Processor Question

[Wolf]

Quick question. People seem to be suggestioning me to get a AMD Athlong processor. But from what I used to think, Pentium 4 would be better, but I am unsure. So which is better? AMD or Pentium?

[Devirka]

Pentiums tend to be faster, but AMD offers better performance for the dollar.

This practically means that the cutting edge Pentium will be faster than the cutting edge AMD, but a Pentium CPU running at the same speed (not clock speed) than an AMD will be more expensive than the AMD.

Considering that CPUs are outdated a week after they are released (exaggeration) I'd suggest you to go for the value instead of the little extra performance you may get for something that will not be worth the money one week later.

One thing I do hear about Pentiums better than AMD is that the Pentium has an on chip security feature that will shut down the CPU if it overheats, the AMD does not. This may cause the AMD to melt down on extreme temperatures. Yet I hear that most AMD motherboards make up for this by adding the feature on the board itself.

[EvilIguana966]

I agree with Devirka. Unless you absolutely totally must have the absolute best chip there is then you will be better served by the athlon. Going with a 3 gig P4 or Athlon 3000+ you'll have more than enough power for pretty much everything.

[Wolf]

I was going to get a 3.4ghz Pentium 4 for him for like 260 or something like that. Could I get a better one for the buck?

[Tinnax]

http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/pentium4-3.4ghz/index.x?pg=5

Already posted elsewhere, but it gives a good run down on what to expect.

I would have to disagree about top of the line Pent4 being better than top of the line AMD. The bench marks show that across MANY gaming processes, AMD beats out P4.

For overall performance, -aside from gaming style graphics- P4 does do a more 'solid' job, but for pure gaming, AMD64 is the hands down machine, both in terms of performance and price.

As to P4 having a shut-off at overhead and AMD not having a shut-off, well, there's a good reason for that. P4s run -extremely- hot, reaching up to 78 degrees C, whereas AMDs rarely go over 50 even overclocked. Again, see the above link for the specifics.

[Devirka]

Just a note, i HAVE seen melted AMDs that have not been overclocked.

[DocBobo]

From the same site that offered you the Athlon crash'n burn videos: P4s run too hot (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041114/index.html)

At the moment a P4 (at the same virtual speed as an Athlon 64) runs a whole lot hotter than the Athlon. In fact they run so hot that Intel had to can the 4GHz processor and work on different techniques to improve speed. Meaning, which each speed grade they will pack more cache on the die till they can solve their heat problems.

P4s beat Athlons in a few selected benchmarks, mostly those that require lots of memory bandwith: video and sound encoding and CAD.
I'd like to say a few warm words about hyperthreading and office benchmarks, but I'll keep it down to: if you like to run 3 office programs at the same time under heavy load and encode DVDs for the fun of it in the background, go Intel by all means. (I'd like to express my opinion that office benchmarks get stranger every year to "prove" what new processor processor generations can do for you).

From a technologically point of view, AMD has Intel with the back to the wall. However
a) nobody seems to realize (the outdated opinions in this thread are proof enough)
b) AMD couldn't keep up with demand if they wanted
The only product that's better right now at Intel is the notebook sector. The Pentium M and the Centrino chipset beat out everything AMD has to offer at the moment.
(I'm not kidding you, Intel is with the back to the wall. They have so bad problems with their process they can't built any faster ones. They'll never reach 4GHz or will not for quite some time. All while AMD brings the 4300+ model next month. Think about it: why did Intel introduce the numbering scheme for their processors? Do you know what a Pentium 4 550 is? Or a P4 330? Well, they don't want you to. It's easier to hide the processing problems from the public this way. "No thanks, I'll wait till the 4GHz model comes out." Erm.)

Well, and there is that announcement at the top of this forum. Actually I had hoped a few of you would take the time and browse through the links there. The information is there, and some of it is right at the front page of the sites. Maybe I'll put a few flashy lights in the topic name and a "read me, damn it" tag behind it. /ponder :wink:

[EvilIguana966]

The faster you run a chip, the more waste heat you generate. Athlon chips at 2100 MHz function like a pentium running at 3000 MHz, but produce less heat. I have to wonder just what kind of special voodoo the techs at AMD have domne to get such an enormous amount of performance without increasing the clock speed, and what the results could be if the Athlon in the above example were running at a full 3000 MHz.

The one thing I know for sure is that faster clock speed == more electricity == more heat buildup. What I really don't understand fully is why today's chips built with much smaller circuits can run so much hotter than those of yesteryear.

[Iueamil]

It's true that if you don't have the cooling pad perfectly connecting your CPU with the cooler, then your P4 can loose performance over time.

I have one of those CPUs and made it certain that my cooling is perfect.

If you go for a 64 bit, then I would recomend an AMD, else take the P4 and be sure about the cooling device.

Pentium is normally more reliable than AMD.
That is the reason why Sony changed their notebooks to only pentiums.
They used to have AMD notebooks before but not anymore.

General thumbrule is that Pentium ismore reliable and has less heat problems than AMD. But this processor lineup it turned around and pentium have the heat problem and the AMDs don't.

Iue

[Faladarea]

Well, if you put the right cooling device (http://www.hardcorecooling.us/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=631&HS=1) on the system its all good :)

[FuzzyBear]

I would reccomend AMD for one reason - RAM cost.

Granted I haven't even glanced sidewise at P4 specs since their release, but I believe all P4 processors require RAMBUS memory. (They used to, don't know if they still do)

This means that you need to buy RAM in pairs.

Upgrading costs are higher, but performance is too.

Would anyone who knows for sure mind correcting me on this if I'm wrong? Googling something like that is going to churn up more [h]ard forum and neowin links than I'm keen on pickaxing my way through at the moment.

[DocBobo]

Intel mainboards work with either DDR-Ram or DDR2-Ram these days. DDR2 is DDR with higher clockspeeds and the memory sticks work at lower voltages.

[FuzzyBear]

Does that translate into cooler temperatures inside, say, a laptop?

[Mutton]

Intel mainboards work with either DDR-Ram or DDR2-Ram these days. DDR2 is DDR with higher clockspeeds and the memory sticks work at lower voltages.
//Clarify
The 915 chipsets will swing both ways. The 8xx chipsets are DDR only and the 925 chipsets are DDR2 only.

[MrDigital]

I have always been an Intel person. I used to run into AMD compatibility issues which probably don't exist anymore. Also, for the record the last time I upgraded (3.2 P4 was the brand new high end) I looked at top end components for my rig from both sides of the fence. After said and done the price difference between AMD stuff and Intel stuff (this means, mobo, CPU, RAM etc) was roughly $30 more for Intel....

I went Intel, if it would have been a significant difference I was going to get AMD.

I never overclock so which can do it better hasn't interested me.

Also, I believe only the first generation of Pentium 4s used RAMBUS memory. It was highly expensive even then and moreso today. In short order the major MOBO makers would let you use PC133 and shortly after THAT, DDR.