AMD vs Intel

[uncle_jimbo]

AMD or Intel, which do you think is better?


-- uncle_jimbo

[JCB]

before it hits the fan, let me say, "Both are fine chips."

AMD is the Big Bang for the Buck. Intel is just too pricey for my pocket.

[Jimstep]

I've always been an Intel fan. I switched to AMD the last go around and have been quite happy with the results. Back in October, the money I saved from going to an AMD equivilant paid for my memory, motherboard, and case. It was worth taking the risk.

So, I'd have to say that it depends on your taste, what your needs are, and your budget.

[Ankerson]

For my own machines I stick with Intel, I have my reasons.

For others over the last 15 years I have built both AMD and Intel.

[RLT65]

Intel makes a great product, so does AMD. I would have to go with AMD. Thanks to them (and cyrix) PC's are now affordable. If intel had its way, they would charge absolute top dollar for their chips. Since now they have real competition, they have had to bow down & lower their costs. Both intel & AMD are good, but if AMD went away, PC cost's WILL go WAY up!! If you are wealthy & will always be so, right now I would buy a P4; but we, the consumers are keeping AMD alive.

RT

[shark_megabyte]

You exaggerate the cost. I just bought a P4 on a college student's paycheck.

I chose Intel because it's for my first OCing project and I wanted a chip that would survive if my cooling fails due to a mistake or unforeseen problem.

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by shark_megabyte
You exaggerate the cost. I just bought a P4 on a college student's paycheck.

I chose Intel because it's for my first OCing project and I wanted a chip that would survive if my cooling fails due to a mistake or unforeseen problem.


That's funny. :D

[uncle_jimbo]

Originally posted by Ankerson



That's funny. :D

Its really not expensive at all to buy a Pentium 4. I find Intel ALOT better in overall quality of their CPUs.

[Plaster]

Originally posted by uncle_jimbo


Its really not expensive at all to buy a Pentium 4. I find Intel ALOT better in overall quality of their CPUs.

Well, I could clock my Athlon 1GHz at 500MHz and get the 100% reliability of a P4 1.2GHz and still have more speed than said P4. :D

[uncle_jimbo]

Originally posted by Plaster


Well, I could clock my Athlon 1GHz at 500MHz and get the 100% reliability of a P4 1.2GHz and still have more speed than said P4. :D

Ummmmmm... No, 1st there are no 1.2gig P4s, and 2nd, just no, even if there were 1.2gig P4s you could get ALOT more performance out of it than a 500Mhz Athlon.

To All - Plaster, thinks a 500Mhz Athlon is faster than a 1.2Ghz Pentium 4 (if there were one, P4s were introduced at 1.3Ghz).


-- uncle_jimbo

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by uncle_jimbo


Ummmmmm... No, 1st there are no 1.2gig P4s, and 2nd, just no, even if there were 1.2gig P4s you could get ALOT more performance out of it than a 500Mhz Athlon.

To All - Plaster, thinks a 500Mhz Athlon is faster than a 1.2Ghz Pentium 4 (if there were one, P4s were introduced at 1.3Ghz).


-- uncle_jimbo



uncle_jimbo,

Don't take the bait, it's not worth it. :rolleyes:

[Tor]

IMAO Intel makes better chips. Partly cause they have the dough to run them through all kinds of testing/validation etc.. AMD just doesn't have the money. Granted I am thankful for AMD's competion to keep cost in order. I don't think either one will dissapear. Intel practically gave AMD the opportunity to be where they are today. If there were no AMD then Intel would have a much bigger Monopoly case against them than Microsoft currently does. They both are good companies, just like the "evil" microsoft corp. Come on, computing would be nowhere today without Intel and M$. It'd be for geeks and buisnesses, not normal people. I personally like using windows. It beats the hell out of unix/linux and DOS. (I actually liked DOS, used it from 2 to 6.22.) Anyway that's what I think, I know this board is full of AMD fans, and that's great. If there weren't AMD fans who would us Intel people argue with? :rolleyes: hehe Have fun.

[JeffD]

Hi All,

IMHO if one who is very "in the know" on computer hardware/components builds two systems and places them side by side:

1. Intel P4 based system with high quality components, properly installed operating system and drivers.

2. AMD XP based system with exactly the same components and software above except the motherboard and possibly VIA 4 in 1 drivers (keep ram same for this example even though some may want Rambus in the P4).

Both systems tweaked (BIOS settings, software configuration, etc.)

I would find it very hard for one to routinely notice compatibility or stability issues that were directly connected to the cpu. Now the only area that I feel could be an issue is with the AMD compatible motherboard. Here is where most of the potential problems lie since there are good and very bad AMD motherboards......much more so than with Intel so selection of the right motherboard and knowledge of it is important to the overall stability of the system.

I feel this is the reason why as of today (go back 5-10 years and this wasn't the case) you will find no big, identifiable compatibility/stability issues that are directly related to cpus. Just search the web and Google for yourself.

So it boils down to your knowledge of systems and how much you want to research for components and fiddle with them. The most problem free is generally considered Intel....build and go...less potential issues out of the box. This is not to say AMD can't be similar.....one just needs to do a bit more research into motherboards and know how to setup an AMD based system to ensure a stable system.......it's really not related to the cpu (unless one wants to talk overclocking/voltage/heat area).

Regards,

JeffD

[$1500-P4 gamer]

JeffD I couldnt agree more.You are totally right.It isnt the cpu that defines the stability issues on hardware or prog.'s its the mobo that is the biggest variable in the Intel/AMD compateability issue.BUT as it stands right now that is one and the same.As amd doesnt make their own chipsets to support their own cpu's.


I personally think it would be great if AMD would make the chipsets for their mobos.This way you would always have o'le stabiltiy as the manufacturer made it for the chip and to top it off it would drive the 3rd party chipset makers to do alot better.

That is what the prob is no base line to compare these 3rd party chipsets to.With intel you have the stable chipset to compare the competition(3rd-party chipsets) to.

I know when I built this AMD duron 1gig morgan sys I have I was mainly worried about the mobo chipset and stability with it not the cpu itself at all.I'm happy to say it works great so far and running a respectable temp at full load/idle.Yes guys I said a Duron,I have a P4 1.5 and a Duron 1gig sys.I think both co's are great and I support both as far as that goes.When I build a friend or family member a sys I try to figure on what their needs are.Someone tight on the $ gets a Duron(no celeron,thank you).Others generally choose the P3 or P4.I have yet to build a XP sys though I would like to.No one has asked me to yet thats all.Has alot to do with the recent drops in P4 prices I think.
Mainly I let the choice up to them and I'm proud to say I let them choose and cover all bases as performance/price and what each is better at.Alot like the saftey features of the P4.Intel did good on that as they(not being experienced) feel its protection for their investment.I mean alot of the people I know have the same pc for like 5-8 years so the cheaper upgrade thing doesnt matter to them.Like my one buddy that got stuck on the whole 423 socket thing.He doesnt even care because by the time he gets a upgrade there will be no P4's sold and we will be talking about the P7 by then.From his Intel P90 to what he has now it is like night and day.This is what I've noticed from my dealings I'm not saying that is the avg. case mind you.

[Plaster]

Originally posted by uncle_jimbo


Ummmmmm... No, 1st there are no 1.2gig P4s, and 2nd, just no, even if there were 1.2gig P4s you could get ALOT more performance out of it than a 500Mhz Athlon.

To All - Plaster, thinks a 500Mhz Athlon is faster than a 1.2Ghz Pentium 4 (if there were one, P4s were introduced at 1.3Ghz).


-- uncle_jimbo

Dude, it was a joke.

First, notice that big grin at the end? That big grin basically implies I'm kidding. Maybe you have images turned off so they won't slow down your P4 too badly. :D

Second, the 1.2 was a typo. Before you brush that off as a lie, I'll explain where the typo was. I was trying to say 2.2GHz P4 not 1.2. It should have said an Athlon at 500MHz is faster than a P4 2.2GHz. Obviously it's not (it's right on par:D), but therein lies the joke. Try some prune juice, that should cure what ails ya. :p

[WayneD]

Issues at detemining comparison vary and are not at all simply applied to speed and stability. While I would agree speed is clearly a factor the fact is price is also an issue which has not really been identified in the previous comments. On this point AMD clearly outdistances Intel on a Value for your dollar basis, not to mention it outperforms Intel in a variety of test arenas.

This is not to say Intel does not have an excellent product but AMD is certainly facilitating the entire industry in keeping prices under check while clearly causing Intel much pain as a strong competitor

[gibsinep]

My vote goes out to AMD.

No really big reason why I just prefer them.

It's kinda like their is no Correct answer in which is better.


Also, My thought on all this Intel vs. AMD in stabilty stuff.

I would like all of you who really really think Intel is a whole lot more stable than AMD to please go throw those thoughts out your window.

I recently had an chance to get a friends P4 system that I biult a bit back run it side by side to my AMD system and see actually which is more stable.

Here are the systems

Mine

1.33 t-bird@1.5
640 PC-133
AK75-EC DFI mobo ( I really like this board but really nothing special)
2 wd 7200 RPM hd
Geforce 3 ti 200 (not OC)

Friends

P4 1.6
512 RDRAM
Some Intel board with intel chipset. ( cant remember the exact I will get back to you on it)
2 wd 7200 HD
Geofrce 3 ti (not OC)

As you can see these systems are pretty close.
You would think mine would be less stable
Since it is AMD and OC
But in about 1 week of testing
With Windows XP pro

here is what I found for freezing or crashing


Internet Browsing Lockups
HIS 0
Mine 0

Gaming
HIS 1
Mine 0

Music Ripping and cd burning
His 0
Mine 0



As you can see BOTH systems ar EXTREMLY stable.
So I really dont like to hear when people say Intel is more stable when heck look The intel machine froze once: mine none

All in all both very fast and stable machins

(note a fresh fdisk and install of XP was done for both systems)

[Ankerson]

But then there are those of us who won't forget the old days and all the issues with AMD. I am one of those, I don't forget and for that reason I will never own an AMD system. ;)

[gibsinep]

That's why people must relize thing DO change.

And roll with the changes.

[Tor]

AMD has gotten a lot better. But as far as the stability issue, Intel puts way more into testing and validation than AMD could ever dream of. (For now.) Which is why 99% of buisnesses chose to build an Intel based platform. AMD may eventually catch up, but until then, they have a lot to work on.

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by Tor
AMD has gotten a lot better. But as far as the stability issue, Intel puts way more into testing and validation than AMD could ever dream of. (For now.) Which is why 99% of buisnesses chose to build an Intel based platform. AMD may eventually catch up, but until then, they have a lot to work on.


True, they have gotten alot better, but they still don't have the quality that Intel does. Intel put's big money into R&D and testing.

I think it is more that I just don't trust the platform, never did, and still don't today. I have built alot of AMD systems for other people and they work fine.

[RedWine]

Someone with more experience than me could tell us, (I was an Intel man until recently) but if Intel does put that much more money into R&D, it seems to me there have been more mistakes come out of Intel than from AMD, since way back when they released a Pentium chip that had problems with the Math coProcessor and then others with cache problems that they blocked off and turned into the first Celerons and recently the fact that the first P4's were not performing as good as the PIII's that were still out and then the memory situation... I think right now AMD is offering much more bang for the buck.
It also seems to me that some of the major computer manufacturers are going with AMD CPU's, so I think anybody who had reservations about AMD in the past, those reservations could be more adequately pointed at Intel these days.
By the way I have a PIII 850 100 FSB and an AMD 1.2 266 FSB they are always on and I reboot them every 2 or 3 weeks out of courtesy
RW

[Tor]

Ankerson,
I'm totally with you on that. I posted earlier that Intel puts more money than AMD could ever dream of into testing and validation. I wouldn't buy an AMD system either. I am very happy with all of the Intel products I've had, 286 through PIII.

Intel did have some fubars. The math co-processor problem you are speaking of, I believe that was the Floating Point issue that would'nt have affected hardly anone. But due to Intel's high quality standards, they did recall, and replace all of the affected units. I don't know what memory situation you're speaking of. Other than the mistake that Intel's P4 only supported rambus when it first came out. Granted that wasn't a really great buisness choice, it had nothing to do with performance. The P4 runs it's best paired with RDRam. It is nice to have the options for DDR and SDRam. (RDRam and DDR are real comparable as far as cost is concerned now, so the higher price for RDRam isn't an excuse anymore. And the P4 paired with SDRAM? Might as well get a PIII and save some $$$$.) Again, I'm not calling AMD ****, just stating my opinions.

[araaraara]

I personally prefer AMD over Intel, mainly because of price(there's a BIG difference in Canada). I think that the Duron, Athlon(XP) and Pentium4 are all very good chips, and they can all get the job done. The Celeron, though, is a piece of **** and it sucks big time when compared to a Duron.
Check this (http://www.flycomputers.com/products/cpu.htm) and you will see the price difference that I'm talking about. This store is in the lowest price group of retailers in BC. There are some place's which charge WAY more for the same parts. Also, I do know that the AMDs are OEM, and the Intel P4's are retail, but I consider that to be irrelevent. It just shows that you get an even better deal when you go with AMD.

I have not had any stability issues with the 3 AMD systems that I have built. My dad's K6-2 500 @ 550 is rock stable with WinXP and it is still going strong(well, maybe it's a little slow). The Duron 750 & ECS K7VZA system that I had and sold to my friend is still working very well too. He often runs it for a week or two without restarting it, and that's only because of software updates. My current system with an AthlonXP 1600 @ 1900 on an MSI K7T266 Pro2 is also very stable and it doesn't crash on me either. All 3 of these systems worked fine right out of the box. They just needed some tweaking to get the maximum performance out of them.
The stability issues are the faults of the chipset makers, not AMD. I think this is clearly shown with VIA always making an "A" or "B" version of their Northbridges (eg. KT133 - KT133A). It's not AMD's job to ensure that the companies who make the chipsets, motherboards, or perhiperals, have made a bug-free product. I mean, compare something like a PC-Chips motherboard to an Asus motherboard, and you will find that PC-Chips is the Devil when it comes to motherboards, and Asus is one of the Gawds. There's also the issue of other parts, like power supplies and memory. You can't blame AMD if you're cheap *** 250w psu and bargain basement ram cause you're Athlon 1.2 to freeze every 2 hours can you? Any quality AMD system will be just as stable a quality Intel system, with the exception of some bad drivers and know bad hardware combinations.

Something that people seem to overlook is AMD's commitment to builting long-term systems. They managed to sqeeze a lot of life out of the Socket 7 platform with the K6-2. They managed to keep it going to 550mhz, while Intel had abandoned it with the Pentium MMX 233mhz. The same thing with Socket A. It started out with the 700mhz? Athlon Thunderbird and they have managed make it work with their latest MP and XP chips, and it is likely to make it to 2ghz before they switch sockets. Intel, on the other hand, has gone throught a new cpu platform almost every year or less. They have 3 different versions of the same Socket 370 interface: non-coppermine, coppermine, and then tualtin, each of the older versions is incompatible with the newer version, even thought they all use the same 370pin layout. Then, their new chip the P4 with it's new socket, Socket 423, has now also been replaced with the new Socket 478. The P4 is still a relatively new cpu, and already its original socket is obsolete.

Then there's the differences in scalability. The K6 started off as a Pentium1 competitor, and remained a Pentium2 competitor with the K6-2(which is just the K6 core plus some additions like 3DNOW). So that's 1 AMD cpu for 2 generations of Intel cpu's. I think that says a lot about the power of the original K6 design. The K6 also scaled a lot in speed, from 233mhz all the way to 550mhz. The Pentium1 only went from 60-233mhz, and the P2 only went from 233-450mhz.
The 'Classic' Athlon started out as a Pentium3 competitor, and it's still around with the Pentium4. Again, that's 1 AMD chip to 2 Intel chips. Plus, the P3 and P4 use very different designs, yet the 1 basic Athlon design has managed to keep up, even thought it is designed like a P3. The Athlon has come from 500mhz all the way to 1700mhz. That's a HUGE scale in speed, as the current Athlon is almost 3.4X faster in clock speed than the original Athlon, and the XP2100 is over 4 times faster in throughput. Conversely, the P3 only went from 500-1200mhz(just barely), and the P4 has so far only gone from 1300-2200mhz. If you worked out the speed ranges in terms of % increase from lowest to fastest, you would find that AMD's cpu's have much higher ratio. Again, that shows that AMD designs very advanced cpu's, and is able to sqeeze every last drop out of their designs. They do, in my opinion, plan for future use way better than Intel ever has.

I know that this is a very long post, and it may seem like just a big Intel flame, but I'm just trying to explain some of the often overlooked points when people discuss AMD vs. Intel. If anyone can come up with some explainations and a counter argument to my views, I would very much like to read it. Just please try and post some relevent facts in it, and address the issues that I have raised rather than just flaming me or saying 'Intel is good".

[Tor]

You do have some good points arrararararararararra. But most of what you said is what keeps Intel on top. Maybe AMD should make their own chipsets, and do some validation before they market their chips to ensure no "known" hardware configurations will be a problem. Intel does, and that is why corportations and buisnesses stay with Intel. How would it affect Dell's name if they sold AMD systems with crappy chipsets and other issues? They would get unhappy customers and lose buisness. Each one has their own advantages. What it comes down to is the overall picture. As far as making products for tomorrow? I think Intel leads the way. The 2.4Ghz P4 with 2 new chipsets (845g with USB2.0 and 850e with 533mhz bus) come out sometime next week. If AMD could currently build their chips on .13u and break the 2ghz barrier, you think they would have done it already. But they just re-name thier chips to fool people. ( I really think the the numbering system and the term XP are relating to Intel and M$.)

[Strat]

You word-stealing little git :D I was gonna say like exactly what you said, then i read your post :(

[KissmyDonkey]

Originally posted by Ankerson
But then there are those of us who won't forget the old days and all the issues with AMD. I am one of those, I don't forget and for that reason I will never own an AMD system. ;)

Most of those were probably chipset issues rather than processor issues...times have changed.

[$1500-P4 gamer]

I wouldn't say that as "Back in the days" so to speak the Intel and AMD cpu ran on the same board! That would mean it was a cpu prob. End of story when the only thing changed was cpu and it becomes unstable. But as many said that was then and this is now. AMD back then had to be Intel compatable. Now they have there own mobo format so this field has changed. I have had no stability probs. yet on the duron. I'm pretty impressed with it!:)

[$1500-P4 gamer]

I take that back:o I did have win98 random BSOD's but I changed to ME (ON SYSOPT. MEMBERS ADVICE)and alls well-NO BSOD's ever! So I don't blaim AMD I blaim Gates!!!!!!!:mad:

[RailFan]

Originally posted by $1500-P4 gamer
I wouldn't say that as "Back in the days" so to speak the Intel and AMD cpu ran on the same board! That would mean it was a cpu prob. End of story when the only thing changed was cpu and it becomes unstable. But as many said that was then and this is now. AMD back then had to be Intel compatable. Now they have there own mobo format so this field has changed. I have had no stability probs. yet on the duron. I'm pretty impressed with it!:)


<-----*Waves the stop-watch in front of you back and forth* You are in my power...You will soon be asleep...and when I snap my fingers, you will awake,,,and you will say "ATHLONS ARE BETTER THAN INTELS!...ATLONS ARE BETTER THAN INTELS!". *snap*!

[Tor]

"ATHLONS ARE BETTER THAN INTELS!...ATLONS ARE BETTER THAN INTELS!".

hehe, whoops I still think Intel is better than AMD. Try again RailFan. :D

[KissmyDonkey]

Actually both are good products. The differentaition is the cost.
We are talking a $246 dollar dufference. ON price watch a XP 2100 is $245.00 and a P4 2.2 478 is $509. Both are good processors but do the math......

If you are building a new system that could mean a top of the line vid card or adding a bunch of good quality memory to your new machine.

[Kurylo]

I was a fan of Intel until it began to manufacture those sucking P4's. Now AMD is the BEST.

[Deacon Spike]

I'm the one who'll vouch for AMD as the top dog. Having used several Pentiums and only two AMDs, I've come to the conclusion that the systems I've used with AMDs performed quite a bit better, dollar for dollar. My first love was the AMD K6 III 400MHz coupled with an ASUS P5A-B mobo with 256 Megs of RAM. This little dumpling seems to perform every bit as well as the HP I use at work with a P III 600.
I'm still using the K6 III 400 computer, although I also have a P III 733 / giagabyte mobo / 256 M. I have to admit that the K6 III renders very well against this P III machine. I aint so sure that the P III has it beat very much if any at all. I aint a gamer so I'm not really stressing either one.
My kid has a 1Gig Thunderbird / Gigabyte / 256 M that he says beats the **** out of any comparable Pentium. All of my kid's buddies who are big-time gamers have switched over to AMD Thunderbirds and XPs. These kids are computer geeks to the max and they agree that AMD is king.
Go figure.

[Ankerson]

*Cough****Cough* Ankerson choked on his drink and fall out of his chair laughing so hard he broke his ribs


Quote from Deacon Spike's post:


My kid has a 1Gig Thunderbird / Gigabyte / 256 M that he says beats the **** out of any comparable Pentium. All of my kid's buddies who are big-time gamers have switched over to AMD Thunderbirds and XPs. These kids are computer geeks to the max and they agree that AMD is king.



Yeah Right, whatever :rolleyes:


They buy what ever their mommys and daddies will let them buy.

Give me a break :rolleyes:

[Plaster]

Originally posted by Ankerson
*Cough****Cough* Ankerson choked on his drink and fall out of his chair laughing so hard he broke his ribs


Quote from Deacon Spike's post:


My kid has a 1Gig Thunderbird / Gigabyte / 256 M that he says beats the **** out of any comparable Pentium. All of my kid's buddies who are big-time gamers have switched over to AMD Thunderbirds and XPs. These kids are computer geeks to the max and they agree that AMD is king.



Yeah Right, whatever :rolleyes:

What was wrong with what he said? An Athlon is faster than any pentium, 3 or 4 clock for clock (aka comparable).

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by Plaster


What was wrong with what he said? An Athlon is faster than any pentium, 3 or 4 clock for clock (aka comparable).


Really, the P3 and the Athlon's were dead even up to 1 Ghz.

Today the Standard Athlon compared to the P3 T's clock for clock, yeh right.


The Athlon XP compared to the P4's is alittle different depending on what software you are running. It could go either way depending on what benchmark you look at..;)

The XP 2100+ and the P4 2.2 are pretty even really, with neither taking all the tests.

[Plaster]

Originally posted by Ankerson



Really, the P3 and the Athlon's were dead even up to 1 Ghz.

Today the Standard Athlon compared to the P3 T's clock for clock, yeh right.


The Athlon XP compared to the P4's is alittle different depending on what software you are running. It could go either way depending on what benchmark you look at..;)

The XP 2100+ and the P4 2.2 are pretty even really, with neither taking all the tests.

What's the clock rate on a 2100+, 1733? Somewhere in that range. so a 2100+ compared to a P4 1.7 or 1.8 CPU that is clock for clock the same speed and you have the P4 summarily stomped.

The P3 T is faster than a T-Bird at the same clock, but they're majorly overpriced and I've actually not known anyone dumb enough to buy one or a board for it. In real world performance a T-Bird is faster than a Coppermine clock for clock. They are not on par.

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by Plaster


What's the clock rate on a 2100+, 1666? Somewhere in that range. so a 2100+ compared to a P4 1.6 or 1.7 CPU that is clock for clock the same speed and you have the P4 summarily stomped.

The P3 T is faster than a T-Bird at the same clock, but they're majorly overpriced and I've actually not known anyone dumb enough to buy one or a board for it. In real world performance a T-Bird is faster than a Coppermine clock for clock. They are not on par.


Oh God not another one :rolleyes:
Here we go again :rolleyes:


AMD is using the PR rating system, not MHz, So that means that the XP 2100+ is equal to a 2.2GHz P4, not the 1.7GHz


AMD started using it so that is the comparison we use these days.

When AMD stops using it then we will too.;)

[Ankerson]

Money doesn't play a part in benchmarking so it is a non issue when comparing CPU's.

So Bang for the buck doesn't really matter.

[Ankerson]

Plaster,

The Coppermine topped out at 1.13GHz then the P3 T's took over from there. ;)

[Ankerson]

If you wanted to Apply the PR rating to both sides than the XP 2100+ would be going head to head against the P4 2.0A .

Yes the XP 2100+ is faster than the P4 2.0.

[Plaster]

First of all I know the Coppermine crapped out at 1.13, I didn't say anything on the contrary. Don't know where you were going with that one.

Second, if you want to get technical about the rating on the XP, it's not a PR rating comparing it to the P4, but to a T-birb if they had scaled the T-bird that high. I know in reality they're comparing them to P4's, but for the sake of technicalities, I'll go with what AMD defined the PR rating to be. The PR Ratings don't even play in this instance. Why? Because I said clock for clock. So fooy on you. :D

ATM the P4 is a dog. At the current pace, the AMD will drop the hammer and the P4 will be a laughing stock. What am I saying? It already is. ;)

[Plaster]

Hey, since all the Intel Zealots think AMD is underhanded with the PR ratings, perhaps Intel should be so noble as to name the P4 2000 to P4 1700- :D

[Ankerson]

Plaster,


The clock for clock stupid arguement is mute since AMD is using the PR system these days.


They are the ones using it so what's your point?


How many CPU's do you think AMD would sell if they stopped using that system.?

1.7 GHz CPU for over $300 to the average Joe who knows nothing about computers.

When you can buy a P4 2.0A for about the same price.

So lets stop using this clock for clock BS and use AMD's system the way they want.;)

[Plaster]

I want to use my rating system. The Intel Pentium 4 1700- ® (2.0GHz)

[Ankerson]

Maybe with the K8 they will go back to the MHz system.:cool:

[Ankerson]

Intel uses the MHz system because that is what the CPU's are running at.

AMD uses the PR these days because the CPU's compared to the P4's are closer to the P4's MHz rateing than AMD's MHz.

That might change with the K8.

[gibsinep]

Ankerson, This was one of your post back a bit but how can you think that all kids have the parents buy theri computers?
I have biult all my computers with MY OWN MONEY since I was 13.
that was many years ago.

You are one of those people that love to stereo-type kids aren't you.

Look at benchmarks and yes the t-bird 1gig will beat a P3 1gig


Plus the PR ratings are being compared to t-bird NOT P4 (as said before)


Plus it really isnt the average joe buying AMD.

the bulk of pre-biult computers are INTEL. (dell, gateway ect.)

The only company I know is compaq that put AMD in their systems.

[bob05]

why are VIA's unpopluar? They are pretty cheap ...:(

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by gibsinep
Ankerson, This was one of your post back a bit but how can you think that all kids have the parents buy theri computers?
I have biult all my computers with MY OWN MONEY since I was 13.
that was many years ago.

You are one of those people that love to stereo-type kids aren't you.

Look at benchmarks and yes the t-bird 1gig will beat a P3 1gig


Plus the PR ratings are being compared to t-bird NOT P4 (as said before)


Plus it really isnt the average joe buying AMD.

the bulk of pre-biult computers are INTEL. (dell, gateway ect.)

The only company I know is compaq that put AMD in their systems.


Gateway puts AMD processers in their boxes as does IBM.

Oh and I have been working in the Computer field for 16 years so maybe I have developed my views on experience rather than hearing it from someone else. ;)

[WayneD]

Can anyone tell me the clock multiplier of an AMD XP 2000 which runs at 1.67GHz.....?

[bob05]

ok let me (attempt) to put some clearness into all this. I think i was reading CGW or PC gamers. They did a head on head test: the fastest Intel vs. The fastest AMD . The only difference was the mobo (of couse) but same video, sound, ram, ect. Of couse the intel won simply beacuse the speed is faster: 2.2 G. Now i don't know what the results would be if they used the same speed (i.e. 1.7 P4 vs 1.7 AMD) however the best vs the best, intel won.

P.S: the mobo's were the same price

[otheos]

Oh and I have been working in the Computer field for 16 years so maybe I have developed my views on experience rather than hearing it from someone else

tsk tsk tsk


1st.: bragging wont conviernce anyone :)
2nd.: that's why it' s difficult to change. You know the saying about the old dog and the new tricks?

Of couse the intel won simply beacuse the speed is faster: 2.2 G

Hehe, spot on, intel marketing wotking at its best :).

[Ankerson]

Originally posted by otheos


tsk tsk tsk



2nd.: that's why it' s difficult to change. You know the saying about the old dog and the new tricks?





Has nothing to do at all with new tricks, I have my reasons for not using AMD for my personal systems.

Oh, I can Afford to buy what I want so price is never an issue.

[Plaster]

Originally posted by WayneD
Can anyone tell me the clock multiplier of an AMD XP 2000 which runs at 1.67GHz.....?

it's 12.5

[Master Bates]

fools..

CYRIX FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!

[araaraara]

Originally posted by Master Bates
fools..

CYRIX FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!
True that! :D



(even Cyrix's 486's were slower than Intel and AMD's, and the VIA C3 is based on a mix of Cyrix and IDT's Winchip:( technologies and it's REALLY bad)

[Plaster]

Originally posted by araaraara

True that! :D



(even Cyrix's 486's were slower than Intel and AMD's, and the VIA C3 is based on a mix of Cyrix and IDT's Winchip:( technologies and it's REALLY bad)

But it doesn't require a heatsink and fan, that makes it infinitely better than both the Athlon and the P4. The P4 locks up after a couple minutes without the heatsink and no fan. (blatant knock on Tom's Hardware):D

[Bogg]

Hehe, i remember when running my Cyrix MGX 233Mhz, it was slooow :) **** i thought my computer was quite fast until I upgraded it to a 500mhz K6-2..There you had performance! (at that time, compared to the MGX)...

[$1500-P4 gamer]

"Plus the PR ratings are being compared to t-bird NOT P4 (as said before)"

I'm not getting into this so dont flaim me I just thought Id offer my thought on this one thing,nothing elso. So please don't take it the wrong way-ANYONE.

I thought the PR rateing system was devised as a way to compare to Intel Pentium because at the time it was the bar for performance. More so even all programers then used Intel to run the machine they prog. on. I.E. Pentium Rateing system. Meaning the were saying if it was a pentium it would take that to match it. This came about because of the Intel --mhz or intel compateable cpu requirements on games and software! So in taht way I think AMD had to do something to inform the people prog.'s would work on their PC. How else was one(not techy)to know? This isnt their first time useing this rateing system so I don't think it has anything to do with the T-bird. And it has nothing to do with the P4 either it is a rateing compareable to a Pentium. Like sysoft sandre. That means you are compareing to a Intel pentium with no mmx and no-enhancements beyond its generation against your new cpu with these enhancements and etc. It is a baseline to see how far we have come. Not to argue about. Now it is more of a contruversy with the XP's(rateing sys. second time around)then it was then for the reasons I said above,compateability!

[Master Bates]

the rating (according to AMD) is used when comparing to a regular t-bird, and has nothing to do with intel (if you listen to AMDs propeganda, that is.)

[gibsinep]

well


AMD says the PR is comparing to t-birds.

But IMHO I think it was mroe toward the P4.

But AMD wants us to think it is comparing to t-birds.

it's all at www.amd.com

[bob05]

I think AMD and Intel should just stick to MHZ. All this PR stuff is just an attempt for AMD to make you think its prossecer is faster than the clock speed.

[$1500-P4 gamer]

gibsinep


regardless of what AMD claims cyrix started it and it stood for Pentium Rateing system. I may be misunderstanding it but I dont think so.PR is a acronym and I don't see how they get the word t-bird out of those letters? Confused?:confused:

[gibsinep]

I am not argueing anything here.

Go over to www.amd.com

and see for your self. It is comparing it to the old t-birds.

[$1500-P4 gamer]

I know that your not argueing. Its cool! I'm just saying that PR is a acronym and it stands for Pentium Rateing system as cyrix originally made it. AMD can say it menas whatever they want its their chip but the acronym still menas what it means regardless.:)

Thats all. I believe you that AMD says its for T-bird comparison but I think they are full of bull. Not you.:D

[$1500-P4 gamer]

Take a look at this old o'clock article! This is what I mean that it has nothing to do with t-birds no matter what AMD says. The amd k5 and k6 pr rateing system and they used the + even then. take a look!!!!! See what I mean.


http://www.mc-pro.com/hardware/table.shtml


Right there are the cyrix's too. Same rateing sys. It is not AMD's own rateing system and it should still mean what cyrix says it means. AMD is just twisting its meaning so as to avoid contriversy. But I'm not saying I cant be wrong. Maybe I am. Please feel free to point anyting out that I am missing.

[gibsinep]

I am not in diagree with anything you say.

I think we are understanding each otherwrong.

I know what PR syands for.
I know AMD says is but they are full of it and really were comparing it to INTEL.

I see everything you say.


AGREED!:D

lol

[$1500-P4 gamer]

Cool.:) I wasn't argueing with you. I was trying to understand it myself. Just diging for clues you know what I mean! Hope I didnt come off wrong. Problem with typeing is their is no tone like you have in a voice. So you dont know when someone is just saying something or argueing>or if their takeing it the wrong way? No harm intended, sorry.Peace!:)

[otheos]

I think AMD and Intel should just stick to MHZ. All this PR stuff is just an attempt for AMD to make you think its prossecer is faster than the clock speed.

Completely out of context. There are a hundred different CPU architectures, MHz has never been used for performance rating.


BTW, AMD is NOT currently using the PR acronym. People refer to the + system as PR but not AMD :) So this should clear it up a bit. However the PR acronym used these days by journalists etc does not refer to Cyrix's original Pentium Rating, but the the established Perfrormance Rating (used for Risc processors when compared to X86 and vice versa).


As far as the PR scheme goes, there is only one way to see it:

Who is deceiving you? Someone who's selling you a slower clocked CPU that performs higher than it's MHz suggest, or someone who's selling you a faster clocked CPU that performs slower that it's MHz suggest?

For every question there is an answer. For the P4 issue, there is a great a piece you HAVE to read to understand what it's major problem is. It's long and it get's technical but somethings are not for mom to understand anyway: Read here. (http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm)

[$1500-P4 gamer]

otheos-
Thanx for the bit on the whole PR thing. So basically there is two meanings for the acronym PR. One that is cyrix's version and one that is for comparison to risc procs. Talking about compareing apples to oranges x86 on risc cpu rateing scale???? weird eh. No wonder its confuseing,there is two ways that you can take the whole PR thing. Thanx for the correction!:D