View Poll Results: What is faster, Athlon XP or Pentium 4
- Voters
- 20. You may not vote on this poll
-
Member
I just made a thread about Athlon 64 vs. Pentium 4 so you guys can hop over there.
-
Ultimate Member
Athlon XP's Overclocked much better than the P4 Northwoods, but due to Hyper-Threading and the fact that the Northwood wasn't built on a 3 year old architecture, Northwood won over Barton. Barton's were good, but they didn't have the oomph that the P4's of that generation did.
-
Originally Posted by MadPistol
Athlon XP's Overclocked much better than the P4 Northwoods, but due to Hyper-Threading and the fact that the Northwood wasn't built on a 3 year old architecture, Northwood won over Barton. Barton's were good, but they didn't have the oomph that the P4's of that generation did.
Thats not true either... A 2.4C can reach 3.2GHz (or more if you get lucky), thats an 800MHz overclock... Not even the mobile Bartons can OC by 800MHz. The Northwood P4C line pretty much owned the XP line in just about everything. Overclocking, gaming, encoding, etc etc. They even ran cooler up until around the 3GHz mark.
Last edited by RamonGTP; 08-10-2005 at 06:56 PM.
-
Ultimate Member
Originally Posted by RamonGTP
Thats not true either... A 2.4C can reach 3.2GHz (or more if you get lucky), thats an 800MHz overclock... Not even the mobile Bartons can OC by 800MHz. The Northwood P4C line pretty much owned the XP line in just about everything. Overclocking, gaming, encoding, etc etc. They even ran cooler up until around the 3GHz mark.
I agree. The 2.4C was a rare exception to the OC rule for P4's. Once they reached the 3Ghz models and made the Prescotts, things got ugly for intel though.
-
Member
What are latest generation processors that run cooler? These would be for office environment "always on" systems or where air conditioning is iffy. It seems to me that cooler-running systems last longer, less worry about cleaning out dust, etc.
-
Registered User
A64's are cool running chips and OC like a bandit for the most part.
Now back to the original question. The early Athlon XP chips either equaled or beat their P4 counterparts. The 1800+ would beat a 1.8 P4 in some cases.
The XP 3200+ was the biggest rip of the century. I have one in my other machine and while it is a solid chip it is not even close to a P4 3.2 ghz chip. It also is a very poor OC'er and runs pretty warm.
Now, my Athlon 64 939 3700+ will smoke just about any P4 on the market with a modest 400 mhz OC. Without any OC at all the memory bandwidth kicks Intel's rear. I run Athlons and only Athlons so I am a bit biased. I give Intel credit where it is due but for a gaming rig????? Intel has not a chance right now.
Intel as some things in the works that "should" level the playing field but for now if you want to game go A64. If you want to run office or encode go Intel.
-
Gone Fishin'
Mine is faster. Why? Because I said so. That makes as much sense as your poll. AMD quit working on the Barton several years ago. Intel is still trying to work the bugs out of the P4. Now if they could just get that hyper-threading BS to work on programs they don't sponsor....well OK, there's always the dual core concept to work on.
The real answer is that the XP is considerably faster if you go strictly by clock speed. A 2 ghz AMD as fast as a 3.5 ghz P4 comes to mind.
-
Ultimate Member
Originally Posted by ukulele
A 2 ghz AMD as fast as a 3.5 ghz P4 comes to mind.
Only if you're talking about an A64. If you're talking about the XP, you've got your facts crossed.
-
Gone Fishin'
Originally Posted by MadPistol
Only if you're talking about an A64. If you're talking about the XP, you've got your facts crossed.
Nerds.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|