Athlon XP vs Pentium 4

[Shairel]

The Athlon XP Numbers ( 2800+ etc etc ) are how fast the original athlon core would have to be clocked to match the performance of the newer cores, so an athlon XP 2000+ running at 1.8 GHz or whatever, would run as fast as an athlon nonXP clocked up to 2000 MHz

[constructor]

The discussion on Intel v AMD is always an interesting one.

Since I mainly build PC's for other people I always try and consider what is required in the box as a whole.

Got a PC in yesterday for example that was one of PC Worlds latest offerings with a 2.7 or 3 G P4 etc but the rest of the box was bordering on crap.

More to the point the lucky lady owner wanted it for MS Word
and I reckon she would only ever use 10% of that.
A decent mobo with an 800 Duron and Radeon 7000 Graphics would have done the job.

One thing she did want was a decent pring output and the Printer "free" was also rubbish.
(but she liked the case aaaaaaaaaaaaaargh)

Why do people do it? Its like buying a Porche to drive round town.

[Matridom]

Originally posted by constructor
The discussion on Intel v AMD is always an interesting one.

Since I mainly build PC's for other people I always try and consider what is required in the box as a whole.

Got a PC in yesterday for example that was one of PC Worlds latest offerings with a 2.7 or 3 G P4 etc but the rest of the box was bordering on crap.

More to the point the lucky lady owner wanted it for MS Word
and I reckon she would only ever use 10% of that.
A decent mobo with an 800 Duron and Radeon 7000 Graphics would have done the job.

One thing she did want was a decent pring output and the Printer "free" was also rubbish.
(but she liked the case aaaaaaaaaaaaaargh)

Why do people do it? Its like buying a Porche to drive round town.

It's bragging rights, and showing people that they have money and are willing to spend it...

[constructor]

Originally posted by Matridom
It's bragging rights, and showing people that they have money and are willing to spend it...

NoNo what did you Edit?

Look I can understand the Lian LI polished case - tie it up with the furniture, ALL BLACK-OK, Flashing LED Fans etc but why put rubbish in the box.

What really honks me off is when they dont buy it off me but bring it to me 6 months later for a fix or upgrade.

Seems to me they put a lot more thought into buying a house or car but when it comes to a pc their brains dropout their A**e.

Nothing new there then.

[Hippie_Tech]

Originally posted by Shairel
The Athlon XP Numbers ( 2800+ etc etc ) are how fast the original athlon core would have to be clocked to match the performance of the newer cores, so an athlon XP 2000+ running at 1.8 GHz or whatever, would run as fast as an athlon nonXP clocked up to 2000 MHz

That's correct, Shairel. They are doing a semi-direct (oxymoron???) comparison to the older Thunderbird core. Athlon XP 2000+ equal to or faster (hence the +) than a Thunderbird clocked to 2.0GHz. Nowhere has AMD ever said that the Athlon XP numbering method had any direct relation to the Intel P4 processors. It just happened to work out that way and AMD didn't do anything to dissuade people from using that method to compare AMD to Intel.

[confus-ed]

The Athlon XP Numbers ( 2800+ etc etc ) are how fast the original athlon core would have to be clocked to match the performance of the newer cores, so an athlon XP 2000+ running at 1.8 GHz or whatever, would run as fast as an athlon nonXP clocked up to 2000 MHz

Nope .... the AMD numbering system is meant to give a straight Mhz comparisson to an Intel chip .... you have all that 6 & 9 instruction business, the Pentium 4 gives 6 instructions per clock cycle while the Athlon XP gives 9, a clocked up T'bird isn't as fast as its XP whatever + equivalent, because even though it might still execute 9 instructions per cycle, it can only execute a subset of the instructions that an xp chip can so in some circumstances (especially 3d rendering) it might have to execute say 12 instructions whereas an xp chip might only take 8 or 9...

Nowhere has AMD ever said that the Athlon XP numbering method had any direct relation to the Intel P4 processors

....sigh.... that's the whole point !! AMD dubbed this naming convention 'True Performance Initiative'.... Straight MHz comparrisons are like saying my car has 350 bhp so it must be faster than yours with only 300 bhp, conviently forgeting that my car weighs two tons and yours only weighs one ... I know which is the faster car ... in this example not mine!

[TeddyRuxspin]

The basis has always been that its a comparison of Intel chips but for legal reasons AMD have probably never said that. Ask anyone in marketing and they will agree.

The actual results are also under estimated slightly. An AP2100 will beat a P4 2.1 in almost every test and so forth until you hit much higer end P4 where intel has the advantage.

Its a good guide line as to what you get and TBH for home use and value for money i do recomend AMD but for busienss I always go Intel just becasue main vendors like Compaq ship them.

As for what need 3gz - nothing really except games and encoding. If you play games though you will need a bang on GFX card like a GF4 ti 4600 or a Radeon 9700 Pro (monster card IMO). Anything less is a waste.

[Hippie_Tech]

I wish you hadn't done this. Now I'm going to have to dig through AMD's website to find the press release explaining their numbering system. I've been through this before on this very forum. AMD was very clear at the beginning that it was NOT a direct comparison with Intel chips, but a comparison with the older Thunderbird chips. I'll be back with a link.

[Hippie_Tech]

AMD press release for the (then) brand new Athlon XP

"AMD will identify the AMD Athlon XP processor using model numbers, as opposed to clock speed in megahertz, and is introducing 1800+, 1700+, 1600+ and 1500+ versions. Model numbers are intended to designate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors, as well as communicate the architectural superiority over existing AMD Athlon processors."

There is no mention by AMD of any connection to P4 with their numbering method...ever. It was just assumed by the press and sites like Tom's Hardware.

[confus-ed]

True Performance Initiative Frequently Asked Questions

Okay the word 'intel' never makes the page ! , but who else would it be aimed at ???!

The only other chip manufacturer in the PC arena is VIA & they ain't making chips in 'the top end' where a high Mhz count might be considered a misleading performance indicator... As mentioned its no doubt a legal thing that they can't say that Intel are trying to flim-flam us by pushing out faster running chips that do less work!

TPI is nothing to do with T'bird chips ... its a marketing initative to enable 'joe average' to make a 'fair' comparisson without having to get a degree in micro-electronics to understand the relationships between Mhz, clock cycles, FSBs, core operating speeds .... blah,blah blah.

For most of the PC’s first 20 years, megahertz was a reliable indicator of PC processor performance because the major players used the same architecture for product design, and clock speed was a good proxy for performance. This is no longer true,” said W.J. Sanders III, AMD chairman and chief executive officer. “The award-winning performance of our seventh-generation AMD Athlon processor architecture demonstrates that clock speed is only half of the performance equation. With our new AMD Athlon XP processor, AMD again accelerates innovation, reduces system cost while delivering the fastest application performance, and places the consumer at the forefront of digital technology.”

Who the ****ing hell do you think the 'major players' refered to are ?

I'm sure AMD thought 'we are still selling these rubbish old chips so we'd better make 'em look really bad so everyone goes out and gets one of our new fantastic ones' .... for crying out loud if those chips had a faster Mhz rating they'd be shouting about that just like Intel do.

[Hippie_Tech]

Confus-ed? Why are you arguing with me. Did I say that AMD's use of the numbering scheme was good? I agree with you. It was and IS all about marketing. I was just pointing out that AMD was basing the numbers on the older Athlon core and not comparing the numbers to the P4. That's it. Do they directly compare witha similarly numbered P4? They always stood behind their assertion that the numbers were NOT a direct comparison to Intel processors. That's all I'm saying. I merely showed what AMD stated about the numbering. Their intention can only be inferred.

[confus-ed]

Ah guilty ! I bit !!!

Just struck me that AMD's intention, no matter how it is/was wrapped was to make the comparrison with P4s, I know strictly speaking it can only be infered , but a blind man on a fast horse could see what they were about !

Legally no doubt they can't say that say an XP2600+ chip is the same in performance terms as a P4 2.6 but .... well you know!

Intel piss me off ... I'm a small independant constructor/fixer like many here - I can't buy their chips at the rates they give the likes of HowPooey, ComCrap, Dull & the like to boost market share, & I buy in 100s not ones, I have to put up with AMD (well the chips are good but the chipsets to support them aren't) as a consequence I get squeezed from being able to sell in the corporate market as much as I'd like due to the inane belief that 'Intel is best', all those flipping Pentium onboard ads make me mad! When you decided to say AMD were comparing to their own chips, I didn't like to see it pass ....

I think we've wasted enough keystrokes on the issue now...

[pochrist1]

Its a good guide line as to what you get and TBH for home use and value for money i do recomend AMD but for busienss I always go Intel just becasue main vendors like Compaq ship them.

Not in my opinion, I run a Computer for CAD (Computer Assisted Design) and I use a AMD XP1700 granted a little old in generation, but the "Best" my company can offer us to work with are Compaq w/ P4's 2ghz, I was so fed up with the unstable pieces of crap I built my own computer and put on their network. The CAD community has endorsed AMD over Intel for performance. This is graphics in an Architectural business not games. But if bring it up a notch When it comes to Raster Graphics and Video Editing a business like that will turn to a Mac. I think Compaq uses Intel in their "Business line" not because of performance but because they are trying to use it as a selling point in the Business community, which has yet to completely accept AMD a viable alternative to Intel.

[Budster64]

I hardly believe an Intel CPU made the workstation and "unstable piece of crap" as you so aptly put it. I do believe that AMD has more than sufficient horsepower and is certainly bigger bang for the buck. Maybe the workstations you were provided with used bargain basement motherboards, maybe there was a driver conflict or it wasn't set up properly. But you'll have a very tough time convincing me that it was the CPU's fault.
I run a network with nothing but intel workstations w/Win2K...over 200 of them and more than half running ACAD...and not once in 5 years have I found a problem with any of them that I can directly attribute to the CPU itself, although I have had my share of problem with apps, drivers, motherboards, bad RAM, hard drives...and of all things CDROMs...but NOTHING that I can directly trace back to the Intel CPU they use.
And seeing as my company also designs and builds Video on Demand systems for the Aerospace industry along with TCAS (Collision Avoidance Systems), Fire Detect/Suppression Systems...most of which I may add run on Intel CPU's and we've never had a SINGLE one of them return due to faulty CPU's I can venture to say that you're experience with a single workstation which may have had any number of problems that were not in any form related to the Central Proccessing Unit and your love for AMD ( albeit well placed love...I do like AMD) does not constitute any type of empirical evidence whatsoever on the reliability of Intel CPU's.
You can argue that they are costly and do not perform on parr with an similar priced AMD, and I would agree...but that's a far cry from stating that the CPU used in your workstation was the cause of your problems.
Let's face it, in this day and age the CPU, either Intel or AMD, is probably the most reliable part of a system.

[Hippie_Tech]

Budster64, I think that pochrist1 may have been alluding to the fact that Compaq was at fault and not necessarily the Intel processor. That was my understanding, anyway. A little harsh, Bud.