The Difference Between Pentium and Athlon AMD?

Stony · 02-02-2002, 12:00 AM

AMD has taken the performance lead from Intel. Even though Intel releases higher raw-mhz chips than AMD, AMD has shown thru benchmark that it's archtiecture for the Athlon is superior. A 1.6ghz Athlon is right about on par performance-wise with 2ghz Pentium 4 (even though there's a 400mhz difference in raw clock speed). Imagine how badly the Athlon would spank the P4 if they released their chips clock-for-clock with Intel.

Not to mention AMD is cheaper too. AS far as stability is concerned, Intel and AMD are roughly equal. If that wasn't the case Daimler-Benz or Electronic Arts wouldn't be switching to AMD. Daimler-Benz is going to be using Athlons to power its safety and engineering R&D computers.

[AoD]Jobi1 · 02-02-2002, 12:30 AM

I don't think there's much of a difference at all. AMD might be slightly fast, but not enough to make a difference. But I've heard ppl with AMD's usaully have more problems such as lockups and stuff. Just what I heard though.

Steel · 02-02-2002, 12:40 AM

Well I could spout all sorts of techno mumbo jumbo. But answer this question.....

You are not paying, you can go an pick any PC spec from anywhere listed. So yes you would have a GF3, tons or RAM yada yada, but which chip would you go for then?

If u r paying, Athlon XP are better value for money.

btw: I have a P4

Steel

n715dp · 02-02-2002, 12:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by H3@d$h0t:
pentiums are better, some people may disagree. but with the better chip comes the higher price. i have an amd athlon 1.2 gigaherz and havent had a problem yet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Pentiums are better, why do you own an Athlon?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rudedog:
The thing I do not like about AMD is the via chipset.
Other then that it's a toss up <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you that the VIA chipsets suck, I have been burned by them before, lets not forget that Intel has chipset problems too. Also, there are several alternatives to VIA, I currently use a SiS 735 chipset in my ECS K7S5A and it is the best board I have ever owned.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Manny:
The Pentium 4 is the first intel processor since the original pentium to introduce a totally new technology. It takes time for that technology to become superior.

Pentium 4's are more expensive, but in general more stable and can be overclocked to death. Many people were able to overclock their 2.0GHz northwood to 2.4GHz. Not to forget that the current Pentium 4's, with a few improvements, are able to run at 3.0GHz.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with the Pentium 4 is the "instructions per cycle." While the P4 was an (almost) all-new architecture, they actually LOWERED the IPC which makes the processor have to run at a higher cycle count (MHz) in order to compute the instructions. This is why a 1.4GHz Athlon blows the doors off a 1.4GHz P4. The Athlon can do more instructions in that 1400 cycles then the P4 can. You are right, P4's are more expensive, they also come in how many different sockets now??? 3 I think it is, soon to be 4. As for overclocking... so, you buy a MORE EXPENSIVE P4 and you have to overclock it to catch it up to a lower priced, lower clock Athlon... that doesn't make much sense. Not to mention that the motherboard you bought for your P4 will be useless in 2 months when they change the socket again, and in order to overclock you have to throw down tons of money on cooling (fans, watercoolers, or whatever).

Stony · 02-02-2002, 02:31 AM

WORD.

As far as overclocking is concerned, with the high-speed chips being released they are subject to the law of diminishing returns. A 200mhz overclock nowadays doesn't yield as big of a performance increase as did the older CPU's. That's why after I upgrade to an Athlon XP I probably won't overclock anymore.

I've read about the problems people have with VIA chipsets, so that's why I have a AMD/VIA hybrid mobo. Haven't had any problems yet, except for a compatibility issue with the Netgear FA-311 netork card. That was easily solved by replacing it with a different brand.

[This message has been edited by Stony (edited February 02, 2002).]

Spineharvester[GF] · 02-02-2002, 02:58 AM

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1554&p=6

Check that out...might help you.

------------------

"Listen up you stinking maggots. It seems you just don't get it. Well, I've been appointed to inform ya', your days are numbered. You would cry, you would scream if you knew half the things I've seen. Please please just do as I say. Repent and leave your evil ways." - Clutch
VISIT GF CLAN SITE EDITED FOR COWARDS

sk8save1 · 02-02-2002, 03:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by [AoD]Jobi1:
I don't think there's much of a difference at all. AMD might be slightly fast, but not enough to make a difference. But I've heard ppl with AMD's usaully have more problems such as lockups and stuff. Just what I heard though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a big fat myth. At work, all we have are Intels. At home I have an AMD. My home system is way more stable than the ones at work (their Dells too!).

sk8save1 · 02-02-2002, 03:03 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by rudedog:
The thing I do not like about AMD is the via chipset.
Other then that it's a toss up

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The latest VIA chipset is very stable (VIA 266A).

H3@d$h0t · 02-02-2002, 04:55 AM

n715dp, i own an athlon instead of an intel because...
1. i am not the one that bought this computer
2. amds are less expensive then intels

and as i said not everyone will agree with me that intels are better than amds

jonesy-the-cat · 02-02-2002, 07:41 AM

AMD passed Intel in performance a while back.

Then they had a price war, so you can get much bang for your buck.

My AMD Athlon 1 GHz has no problems.

I think motherboard choice has much to do with stability issues.

Arclight · 02-02-2002, 07:44 AM

Jonesy:

You got your wires crossed--Intel has the current lead in chips.

------------------

NOLF · 02-02-2002, 08:21 AM

Ahah. OK, thanks for the all the info. That's what I wanted to know. You all can keep the thread going. I'm learning new stuff.

NOLF · 02-02-2002, 08:38 AM

What's the difference? I hear the AMD is better for games, but you have to upgrade them quite often (or something). I have a Pentium 1.4, and always hear there's a difference. So that's why I was wondering.

Manny · 02-02-2002, 09:15 AM

AMD Athlon XP 1.60GHz (1900+) 243.5 fps
Intel Pentium 4 2.0GHz 242.1 fps
Intel Pentium 4 1.8GHz 226.6 fps

These are just some numbers from an Anandtech benchmark.

What does this tell you?
1) The P4 2.0GHz and Athlon 1.60GHz are almost exactly on the same level.
2) A P4 2.2GHz would be the fastest processor you can get.
3) The difference between these 3 is rather minimal (20 fps at most).

Very few pre-build systems come with athlon processors (alienware is the only one I can think of right now). The majority of gamer's don't know how to build their own system or think it's too risky. These people buy pre-build systems and are willing to pay more money for a system that will work perfectly for at least 2 years. If you buy a pre-build system, the price of the processor goes under in the river that is the rest of the machine. Often times, you get Pentium 4's cheaper than Athlons if you buy pre-build.

An athlon 1.6GHz would be much faster than a Pentium 4 1.6Ghz. But that's why there are 2.0 GHz Pentium 4's and only 1.6GHz Athlons. What makes these two processors even (performance wise) is the fact that Intel is able to rush into sky-high amounts of GHz, something Athlon can't do (or just won't, which would seem very stupid in my eyes).

My point is that there really isn't a better processor that is able to get more performance.

[This message has been edited by Manny (edited February 02, 2002).]

H3@d$h0t · 02-02-2002, 09:52 AM

pentiums are better, some people may disagree. but with the better chip comes the higher price. i have an amd athlon 1.2 gigaherz and havent had a problem yet.