AMD or Pentium? 8

[samsonx]

I have always been told that pentiums are better than AMD, and always used pentium processors myself.

I have read heaps of documentation that puts AMD down saying that their processors run hot and have a low fault tolerance.

However, I just started getting more into building computer, etc, and was very impressed when I actually sat down and played around with an Athlon XP. I found it delivered excellent performance and was very impressive in all facets. I also looked around on numerous website and found that lots of gamers and people into overclocking are also using AMD.

My questions are:

1. Do AMD processors ever run unstable (not when overclocked) in room temperature (up to 40 degrees celcius)?

2. Are there certain situations (apart from overclocking)where a Pentium processor would be better than an AMD

3. What are you views on AMD processors?

I'm very interested in your input and feedback.

Thanks,
Samson

 

[norty303]

For punch per £ you can't beat an AMD! Some specific applications will run (slightly) better on P4 and some others better on AMD. If you search here there are a number of threads with details....

My 2000 XP runs about 60c and 65 under heavy load with no probs at all. Some people here would say that's too hot but there are a number here who have chips that run as hot or hotter with no ill effects

 

[ceh4702]

Part of this problems stems from how hot the original AMD MMX processors in say a 266 speed ran compared to the Intel Processors of that era. However, at this day and age both Intel and AMD are pushing the Heat and Cooling envelope to some extent.

Intel has the largest market share and attempts to stay in the lime light and trys to control the market. So far they have been very successful at this, yet unlike Microsoft somehow they are not thought of as a monopoly. They are a lot more careful and tight lipped about how they try to control the market.

Intel is more popular and has a larger share of the market. So you see their processors in most computers. Big business likes to go with the company that is more dominant in the market for safety and flexibility. Intel is cutting edge and they do try to set the market trends. However, they have been constantly fighting off AMD, and at times have kept prices artificially high only because they have a virtual monopoly.

With the advent of the Athlon64, AMD has attempted to really push the envelope to develop a better processor. This in fact has caused Intel to be more aggressive in developing a better processor at a lower price. The success of products made by AMD and others like C3 processors made by VIA (Use to be Cirrus), are beneficial to the market because it forces Intel to be more competitive.

It is actually the big OEM companies like Dell, IBM, and HP, and others that will shape the Market. Whatever they decide has a great deal to do with the future of smaller processor manufacturers and developers.

I think that AMD is making excellent processors. Cooling is always going to be an issue, because AMD is aggressive and will push the Cooling envelope. However, I have recently built my Son who is in College a computer with the Asus A7N8X Deluxe motherboard and an Athlon 2400XP+ processor and I had no problem at all with the cooling. I used a simple Speeze Falcon Rock CPU cooler with an 8 CM Fan which I purchased for $9.00 at

http://www.newegg.com/

.
AMD is making an excellent product and I am glad that I did not have to spend too much money.

Intel is the king of the market share, but AMD makes great processors also.

If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.

 

[CreamCake]

My first venture from the Pentium was my AMD 1800XP. I'm a systems engineer and hate to venture away from pentiums for business use, but I have no real issues with AMD for home use. As long as they play the games I want at the resolutions I want (the geforce4 TI4800 helps), plus I save some cash. It may drive up my AC bill in the summer though.

I've deemed my AMD 1800+(1.53 ghz) "the radiator" as extended gaming gets my processor up to about 70 degrees celcius (no overclocking), even with the fancy all copper heatsink. In fact, the all copper $30 aftermarket heatsink made it run only 1 degree cooler on average...
There was also some AGP issue when installing windows 2000 that made the video flicker like crazy while setting up my system from scratch. But I don't do that often enough for it to be a bother. All in all I'll probably replace it with a p4 1.6ghz I have laying around. I ran that for a few months in my room and never noticed the heat. Then again, maybe I'll wait until spring...

It's hard to notice speed differences between my home processors, as I get to play with dual Xeon 3+ghz processors at work...
Just talking about it makes my home system feel outdated...

 

[paparazi]

Some generalizations in my opinion as a system builder.

XP CPU's up to but not including the 2.4 model, when
compared to the equivelant P4 are marginally quicker in most benchmarks and are available at upto 70% cheaper to buy.

XP CPU's 2.4 and over are slightly slower in most benchmarks when compared to the equivelant P4 but are upto 100% cheaper.

That means you can buy an XP2.8+ cheaper (with aguably better performance) than you can buy a 800fsb P4 2.4.
When you look at it this way you can see why there are so many AMD fans out there.

It is true if money is no object then a 800fsb 3.0 or 3.2gig P4 will easily outgun anything AMD has prsently to offer (I'm ignoring Athlon64's for the time being untill they become mainstream)

So in short: at budget to mainstream speeds AMD has it but at cutting edge and at a price P4 takes back the lead.

Lets not forget platforms:
Best for AMD are the Nforce2 400 chipset equipt motherboards followed closely by mainboards equipt with Via's KT600.
Best for Intel are Intels own 765/775 chipset motherboards

It doesn't take much thought to keep an Athlon XP cool, as long as a good heatsink is used and it is fitted correctly plus extra case fans are installed on systems over XP1.8+

Stability!!!!! hmm with decent components AMD's are every bit as stable, trouble is so many are built with generic memory, cheap power supplies and generally cheap unbranded parts.
Martin




Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.

 

[nlm9802]

1. No
2. Yes, some programs run optimally with Pentium, others with AMD.
3. They're nice to have around if for no other reason then to keep Intel's prices in check.

personally I have a 3.06 P4 @ 3.52, a P4 2.0, a AMD Tbird 1000, and a P3 500. As far as heat.. the tbird runs quite hot, around 55c when gaming, by contrast my p4 3.06@3.52 runs roughly 35c fully loaded. It's liquid cooled with a koolance system, and my room heats up about 10 degrees fahrenheit after about an hour, the radiator is very effective at lowering temps inside the computer
now that it's getting cool out I can open the window and blow some 40-50 degree air across the radiator, and processor temps plummet to the high 60's while gaming.. it gets chilly in the room though :0

cliff notes: go for a p4c 2.4 (800 fsb) or a barton 3000+, they are comparable processors both in price and performance. The key difference in gaming will be the video card.

 

[AP81]

Personally I prefer Pentiums, but Athlon are doing a very good job. The company I work for supplies Music Video Systems around the world. These are all shipped with Athlons stock standard. The cases are slightly modified for additional case fans, and the PCs are tested in different room temps up to 45 degrees. To date we have have very little problems with CPU overheating. More problems arise with Power Supplies than anything.

The bottom line is AMD are value for money. Yes they run slightly hotter, but that is nothing a couple of case fans can't fix. It is false that they do not have thermal detection...if you go to AMD's website it states in black and white that they do (older AMDs didn't though).

 

[paparazi]

Quite a few of the latest socket A motherboards have thermal protection for the latest XP CPU's, generally it is an advertised feature of the product.
Martin

Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.

 

[MaxPipeline]

Regarding AMD vs P4, I have had my XP1800 for over a year with no problems. Although I doubt the room my PC is in ever reaches 40c (104f for me) it does get warm in my room.

In terms of which is better, the better question is which is better for the price or application. I have many friends that ask me for PC advice. For most of them I always recommend AMD. The reason is for the money they can get more computer vs a similar speed Intel machine. Comparable AMD systems regularly are lower in cost by $100 or more. In the end for most people all they really notice is Windows and applications. Unless you are the type to benchmark and outdo your peers, most everyone would not notice the difference.

I have nothing against Intel. If I was a hardcore gamer or regularly use processor intensive apps and have the money to spare then I would certainly get a P4 system. But since I am not that hardcore nor have the budget to get my dream system, AMD is a better solution for me.

 

[samsonx]

Thanks all for your input. I was very interested in your opinions and also have more respect for AMD. I am very pleased with their processors and will be using them on my new PC's for a small home network.

Samson.

 

[pmonett]

I am pleased to see that all posts here sum up the situation quite objectively.
Pentiums are good, Athlons are too. True, AMD has had the reputation of an underdog, and has had thermal problems.
But those issues are in the past and now, the AMD64 is perfectly poised to threaten Intel in a big way.
I have had Athlons at home since the T-Bird. Of my three machines, only one is a Pentium - its the PC I dedicate to Internet access and firewall. It runs a P3-500, which is largely enough for what it is supposed to do - and it does not run hot nor get noisy.
Indeed, if I had truckloads of cash, I would immediately run out and get myself a P4 system with 4Ghz CPUs and 800Mhz front side bus. But if you take a look at some benchmarks (like

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-08.html),

you'll see that a 3.2 Ghz Pentium 4 rates 237 frames/second under UT2k3, while an AMD XP 3200+ (at 2.2Ghz) rates 225. In other words, to get 12 fps more, you pay how much already ?
As I do not have loads of cash, I content myself with a 2.3 Ghz AMD and a dual-channel 333Mhz FSB. Under a Radeon 9800 pro, it still runs me 5100+ points in 3DMark 2k3.

Pascal.

 

[ceh4702]

There is a certain price range to processor speed at which both AMD and Intel are almost the same. This is around the XP2600 for AMD and the Intel 2.4C Gig 800 Mhz Processor. Intel is pricing this processor and the 2.6c Gig processor very competitively. The AthlonXP processors just can not challenge the sheer speed of the Intel 800Mhz Bus Speed. I looked on some benchmarks for games comparing the 2 sides and the 2.4C can just about out-perform the Athlon XP2600.

If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.

 

[cadaveca]

i found it interesting that noone has mentioned that the amd processors run @ a lower fsb frequecy and maintain consistently high mathematical calculations/second than a pentium running @ the same bus speed.....think about it for a moment...800mhz fsb pentium or 400 mhz athlon....which uses more power? don't forget that it is thanks to amd that ddr memory became more popular(ddr was developed for the thunderbird proceesor in mind accoring to an old pc mag i found the other day).
i build all custom workstations for my clients and will steer away from pentium for cost saving measures. the only thing to keep in mind is that there are alot of applications out there that will runn faster in the hyperthreading enviroment than elsewhere(anyone remember when hyperthreading was using 2 cpu's and dealing with remainders?)
i have never had a prob with an amd not overclocked, however they can be quite unstable @ times(i am currently sitting @ a machine that runs a 1700+ running @ 2.53ghz)


the only right answer to "why?" is: "why not?"

 

[pmonett]

cadaveca

I am not sure that you can say that AMD is responsible for the success of DDR all by itself. When Intel was touting RAMBUS as the memory type of the future, DDR was not in such good shape. If Intel had kept going on with RAMBUS, I think DDR would not be any better off due to Intel's weight in the business market. DDR would be seen as the memory interface for gamers and for a fringe market.
But Intel turned to DDR, and I strongly believe that the blundering foolishness (and downright callousness) of RAMBUS has a lot to do with the fact that Intel backed off their obligations with them as soon as they could. Which, in turn, left DDR as sole alternative.

Pascal.

 

[Georgi1chuikov]

It depends on your needs and wants for chip preference.I have a thunderbird 1200 and a P4 800fsb 2.4 ghz. Both are good chips. The AMD is a heater, I do not need to turn on the heat in my PC room during the winter when I run this box. Heater chips cause other problems. Too darn noisy to cool! My AMD box sounds like a jet motor starting up!! I am leaning on the P4 at the moment because sometimes "the best bang for the buck" is not "the best" (yes, I had a little more money at the time I built my last PC). As for the AMD64 I am reserving judgement until the majority of the software I use out there will run correctly on a 64 bit platform.

 

[paparazi]

Interesting to hear comments on something like the aging T/bird 1200 and how much of a heater is was, today you could cool this processor almost silently with a large Artic cooler sporting an inaudible, low spinning 80mm fan.
Thing is 2 years ago the heatsinks were much smaller and required the use of a fast spinning and very noisey 60mm fan to keep temps down.
Now the T/bird 1200 would be considered a cool CPU.
Martin

Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.