how does an intel pentium 4 1.5ghz compare to a tbird 1.3ghz?

[AndreRIO]

is it faster, slower, the same?

[Wilan Wong]

The T-Bird 1.3 GHz should be able to easily outperform the 1.5GHz Pentium 4, as the 1.3GHz Athlon can perform similarily like a 1.7-1.8GHz Pentium 4 in most benchmarks..

[AndreRIO]

wilan that can't be right!, why then they now have a xp 1500. been 1500 comparing it to a p4 1500mhz...
the tbird 1.3ghz has to be slower... can anyone else help?

[[shawn@localhost /home]#]

dude are you on crack? the latest AMD benchmarks compared to P4 rate the 1.6ghz Athlon XP against the 2ghz P4 and they rated about the same

the P4 clearly blew away the AMD in RAM though because it has Rambus instead of DDR but i dont think that marginal difference is really worth paying OVER 2x the amount of the AMD

the benchmark that compared older AMD to a P4 was the 1.4ghz T-bird compared to the 1.7ghz P4 and they rated basically the same

here read through this dude, click on the links below the picture and text to keep advancing through the settings then results of the benchmark tests
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q4/011009/

[Jimstep]

When you compare one vendor to another (ie AMD vs Intel) the clock cycle ratings on these microprocessors don't have a lot of meaning. You have to look at the underlying architecture to see how much work can be done in each of the clock cycles. AMD has done some extra pipelining that Intel has not done. You are comparing apples to oranges when you try to equate the Ghz rating from AMD to the same rating from Intel.

Put this another way, hypothetically, do you think a 80486 running at 2Ghz would run the same as a P4 running a 2Ghz. The answer is no. The underlying architecture in the P4 is so much different than that of a 486.

AMD has taken the old Cyrix route to market the XP. The model number has nothing to do with the actual clock cycle of the chip. The model number for the XP1500 runs at a clock cycle of 1333Mhz. The XP1800 runs at 1533Mhz. Read the specs. The reason AMD is marketing the XP this way is because they know that Intel has to run the P4 at higher clock frequecies to get the same performance. You gotta watch the marketing hype.

The only sure way to know how much work a processor can do is to run it through a bechmark. It is the only way to get meaningful results that make sense.

[Death Bane]

the athlon is a much better processor, its been proven time and again, the p4 was a flop, they shouldnt have released it so early

[[shawn@localhost /home]#]

AMD kinda screwed up the marketing scheme for the XP, instead of calling it the +1900 for the 1.6ghz (about same speed of P4 2ghz) they should have named it after it's P4 equivalent speed

such as:
-1.4ghz would be called the Athlon XP +1700 (same speed as 1700mhz P4)
-1.6ghz would be called the Athlon XP +2000 (same speed as 2000ghz P4)

[jprophet420]

benchmarks smenchmarks, p4 is better

[Comage]

Originally posted by AndreRIO
wilan that can't be right!, why then they now have a xp 1500. been 1500 comparing it to a p4 1500mhz...
the tbird 1.3ghz has to be slower... can anyone else help?

Well, looks like the marketing scheme from AMD is misleading the public. The AMD Athlon XP 1500+ is actually a 1.3GHz CPU. It's called XP 1500+ because it's performance is comparable to a P4 1.5GHz.

It's true clock speed is 1.3GHz. Compared to the P4 1.5GHz. There.

[invictus1997]

jprophet420, if you are downgrading what benchmarks are saying, what then could we use to test our systems and compare how they perform? i agree though to some extent that most benchmarks are tailor-made for some platforms but this we should take with a grain of salt. if you can prove your claim that a p4 beats a similarly clocked amd machine, i might consider using p4 as my next rig. otherwise its amd ALL THE WAY!

[jprophet420]

its like this. i have not run a p4 next to an xp 1800, but i have run a p3 against an amd that "bencnhmarked" higher than the p3. we ran several games that draw mucho resources, and the p3 ran the games smoother and faster than the amd. this is why i say "benchmarks smenchmarks". it doesnt make amd bad or slow, it just means that the benchmarks of a chip are not the be all end all, just as the ghz rating of the chip is not either. if you tweak the he$$ out of an amd, and do it right, it will run fast and long. (and so will an intel chip if you give it that much love)

[[shawn@localhost /home]#]

actually no, Intels dont really overclock too well, they tend to crash lots if overclocked just a little bit

i heard rave review on overclocking celerons though, its just too bad that a celery 500 is about the same speed as a P2 at 333

[jprophet420]

my p3 1 ghz runs rock solid at 1250, dont believe the hype

[L0uis]

I had a PIII-450, and went to a P4-1.5. Before deciding to go with P4, I tried 5 different Athlon based board combos. All of them gave me problems I couldn't work around.

After seeing the CPU meltdown on Tom's Hardware, and first hand witnessing the instability of the machines. Personally, I'm not buying AMD again. Don't get me wrong, they both make good products. I just like Intel better. (PCs are not supposed to crash, blue screen, the like. Alot of it isn't solely Microsoft's responsibility.)

When I see the benchmarks, AMD was a contributer in the development in nearly all of them. I don't trust them. Besides, on alot of the benchmarks.... They never say what the underlying Disk access bus is. DMA/66/100, etc. I run all scsi (no ide devices in my system. ), and my drives are all 10,000RPM, LVD/160, large cache and low seek time. I'm really hesitant to believe that my machine is comparable to some IDE based slower AMD board. Busmastering, or not.

I say try em both, run what you do most often with them. Stick with the one that makes you happy.

Regards,

-l

[[shawn@localhost /home]#]

that explains it actually, P4 is more of a server/SCSI thing type computer parts

the AMDs only have 266mhz system bus, just enough to run a few drives and the CPU at a pretty high speed

the P4 has a system bus of either 400mhz or 800mhz i dont remember (one of those numbers is the system bus speed, one of those is the ram speed) but the point is thats enough system bus to run the CPU at a high speed but to run sever drives at a quick transfer rate such as a hard drive at 10k RPM

most people dont have 10k RPM drives..... for them AMD wont be a problem