Why are Athalon's so popular?

[Lord AnthraX]

I know this is gonna be a stupid question (cause these are the only type i ask) but why does it look like everyone on this site use some sort of Athalon mobo? What ever happened to the P4 boards, I always though they used the best chipsets for gaming and graphics (excluding that onboard video ****). Maybe one of the veterans can show my the reason the AMD is so popular?
Lord AnthraX

[Rugor]

Bang for buck.

For most uses you can get generally comparable performance from Athlon or P4 based systems. However, Athlons and the motherboards are often significantly cheaper. You can often build an Athlon system for the same or less than a Celeron system and the Athlon will smoke the Celeron.

Also, the early P4's were notorious underperformers and Athlons easily beat them at the time. AMD's easier upgrade path meant that many people upgraded from a PIII to an Athlon, and then stayed on that path because it allowed for easier incremental upgrades.

For most of the last few years an Athlon has been a better choice for a do-it-yourselfer for cost and infrastructure reasons. Since places like Sysopt attract the DIY crowd, you'll see more AMDs here than in the general population.

[rsfnatik]

Indeed, AMD grabbed the market in the "bang for buck" deparment and still offers up some respectable competition today - for the low to mid-range system the XP is an excellent choice compared to a Celeron or low-end P4. For the higher-end system the P4's now nudge ahead in most cases and the price difference is not as much of an issue... I would go with the P4 in that case. Since the Athlon 64 was released tho things have pretty much evened out. The Athlon 64 gives a P4C/E a run for it's money and the price is comparable.

[causticVapor]

In the thunderbird era, the Athlons were unbeatable. When the p4 "northwood" core came out, the opposite was true until the advent of the thoroughbred-b core for a brief time thereafter. After that, only A64s offered serious competition to high-end p4s.

Athlon XPs still smoke most of intel's low- and middle-end for much less, however....and that is a major reason to buy them.

[zybch]

As you can probably guess from my avatar, I'm using an A64. I've used athlons since way back when I got my 1st Athlon 700 and overlclocked it to just under 1Ghs with the stock cooler.
Athlon mobos are cheaper, possible because the technology was so good that they haven't had to change very much for the last 4 years and the actual chips will run regardless of how old they or the mobo are (bios updates sometimes are neccessary though), that something you couldn't say with the Intel CPUs. Intel appear to change their socket every year or so, which means if you want to remain up to date it costs a lot more.

I think its hilarious that my A64 3200+, running at 2000Mhz can beat the pants off a P4 running at 3200Mhz in the majority of benchmarks and at a slightly lower price

[Lord AnthraX]

So in your own opinion did I screw myself over when I bought my system? I had the choice between the P4 or the A64.

Abit IC7-MAX3 Free
P4 2.6c (Generic Heatsink) 175$
512 MB Kingston CL3 (non hyperx, this i goofed on) 82$
9800 PRO 200$
Windows XP pro

You think I should have gone for an A64 system insted, or would this be a worthy gaming system with a few after market mods (like new HS for OC'ing and such and such..). This as it is without anything extra scores 10,691 in 3D '01 and 1650 in '03. Both of these tests used the MAX of the card, meaning all AA on, Antistropic textures with 16 max samples (or whatever they call it) and the highest color and res it could do.
Lord AnthraX

P.S. I always thought the AMD's ran a helluva lot hotter than the intels, is this fact or fiction?

[scottluebke2003]

You didn't screw yourself at all. That system is very good. Yes, you could have saved about $150 by building an AMD system, but you learn along the way. Keep your ear te the ground and you will always know which parts to buy and how to get the most performance for the least amount of money. Just keep tuned in around here and you will be in the know.

[Rugor]

Fiction:

Older AMDs ran hotter than Intels (smaller die roughly equivalent heat energy = higher temperatures) but the current situation is reversed. Intel is running hotter than AMD now, especially with the Prescotts.

[scottluebke2003]

WHOA WHOA. Turn off all AA and AF, and run 3dMark2001 and 3dMark2o03 at default settings. NO AA or AF! Then post back with your scores. Be sure to turn off all programs before running it.

[zybch]

Originally posted by Rugor
Fiction:

Older AMDs ran hotter than Intels (smaller die roughly equivalent heat energy = higher temperatures) but the current situation is reversed. Intel is running hotter than AMD now, especially with the Prescotts.

Ah the Prescott, the first dual function CPU/Hotplate

[Lord AnthraX]

16,601 in 3D '01. This is with low details, compressed textures with 24 bit and 1024 x 768 x 32. That sounds a helluva lot better. I always thought however you wanted to test the GFX card to the extreme and see how it could do at the highest strain, maybe it's just me.
Lord AnthraX

P.S. 60 Hz refresh rate (i really don't see what is so bad about it).

[zybch]

Stick the refresh rate up to 75 for a few days, then go back to 60. I doubt you'll be wanting to stay back there for too long.

[Rugor]

I have two monitors on my system: The primary is at 85Hz, the secondary is only capable of 60Hz. Trust me there IS a difference.

If I look at them from across the room the 60Hz one is visibly crawling. It's only good for things like IMs and DL status bars and the like, not for serious work.

[scottluebke2003]

85 hertz is a must. If your monitor can do it, then set it there.
16,000 is a good score. But be sure to re-enable AA and AF when you are playing games and such. Just turn it off when you are running benchmarks.

[RamonGTP]

To get an accurate benchmark, leave all the benchmarking settings at default. Make sure you turn AA AF and VSYNC off in the display properties. Most people running 3dmark use those settings.