I know someone that replaced his Athlon 1.4Ghz with a P4 2000. Is the P4 2000 better than athlon?
Also, wich is best/fastest? P4 2000 or Athlon XP 1.6Ghz?
Thanks
Printable View
I know someone that replaced his Athlon 1.4Ghz with a P4 2000. Is the P4 2000 better than athlon?
Also, wich is best/fastest? P4 2000 or Athlon XP 1.6Ghz?
Thanks
:confused: :confused: <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Asking an intel vs AMD question is a good way to start a flame war. People are very, shall we say, vocal in their opinions.
[quote]Originally posted by MacGyver:
<strong>Asking an intel vs AMD question is a good way to start a flame war. People are very, shall we say, vocal in their opinions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's just hope everyone is mature enough to not start flaming. BTW,.. Intel will always be my preference. :)
I will comply with this and give the facts, and will not insult any opinions. :)
My personal preference is AMD.
AMD processors have more efficient cores than Pentium 4s..that is, they process more instructions per clock cycle (I think the AXP does 9 as opposed to 6 on the Pentium 4). So even at lower clock speeds, they can often outperform Pentium 4s. This is not an opinion, it was the way the processors were designed.
In MOST cases, the Athlon XP 1.6ghz will outperform the 2.0ghz Pentium 4, but this does not mean ALL cases. Here is a link of the Athlon XP 1700 (1.47ghz) vs the pentium 4 2.0 among others:
<a href="http://www.overclockersonline.com/?page=articles&num=102" target="_blank">http://www.overclockersonline.com/?page=articles&num=102</a>
You will have to browse through a few pages to get to the benchmarks.
The facts are in numbers, the AMD does 9 instructions per clock cycle, and the P4 only does 6.
Cache size? There is more than a CPU than how many micro-codes it can spit out. It would be nice if someone with some time on their hands could lay out all the facts about the two CPUs
One of the problems I have with benchmarks and so forth, is that every CPU is different. It's like a box of chocolates... yadda yadda yadda. One can certainly check out the facts, and come to the conclusion that an AMD CPU is faster than an Intel or vice versa. It's like trying to say a V8 Mustang is faster than a V8 Camaro. You just can't even compare the 2 as to which is faster. One might be faster than the other on any given day. True, one engine might offer more horsepower specifically or even more torque, etc., but there are soooo many other variables that determine the overall performance.
So for me, I've always gone the way of quality and reliability in the product, and those 2 features go by the name of Intel. The speed differences are so inconsequential, that it doesn't even matter, and nobody can even tell the difference when using either of the products. But hey, that's just my humble opinion. :)
As requested.
P4 has an 8k (that's all...another flaw...even P3s have 64K) data cache (L1) and a 256K L2 cache. Athlons have 128k L1 cache and a 256K L2 cache.
Not sure about Xeons.
P4 Northwood should have 512K L2 cache, which should provide a nice performance boost. When the P4 was originally designed, they wanted it to have 1MB of something called L3 data cache, but it was removed in the final design.
Information from Darek Mihocka (a very smart man) at <a href="http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm," target="_blank">http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm,</a>.
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
[quote]Originally posted by Bracius:
<strong>...the head...</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL,... The Head. That's a good one. I'm just this guy with a big giant head floating around on my shoulders. ROTFLMAO! :D :eek:
LOL! I am all about the props on this one man. ;) :D
Oh, another AMD vs Intel topic!! :( :( :(
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA ANOTHER ONE :mad: :D :D
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.
Bleu
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!