Cost Adjusted Comparison of the Athlon and Pentium 4

[mattj2012]

really depends on what purpose im using the system for to consider what processor would be the best.. I say for gamers i would use the athlon and for applications and stablity i would use the pentium.. to bad there isnt a processor that provides both for the common folk, ha ha..

[fluffycow]

I don't get it, athlons arnt any less stable than pentiums. Whats the reasoning behind this?

[Giblet Plus!]

Yeah. Why is it always assumed that pentiums are more stable than athlons? You know, the extra money that people spend on pentiums is just paying for those snazzy intel tv commercials. How many AMD ads have you seen lately?

[cheekymonkey]

none cos they're cheapskates . . .cowboy chip builders . . .

[rlbogue]

So for those of you who think AMD are unstable ... who's run one?

[Ruckus]

I've been running an Athlon 1.2 GHz since last year and I've never, EVER had any sort of stability issue. I can't recall a time the system ever did a full lock up on me or gave me some other related problem. I also ran an 800 MHz Athlon for about 6 months last year and that never gave me trouble, either. They're cheaper than Intels and they never give me problems, so I have no intention of switching over.

[mattj2012]

Its obvious that the ones who have run AMD processors have never truely put it to the test. you ask any professional IT person and they will tell you that they run pentiums in their servers and workstations. Every company that i have ever worked for has used mostly Pentium processors. Occassionaly will you see an AMD processor in a server or workstation that uses corportate database programs, and Major OS'es or has to work on a network. AMD is is nice and they do out perform the pentiums in speed but when you take shortcuts you will get that extra boost. AMD is for Gammers and low application personal computers.. Also AMD processors have that core that sticks out like a sore thumb and if you dont know what your doing you could crush the core.. from my 10+ years experience, Pentiums are stable and realiable..

[rlbogue]

Originally posted by mattj2012
Its obvious that the ones who have run AMD processors have never truely put it to the test. you ask any professional IT person and they will tell you that they run pentiums in their servers and workstations.

First, you missed the point of my question completely. I asked if those complaining about AMD reliability had ever run them. Apparently you haven't.

As for what most companies run, most companies ran their networks on Novell 10 years ago, 10 Years before that they were either running on a DEC VAX or an IBM System/36, 10 years before that most companies didn't have computers. So what people have historically done and what they should do are two different things.

With respect to the specific observation about servers, that's not ever been a push for AMD (for any sustained period of time.) AMD correctly realizes that the money is in the workstations -- not the servers no matter how expensive you make them.

As for your "observation" that desktop PCs run Pentiums, I think they are still the majority, but not to the degree that you are giving them credit for.

As for ...

Its obvious that the ones who have run AMD processors have never truely put it to the test.

I'd venture to say that there are people here who've put their AMD to the test more than most corporate IT departments. Speaking personally, I have an AMD Exchange Server/Domain Server/SQL Server that performs fine -- even under sometimes heavy load. My workstation (also AMD) runs DVD video repack for hours on end without a single problem.

Robert Bogue, MCSE, MCSA, A+, Network+, Server+, IT Project+, I-Net+, e-Biz+, CDIA+

[mattj2012]

well i wasnt meaning historically first of all, but you have pointed out some pretty good information about the AMD processors and your ablity to run it off your server, thats great. but like i said, most companies i have worked for have used pentium processors. now as for your average customer , what do they use? and who looks for cost effeciency? well if you buy cheaper you sell cheaper and there you go.. you get for what you pay for. for each IT professional out there who experiences the difference between amd and Pentium, some will say AMD is better or some will say pentium is better.. I am just saying that pentium is a better processor for the money and has a better architecture. If you want to play games, buy an AMD

[BipolarBill]

AMD setups have just one major flaw (other than the goofy chipsets that they run on) which needs to be addressed before they will really take off in the enterprise - thermal management and protection.

AMD CPUs run hot and (naturally) require more cooling. This makes use in "blade servers" and racks challenging. They have little or no thermal protection. An AMD CPU that loses it's fan/heatsink for even 5 seconds is deader that raw silicon.

When it comes to servers, the Athlon MP can only be installed in pairs at best. The Pentium is much more scalable. Perhaps further mainboard development will address this shortcoming.

Personally, I like Athlons, but I would not be the one to risk my job by recommending a 15,000 PC purchase of them for Shell Oil.

[mattj2012]

Exactly!!! bipolarbill....

[wallie_x]

This thread is supposed to be about DESKTOP PC's not servers. From where I sit the only servers I worry about are those my ISP uses and the other ones hooked to the network. In desktop PC's AMD has classically be preferred because of its more effective cost vs. performance ratio. That's definitely what attracted me. Also, despite its bad thermal protection, the classic Athlon Thunderbirds smoked (not from excessive heat Bipolar Bill) the P3's and especially the P4 Willamette’s in the benchmarks. Another consideration was that early AMD machines were usually built from a conglomeration of varying parts from the Pacific Rim. Who knows what type of nuances the machine would display until it was built. All those different drivers behaved oddly at times. (But it also made [forced] novices to become better at troubleshooting their systems.) Intel had the monopoly, and luxury, of being the only one to furnish chipsets optimized for their CPU's. And they also worked with M$ to optimize there performance with Windows. To my knowledge, AMD had no such luxuries until later in the game. There are so many twists and turns and mitigating variables to this story as to make one's head spin. For me the issue has always been superior price vs. performance, which used to rest solidly in AMD's corner. However, now with the super overclocking abilities of the P4 Northwood (1.8ghz OC'able to 2.4ghz!) the cost vs. performance ratio leaves Intel as a highly considerable alternative, especially now that the Taiwanese chipset makers support the P4.

[rlbogue]

Originally posted by BipolarBill
AMD CPUs run hot and (naturally) require more cooling. This makes use in "blade servers" and racks challenging.

Neither Intel or AMD is truly suited for "blade servers" that is really something that Transmeta is better at.

They have little or no thermal protection. An AMD CPU that loses it's fan/heatsink for even 5 seconds is deader that raw silicon.

It's not quite that bad but admittedly they do generate more heat.

When it comes to servers, the Athlon MP can only be installed in pairs at best. The Pentium is much more scalable. Perhaps further mainboard development will address this shortcoming.

Well, again AMD hasn't targeted the Server market. Admittedly they need to work on multi-processor support but it's not been an issue because it's not something that their core market needs. For what it's worth, there's a lot more engineering that has to go into the processor for multiprocessor support than one might think initially.

Personally, I like Athlons, but I would not be the one to risk my job by recommending a 15,000 PC purchase of them for Shell Oil.

Why does recommending Athlons have to "risk your job?" Back to history 15 years ago almost everyone bought IBM because no one wanted to "risk their job" on buying anything else.

[rlbogue]

Originally posted by mattj2012
well if you buy cheaper you sell cheaper and there you go.. you get for what you pay for.

Not always. Does Wal-Mart sell inferior stuff because they sell it cheaper? No, manufacturers can be more efficient than their competitors and sell products at a lower price.

I am just saying that pentium is a better processor for the money and has a better architecture.

It is possible that at the moment Intel has a slightly better processor than AMD, however, that's not really the point. You stated that AMD were unreliable, a claim that you've been unable to support. Now you're going with a price/performance argument. Which is it?

Rob

[Aarmenaa]

Most of the AMDs you see out there aren't in servers-that's true, but not really the point in question. I ran Pentium and Pentium II for years. When it came time to replace my Pentium II machne (I paid handsomely for a 266), I turned to AMD for a cheaper price, and better performance (at the time, I was hearing a lot about AMD beating out Intel), so I got a Thunderbird 1000. It's still the system I use for everything. It's still running at 1000 MHz, and it's only got a Geforce 2 MX400, and it's still got it's original PC133 SDRAM (256 MB). It runs just about everything I throw at it. This includes games, benchmarks, and apps like 3D Studio Max 4. Maybe it's not a great server chip, but it's still got my money the next time I need an upgrade!

-Aarmenaa

PS-I also purchased a Duron 850 a few months after my Thunderbird-it was only 110 bucks-I can't find a celeron for that cheap!