-
The major issue I have with the p4 is the timing issues. I play alot of games(Unreal Tmnt, Couter Strike, Red Alert 2, et al) and have had serious issues with the p4 keeping up. My primary gaming system is a dual p3 1ghz machine, but often resort to my Athlon XP 1900+ to get the extra performance boost in Unreal. The p4 has a known timing issue in every processor except the 2ghz, they finally fixed the issue, but this fact does not make up for the large price difference between the Athlon XP 1900+ and the 2ghz p4. The performance difference is not huge, yet the price difference is enormous. I doubt you can go to many lan parties and find more than a smattering of p4 boxes. Athlon rules the day, and who knows better about performance than gamers? I would venture to say that gamers (and their demand for speed) are the reason faster processors, etc are being released at the speed they are. I am a huge Intel fan, I just doubt the p4's ability to compete in the market when it is based on speed and performance, now for reliability...AMD is getting better and starting to control their heat issues. The heat issue and the subsequent lifespan if the Athlon is greatly improved. Server quality machines in my opinion should be Intel based, but for the desktop and home machines, you can beat the AMD processors.
-
If one wants to take price vs. performance into account then the AMD platform is the way to go. You can find an Athlon XP 1800+ for just under $200 and it will out perform the 2GHz P4 MOST of the time. If gaming is one of your primary concearns then that is a great reason to look into an AMD platform. As far as cache is concearned, one thing to keep in mind, the Athlon/Duron platform use a 64bit interface to their L2 cache. The coppermine and Tualatin P3's use a 256bit interface. I don't remember the specs off the top of my head but I believe the P4 is similar to this. Please correct me (nicely of course) if I'm wrong.
-
[quote]Originally posted by Bracius:
<strong>I agree with the head on this one. That is why I kinda back Intel up sometimes. AMD has kinda such the chubby on this one with the core cracking and thermial issues</strong><hr></blockquote>
even though I usually but AMD (mainly because of price) I must give credit to intel for implementing the thermal head spreader that covers the p4 chip core and should virtually emilinate the core cracking problems AMD has had. I know hobbyist and overclockers would be upset if AMD implemented something similar, because you wouldn't be able to unlock the bridges or lap the core, but I hope that it's an inevitable development for AMD.
-
-
well the P4 is a well P4 and the AMd os well a AMD
if you have4 one cool if you have the other cool ..
if you like one good .. if you like the other good
if you want one great .. if you want the other great ...
if anymore needs said .. shut up :)
-
Depends what you're using it for. If you're compling a massive chunk of code, the P4 would probably be faster, if you're playing game, the AMD would probably be faster, if you're rendering in LightWave the P4 would be faster, if you're paying the AMD would probably be cheaper, if you're playing Elite the 486 would be more usable (j/k).
Really I wouldn't have bothered going from an AMD 1.4 to a P4 2.0, because both will go like **** off a stick, with so little difference between them.
I personally like AMD's a hell of a lot, but really, there's so little between them it doesn't really matter, I'd be just as happy with an Intel.
Oh, and going back to cache, my old single-chip PPro would beat any system mentioned to date (except a Xeon) it had 4Mb on the chip, doesn't neccessarily make it faster than a CPU with less, I took it out and put two 200's with 512kb each in, and it goes quicker.
Just my opinion, AMD's rock, Intel's rock, as long as it ain't a Winchip, I really don't care.
Jesus, that's a hell of a post!
