wing7788
09-07-2000, 12:12 PM
Hypothetically, if Intel and AMD released a CPU of the same speed, which would you choose to buy IF BOTH WERE OF THE SAME PRICE?
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Thunderbird 1 GHz vs. Coppermine 1 GHz
drn
09-07-2000, 12:58 PM
the Athlon as it will out preform the P3 at the speed
Szech
09-08-2000, 01:02 AM
The Thunderbird, most definitely.
Target
09-08-2000, 01:12 AM
Historically this has already happened, so there is no need to think of it in the hypothetical........
Up until AMD released the Thunderbird, it was easily debated based on what your needs were. Before the Thunderbird and PIII came along, Intel CPU's were better at some things, and AMD CPU's were better at others.
For example, older Intel CPU's had an advantage because of a superior Floating Point Unit. This alone made the Intel product attractive to gamers, and made it "superior" to anything AMD had out at the time in the minds of gamers. AMD on the other hand, had a CPU that could easily keep pace with Intel chips in business applications, including chips from Intel that were operating at faster speeds than their AMD counterparts.
However, talking about CPU's of the past doesn't really mean much these days accept to provide the history of how the two CPU camps came to be.
Today (and starting really with the Athlon), AMD has pulled off what many of us hoped they would! Not only has AMD provided a real alternative to CPU's from Intel, they have done so with a better offering, and at a MUCH better price point.
They have worked out the design and manufacturing problems that hampered them in the past. They now have CPU's that are faster (clock for clock) than those from Intel, a better CPU core design, superior floating point units, and all at a price which is more affordable than similar offerings from Intel. Perhaps more importantly is the fact that you can actually buy them.
So, to answer your question.......(finally - lol), IF using todays technology, Intel and AMD both offered lets say the Pentium III and Thunderbirds at 1 Ghz for the same price (and using the same FSB speeds), I would have to say that the AMD Thunderbird will still be the CPU I would recommend based solely on superior design and performance.
As it is now, you actually can get the AMD CPU's for less money, so the bonus of buying one is even that much more sweet!
Up until AMD released the Thunderbird, it was easily debated based on what your needs were. Before the Thunderbird and PIII came along, Intel CPU's were better at some things, and AMD CPU's were better at others.
For example, older Intel CPU's had an advantage because of a superior Floating Point Unit. This alone made the Intel product attractive to gamers, and made it "superior" to anything AMD had out at the time in the minds of gamers. AMD on the other hand, had a CPU that could easily keep pace with Intel chips in business applications, including chips from Intel that were operating at faster speeds than their AMD counterparts.
However, talking about CPU's of the past doesn't really mean much these days accept to provide the history of how the two CPU camps came to be.
Today (and starting really with the Athlon), AMD has pulled off what many of us hoped they would! Not only has AMD provided a real alternative to CPU's from Intel, they have done so with a better offering, and at a MUCH better price point.
They have worked out the design and manufacturing problems that hampered them in the past. They now have CPU's that are faster (clock for clock) than those from Intel, a better CPU core design, superior floating point units, and all at a price which is more affordable than similar offerings from Intel. Perhaps more importantly is the fact that you can actually buy them.
So, to answer your question.......(finally - lol), IF using todays technology, Intel and AMD both offered lets say the Pentium III and Thunderbirds at 1 Ghz for the same price (and using the same FSB speeds), I would have to say that the AMD Thunderbird will still be the CPU I would recommend based solely on superior design and performance.
As it is now, you actually can get the AMD CPU's for less money, so the bonus of buying one is even that much more sweet!
Wilan Wong
09-08-2000, 04:41 AM
Thunderbird!
NDC
09-08-2000, 05:32 AM
Yeah, T-Bird, because of the divided FSB .
[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 09-08-2000).]
[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 09-08-2000).]
penguin
09-08-2000, 07:59 AM
cb0 coppermine cause I can run 2 of them in a single board. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif
NDC
09-08-2000, 08:52 AM
I know that this topic is T-Bird Vs. Coppermine 1Ghz, but Penguin reminded me of an article I read in this one site
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I could've sworn that I saw a link that shows a M/B that will support dual Athlons in the near months to come. Anyone hear of that?
[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 09-08-2000).]
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I could've sworn that I saw a link that shows a M/B that will support dual Athlons in the near months to come. Anyone hear of that?
[This message has been edited by NDC (edited 09-08-2000).]
NDC
09-08-2000, 09:54 AM
Soon you'll be able to run dual and quad on athlons also:
http://www.cnews.dk/dec99_22-31.htm
http://www.cnews.dk/dec99_22-31.htm
SysOpt.com
Copyright WebMediaBrands Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright WebMediaBrands Inc. All Rights Reserved.