Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Shaun E on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Processors
- Thread starter Ovalenzu
- Start date
Wheee, you are smacking a bee's hive with a big stick!
![[bigsmile]](/data/assets/smilies/bigsmile.gif "[bigsmile] [bigsmile]")
Truthfully, it comes down to 2 things:
1) How much money can you spend?
2) What are you going to be doing with it?
If you can answer those two truthfully, we can probably better guide you toward a reasonable solution.
Cheers!
A lot depends on what you want to do with the processor. I have built systems with Athlon XP processors and PIII processors, but never a P4. They seem to work great. I have a P4 IBM at work and it works fine. I have a Via C3 processor on a Mini-ITX motherboard and it works great for web surfing and casual tasks.
If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.
If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.
If it's a simple answer to a simple question, then there is no dought at all that P4 HT 800fsb CPU's are better at this time.
The same question, asked in a differant way:
At a given price point which is the best CPU then it would be an XP.
Bang for buck = XP
Ultimate bang = P4 800fsb
And don't forget the platform in all of this!
Best for P4: Intel 865 or 875 chipset equipt motherboards
Best for XP: Nvidia's Nforce2 400
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
The same question, asked in a differant way:
At a given price point which is the best CPU then it would be an XP.
Bang for buck = XP
Ultimate bang = P4 800fsb
And don't forget the platform in all of this!
Best for P4: Intel 865 or 875 chipset equipt motherboards
Best for XP: Nvidia's Nforce2 400
Martin
Replying helps further our knowledge, without comment leaves us wondering.
Sorry Ninja2000, but it depends on which benchmarks you're looking at. The answer to the question isn't as simple as you state.
Intel's dominance isn't just from advertising. AMD and Intel have been leapfrogging over each other constantly for the past 4-5 years ever since the Athlon came into play. However, Intel has been the last to jump ahead and has been there for quite some time (at least 6 months).
AMD chips are easier to overclock as you already said, and are more efficient in terms of performance per MHz. However, Intel chips simply have more horsepower to take many (not all) benchmarks to the next level. They also lead in the reliability sector running at temperatures much lower than their Athlon counterparts.
Truthfully, I'm a big fan of both. More competition = Less price for the consumer.
~cdogg
[tab]"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
[tab][tab]- A. Einstein
Intel's dominance isn't just from advertising. AMD and Intel have been leapfrogging over each other constantly for the past 4-5 years ever since the Athlon came into play. However, Intel has been the last to jump ahead and has been there for quite some time (at least 6 months).
AMD chips are easier to overclock as you already said, and are more efficient in terms of performance per MHz. However, Intel chips simply have more horsepower to take many (not all) benchmarks to the next level. They also lead in the reliability sector running at temperatures much lower than their Athlon counterparts.
Truthfully, I'm a big fan of both. More competition = Less price for the consumer.
~cdogg
[tab]"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
[tab][tab]- A. Einstein
- Status