance reasons and stability as well. The thing is that the AMD needs a good motherboard to run stable, while the INTEL can run well enough in budget mainboards as well... That's one of the biggest benefits INTELs have
E
elpresidente
Guest
hmm... yeah ..but my AMD works very well on my low budget board ! AMD Athlon 1700 XP on ASUS A7M266 (AMD 761) ... this board costs about 72€ with Cmedia sound onboard ...
I don´t think that there is a brand P4 board for that prize !
AMD rulez ...
üsse
I don´t think that there is a brand P4 board for that prize !
AMD rulez ...
üsse
cdorders
1
Well, I'ma talking on performance in Gigabyte Mainboards, Chaintech and such other boards. DFIs and Asus are exceptions. Furthermore, your ASUS incorporates the AMD761 chipset and not the VIA 133A as gigabyte does... Anyway, I believe that VIAs are better, but you cannot get full support of AMDs on low budget mainboards due to architect reasons of the pipelines and board layouts...
cdorders
1
While building systems with AMD processors, a 350W PS is higly recommended, as the AMD is very demanding in Currents... I suggest you buying a High Quality one, so that you can use its outputs to supply a very demanding system (eg many HDs, drives and SCSI peripherals). You can get an Addtronics PS (highly recommended by AMD), but it will cost about 90 Euros... Check h**p://w*w.addtronics.com for more info.
Now, cooncerning the temperature, since AMD processors are more overloaded than INTELs, they are in higher temperature levels. If you have a good Fan and Heatsink supplied, there is no problem at all. For high quality coolers, check h**p://w*w.globalwin.com, or h**p://w*w.spire.nl for HQ budget ones... I hope I answered your questions properly.
Now, cooncerning the temperature, since AMD processors are more overloaded than INTELs, they are in higher temperature levels. If you have a good Fan and Heatsink supplied, there is no problem at all. For high quality coolers, check h**p://w*w.globalwin.com, or h**p://w*w.spire.nl for HQ budget ones... I hope I answered your questions properly.
Personally I would go with an Enermax or Antec/Sparkle PSU (enermax latest with those voltages corrected).
Both AMD & Intel are demanding in currents lol, cause the higher the clock speed, the more power you will eventually need ('cause of load). Nobody can tell me they have their P4 1.8Ghz running on 250Watt PSU (if they are, they are waiting for trouble). Both chipsets also heat up a lot (P4 cooler by about 6 degrees).
My athlon xp 1800+ is currently running at 33C & on full load around 39C (that's with my ambient temperature at around 28C). Am using Arctic Silver 3 & Arkua 7528 HSF (for high performance, reduced noise) in a Lian-Li USB 60 case & have my CPU overclocked as an athlon XP 1900+.
The AMD chipset can take upto 90C before it fries, though for best stability, it is best you keep your temps no higher than 60C (which shouldn't be much of a problem). I like to keep my things much cooler (longer life-span), but that's upto you. Just have a target range from 30-60max & you will be fine.
Both AMD & Intel are demanding in currents lol, cause the higher the clock speed, the more power you will eventually need ('cause of load). Nobody can tell me they have their P4 1.8Ghz running on 250Watt PSU (if they are, they are waiting for trouble). Both chipsets also heat up a lot (P4 cooler by about 6 degrees).
My athlon xp 1800+ is currently running at 33C & on full load around 39C (that's with my ambient temperature at around 28C). Am using Arctic Silver 3 & Arkua 7528 HSF (for high performance, reduced noise) in a Lian-Li USB 60 case & have my CPU overclocked as an athlon XP 1900+.
The AMD chipset can take upto 90C before it fries, though for best stability, it is best you keep your temps no higher than 60C (which shouldn't be much of a problem). I like to keep my things much cooler (longer life-span), but that's upto you. Just have a target range from 30-60max & you will be fine.
LOL!! Tomshardware is in Intel's building complex....I don't think he'd be biased toward Intel would he?cdorders said:h**p://w*w.hardcoreware.net/reviews/processors/axp_vs_p4_2/5.php
h**p://sysopt.earthweb.com/articles/p4/
h**p://w*w.vr-zone.com/reviews/Intel/533P4/page5.htm
h**p://w*w.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q2/020506/index.html
Check this please, will you?
Seb
1
@shadoe
My new athlon runs @ 43-45C. I am using coolermaster DP5-6H51-A1. Thing is that this cooler was made for the Xp 1500+ but i am running on 1600+. Maybe i should let my casing open
Instead of -12V, i am getting -13.64V & instead of -5V, I am getting -5.8V. Why is that??? Is it really the power supply??? or the mobo??
I've flashed the bios...
Thx
My new athlon runs @ 43-45C. I am using coolermaster DP5-6H51-A1. Thing is that this cooler was made for the Xp 1500+ but i am running on 1600+. Maybe i should let my casing open
Instead of -12V, i am getting -13.64V & instead of -5V, I am getting -5.8V. Why is that??? Is it really the power supply??? or the mobo??
I've flashed the bios...
Thx
Last edited: