|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Athlon XP?
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: GeForce_4_
I have recently been on the run for a new computer.
Problem is I was all decided about an ASUS mobo and an AMD athlon XP 1.5 or higher (GHZ)
Then everyone tells me they always freeze and that P4
is a lot more for your money!
So can someone clarify that for me?
Cuz soon I wanna buy one and I need to know if P4 is any etter than Athlon....
Also for the video cards :
I was also decided on an ATI Radeon 8500 at 64MB
But they told me that it was made for video and pictures.
So they recommend me a Geforce 2 or 3 TI
for my gaming....
My stuff is all changed and I need someone that knows more in detail what each hardware I listed are really made for!
HAHA! If you read up to here your a real bud!
THX ANSWER!
Posted by: Kdr Kane
You could go with any of those and be OK.
The differences are minor and are really based on user preferences.
Posted by: Outlaw
Kane's right.
Athlon XP's don't just freeze, I reboot once every few weeks and only because some programs/drivers require it when I install them.
The Radeon 8500 is good for games too, not just for video and pictures. I'd say the speed of that thing is somewhere between GF3 and 4.
Posted by: Tecil
I have an Athlon XP 1.5GHz and have had no problems with it (I did have one, but it was a faulty motherboard). The Geforce3 cards have come down in price now so they are well worth the price. I have a Geforce4 Ti4400 and I can crank it full detail at 1280X1024 and it works awesome.
Posted by: Sarc
I'm running a Athlon XP 1800+ (1.53GHz) with a Geforce 3 and I have absolutly no hardware problems in Windows XP and my system is very quick.
The only problems I ever have are due to software incompatabilities with the OS or other software.
I was a Intel fan for a long time, but the price to performance ratio, really won me over for the Athlon XP line.
They are a damn fine chip.
Posted by: Grimlock
I think it has actually been proven that the Athlon XP 1500 out perform's the 2.0 GHZ P4.
Posted by: Bobaroo
 Quote:
Originally posted by GeForce_4_
Also for the video cards :
I was also decided on an ATI Radeon 8500 at 64MB
But they told me that it was made for video and pictures.
So they recommend me a Geforce 2 or 3 TI
for my gaming....
|
I would suggest not to Get A GeForce3. You can get a GeForce4 ti4200 for about the same price, and it outpreforms it a lot.
You can get a Gainward GeForce4 Ti4200 64mb, 3.5ns-$154. Here
Posted by: Gunslinger
Quote:
Originally posted by Grimlock
I think it has actually been proven that the Athlon XP 1500 out perform's the 2.0 GHZ P4.
|
In playing the Devil's Advocate, I will point out that The Pentium 4 operates on a much faster FSB setting (not technically, but effectively), being at 400 (and now 533) as compared to the 200 mhz bus on any Athlon. And now, with good DDR support from the latest boards from Intel (845/850), and VIA (P4X333/P4X666), there's a lot more appeal to the Pentium 4. These boards even boast excellent USB 2.0 support, allowing up to 6 USB ports (average seems to be 4). The recent improvements in the motherboards may be driving me to Intel, despite the price.
I will agree, though, that the Athlon is very much more cost effective than any Pentium 4, and gets any job done that a Pentium 4 can do.
Posted by: Chako
This is what I have found:
Prices are not that different between the AMD XP and the Intel P4 as far as Mhz comparisons go. Locally, the 1.6 P4 is $60 more then the 1.6 XP (1900).
Now, if you look at motherboards, a general rule of thumbs is that the motherboard for P4s are cheaper then AMD motherboards. Often times, the price, once factored for CPU and motherboard is computed..there isn't much difference in price between the P4 system and XP system (considering DDR memory as a constant). I don't look at power supplies...because frankly..that price is negligible..so I will make this constant as well.
So on paper, it seems like it is 50/50 depending on what system you want.
Reality is that the 1.6 XP kicks the 1.6 P4 around like nothing. Intel is only recently beating the highest AMD cpus with their fastest ones, but right now, the cost is very prohibitive unless you have deep pockets.
Now, AMD motherboards are more expensive then P4 motherboard because if you go top of the line in both, the AMD motherboard has all the new features such as USB 2, RAID, LAN, 5.1 surround sound built in using C media chips, firewire, etc. P4 motherboards tend to be very plain..more geared towards the company end of things, and not towards the home enthusiast. This is not to say that you can't find P4 motherboards with some bells and whistles...it is just harder..and it won't be found on Intel chipsets either. This is why you hear the P4 systems are more stable (one factor for such things..you will hear also that VIA isn't stable..well..they are making some very stable products right now..and seem to have overcome their history of making good feature rich ideas..but very bad products).
So it all ends up to the biggest bang for the buck. It still goes towards AMD, even though they don't make the fastest hotrod rig at the moment. Intels newest processor is expensive. You can buy an AMD processor that is very close to performance and some memory on the side for the same price Intel wants for its latest and greatest (I want one but that won't happen....it is not cost effective right now..and when it does become cost effective...something better will be around.)
Now, P4s are nice machines. They run cooler, they do run a little more stable (if mission critical work is your forte..then go this route..the equipment isn't exciting..but it won't cause you any worries either), and they are easier to install because they have a full heat shield on them (AMD CPU's have this tendency to break if you don't know how to install the heatsink correctly..it takes common sense..but you know how that is lacking in some people).
I have used AMD products since the days of the K6-2 CPUs. I haven't had many problems with them. Nowadays, I haven't had any problems with my 1.2 Thunderbird either. The only problems I encounter are software ones..or OS ones. Things that make no difference what CPU your running.
So, it is up to you. They are both great machines. There are pros and cons to both setups.
Posted by: Swilo
Chako, the only flaw with your post is that the 1900+ (1.6GHz) AthlonXP is supposed to be compared to a 1.9GHz P4 (hence the naming by AMD), not a 1.6GHz P4 (that's what the 1600+ is for). Going by that it can be said that AMD systems are much more cost efficient, even after the more expensive motherboard.
My point: Anything over 1 GHz is probably overkill for a home user, and that brand won't matter so much as price. Get whatever seems best to you.
Posted by: Chako
I prefer to compare Mhz to Mhz...if you do that..the AMD 1.6 beats up the P4 1.6. There is no flaw.
Besides..all the literature I have read from AMD and many other sites state that the XP processors are stated not as a comparison with P4 chips..but with thunderbird chips.
So, an XP 1500 is actually a 1.33 MHZ but is supposed to be as fast as a 1500 Althlon thunderbird. I have no clue how AMDs naming convention has rubed off to Intels chip set line. Hmmmm....must be entropy.
here is the actual MHZ listing that I have right now for XP CPUs excluding the most recent.
1500 = 1.33 MHZ
1600 = 1.40 MHZ
1700 = 1.47 MHZ
1800 = 1.53 MHZ
1900 = 1.60 MHZ
2000 = 1.66 MHZ
2100 = 1.73 MHZ
As you can see...small MHZ increments on the AMD side. Hence, you won't find much performance increase between say 1800 to a 2000. Pathetic actually. The new naming convention was not directed towards Intel P4s, but to cover up the rather pathetic increments. Who would buy a 1.33 MHZ XP if you can find a 1.4 Thunderbird for a nicer price? But if you call it 1500..well now..everything makes perfect sense. Bha!
It does help that the new and improved naming convention scales nicely with the P4s. Actually, this is no coincidence either. However you look at it, the naming convention for XP processors is a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors. The real test is on the bench marking. This shows that because of AMD's internal architecture, it can beat many of Intels offerings that are several MHZ higher in line. Only recently has Intel trumped AMD with a faster system. Fact of the matter, many people are not knowledgeable enough to figure out that MHZ means nothing in the overall picture when comparing processors with different internal architectures. Anyone who knows how fast Motorola chips are compared to their measly MHZ rating knows this clearly.
So, I don't think I have a flaw in argument. If I was to compare 2 processors, I would compare 2 similar MHZ processors. If one beats the living daylights out of the other, then I would go for that. If it is cheaper then the one it beats...logic dictates that you can buy a faster one for the same price as the loser...then your way ahead of the game.
Posted by: Swilo
Thanks for the heads up about the naming convention being compared to a TBird core, makes sense how a 1600+ could stomp a 2GHz P4 in most tests when you think of it that way ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
