Intel P4 vs. AMD XP what's the deal?
I have been reading a lot about how Intel is spending big money to tell people that the + rating on AMD chips is misleading. Also I have read that they are comparing the AMD XP 2000+ to the P4 2. 2 Gig and so on.
I have been reading a lot about how Intel is spending big money to tell people that the + rating on AMD chips is misleading. Also I have read that they are comparing the AMD XP 2000+ to the P4 2.2 Gig and so on...
First of all Intel why are you saying that AMD chips are misleading at the same time you compare a 1.6GHz amd chip to a 2.2GHz gig chip and claim superiority. The 2000+ rocks your P4 2GHz yet you won't tell anyone that will you!!! So let's compare apples to oranges here...
First of all Intel why are you saying that AMD chips are misleading at the same time you compare a 1.6GHz amd chip to a 2.2GHz gig chip and claim superiority. The 2000+ rocks your P4 2GHz yet you won't tell anyone that will you!!! So let's compare apples to oranges here...
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
SiS has been putting out some nice chipsets actually, and I would buy them (and have, actually) before I would bother with Via again. Also, don't compare clock speeds (as CUViper was alluding to), but compare what's available. Compare performance, stability, cost, whatever is important to you. I got a 1.6GHz Northwood and I am running it at 2.4GHz with incredible stability with no bump in voltage and using the stock HSF. I am also doing this with a SiS based mobo from SOYO. The architectures are different enough where clock speed should just be forgotten about when it comes to comparisons.
Also, the P4 is on a 100x4 FSB, much like the Athlon is on a 133x2 FSB (there are newer versions, but this is the average). This is why you see such huge spikes in performance when the next generation of RAMBUS (hooray, a bit late aren't we?) memory is mated to just about any version of the P4. It has been bandwidth starved for most of the time, and I am hoping that DDR development will keep filling the gap.
Also, the P4 is on a 100x4 FSB, much like the Athlon is on a 133x2 FSB (there are newer versions, but this is the average). This is why you see such huge spikes in performance when the next generation of RAMBUS (hooray, a bit late aren't we?) memory is mated to just about any version of the P4. It has been bandwidth starved for most of the time, and I am hoping that DDR development will keep filling the gap.
Clutch:
So the answer is yes you are still on a 100MHz BUS, thank you. The reason I ask is that wasn't Intel using 133FSB on the P3s? Also how did you get your 1.6 to 2.4? FSB? Because I thought Intel locked their mutltipliers, thats quite a jump! And yes I realize you are on 400MHz MEM BUS if RAMBUS. I am on the 166/333 PC2700. I think both chips are great, as i run a P3 for a server and 3 other machines are Tbirds or XPs. And as for SIS, I remember when that was the worst next to PC CHIPs motherboards, that's great for them if they got better quality now, VIA has also come a LONG way.
So the answer is yes you are still on a 100MHz BUS, thank you. The reason I ask is that wasn't Intel using 133FSB on the P3s? Also how did you get your 1.6 to 2.4? FSB? Because I thought Intel locked their mutltipliers, thats quite a jump! And yes I realize you are on 400MHz MEM BUS if RAMBUS. I am on the 166/333 PC2700. I think both chips are great, as i run a P3 for a server and 3 other machines are Tbirds or XPs. And as for SIS, I remember when that was the worst next to PC CHIPs motherboards, that's great for them if they got better quality now, VIA has also come a LONG way.
Hey, I noticed you are in Seattle, I'm in Bremerton...Getting out of the Navy here real soon. Where do you work?
CyberGenX:
Intels overclock much better than the Athlons do despite the multiplier lock since the Athlons are typically clock rated much closer to thier phsyical (thermal) spec limits than Intel does. So, this gives you much more room to play with the processors, although this might affect your other components if they don't allow for asynchronous operation from the cpu. So, right now my FSB is at 150 (which could probably go higher, but I would like to get a better HSF unit first) which in turn lets my 1GB of Mushkin RAM run at 300MHz. I used some of the little bench-marketing apps, and the only thing it lagged behind at that setting was the P4 using PC800 RAM in the memory department, and it wasn't by that much.
As for SiS and Via, there was a time when SiS made very cheap chipsets, BUT, they weren't *claiming* to be that great anyway. They were filling a niche at the time, and probably still sell those types of boards as they have a good volume and margin to go with them. The thing with Via is that they *claimed* to have high performance chipsets that had major issues right out of the box. That is what I have a problem with, and that's why I just simply avoid them. SiS came out and said "try this" to the review sites, and the board screamed while being solid. That's a better way to get attention than to just use a ton of flashy marketing, get a few reviews that don't focus on stability at all, or have the sites play down or not mention anything like "yeah, it was great except that none of the ATi cards would work with it and we couldn't use all of the memory slots".
Intels overclock much better than the Athlons do despite the multiplier lock since the Athlons are typically clock rated much closer to thier phsyical (thermal) spec limits than Intel does. So, this gives you much more room to play with the processors, although this might affect your other components if they don't allow for asynchronous operation from the cpu. So, right now my FSB is at 150 (which could probably go higher, but I would like to get a better HSF unit first) which in turn lets my 1GB of Mushkin RAM run at 300MHz. I used some of the little bench-marketing apps, and the only thing it lagged behind at that setting was the P4 using PC800 RAM in the memory department, and it wasn't by that much.
As for SiS and Via, there was a time when SiS made very cheap chipsets, BUT, they weren't *claiming* to be that great anyway. They were filling a niche at the time, and probably still sell those types of boards as they have a good volume and margin to go with them. The thing with Via is that they *claimed* to have high performance chipsets that had major issues right out of the box. That is what I have a problem with, and that's why I just simply avoid them. SiS came out and said "try this" to the review sites, and the board screamed while being solid. That's a better way to get attention than to just use a ton of flashy marketing, get a few reviews that don't focus on stability at all, or have the sites play down or not mention anything like "yeah, it was great except that none of the ATi cards would work with it and we couldn't use all of the memory slots".
I left my AMD platform, not because of AMD, they make good chips, it was because of VIA and there lack of ability in designing a chip thats no only super fast but super reliable/stable. Intel design's good chips as well but there chipsets are second to none for compatibility. I use a SiS 645 chipset in my P4 system and I agree that I might have lost some compatibility but I have never experianced and problems with this setup unlike with my AMD/VIA setup.
I've said this before, but, I've been using Via-based boards without a hitch and will continue to as I have no reason currently to have to use anything else. The whole irony here is that the only chipset that has ever given me trouble has been the 440BX. The 815 is great though (save that little 512MB RAM limit) from what I've seen. I'm not anti-Intel by a long shot, but like everyone else, I use what works best for me.
Quote:
I have used VIA chips since 97 and never had a problem once, I think some people just don't know what they're doing. And as far performance goes, the KT266a and the 333(i am using now) are the fastest chipsets out there for AMD.
Well, I think that there are many people out there that don't know what they are doing as well, but I *know* that Via has had many engineering and quality problems with just about everything they touch. Congrats to those of you that haven't had any issues, but too many others (including myself, and I damn sure know what I am doing) have had problems with parts that come from that company. They have spent a lot of money to improve their image, and why do you think that is?
I have used VIA chips since 97 and never had a problem once, I think some people just don't know what they're doing. And as far performance goes, the KT266a and the 333(i am using now) are the fastest chipsets out there for AMD.
Well, I think that there are many people out there that don't know what they are doing as well, but I *know* that Via has had many engineering and quality problems with just about everything they touch. Congrats to those of you that haven't had any issues, but too many others (including myself, and I damn sure know what I am doing) have had problems with parts that come from that company. They have spent a lot of money to improve their image, and why do you think that is?
Depending on where I end up working will determine whether or not I do AMD at all at work. If I was like you with being the only AMD tech, I'd get pretty sick and tired too. Right now, I see AMD as more of a hobbyist solution--nothing wrong with that for me or a home user. However, for business give that Intel does have their act together in all area's, especially the server arena (no AMD for me there yet), is the reason right now why I wouldn't use a non-Intel solution in the workplace. Given time, and I do see AMD going there, I believe that AMD will become a stronger force outside the enthusiasts market. I think Via has gotten better, although not enough for a serious solution.
Why did I start this thread again? Should have been titled "VIA vs Intel" I think the real problem is that nothing is compatible with everything. I have seen issues with Intel chips AND VIA chips. (anyone remember the the first i815 chipset that had problems with a lot of RAM out there, Intel's solution was to send your MB back with THEIR ram in it) I love Intel and AMD, i run both, neither has problems in my configurations. Every board I have had Including the Intel system has VIA chips on it.
Let's not forget software, which is NEVER perfect; (remember Wintel anyone) very biased is MS. So there are a lot of factors at play other than JUST the chipset or CPU. Never seen a AMD optimized logo on windows have you? And let's stop saying that Intel boards don't require patches/drivers/BIOS updates either, because that is totally FALSE. I can list sev. examples...
Let's not forget software, which is NEVER perfect; (remember Wintel anyone) very biased is MS. So there are a lot of factors at play other than JUST the chipset or CPU. Never seen a AMD optimized logo on windows have you? And let's stop saying that Intel boards don't require patches/drivers/BIOS updates either, because that is totally FALSE. I can list sev. examples...
Quote:
Why did I start this thread again? Should have been titled "VIA vs Intel"
...
I love Intel and AMD, i run both, neither has problems in my configurations
Oooh, I thought you were just plain trolling - good hobby as such and wise comments you made.
You guys with strong opinions, grow up. If the world were as simple as which is better: VIA or Intel (just like the good ol' "my daddy is bigger than yours") and there would be only one clear, undisputable answer in all cases only one of those companies would be left within days. Same goes for which is the best monitor, car, RAM-type, school, Harddisk, ****-star, PC-game: anything you name.
The real world is not black and white but greyscales and color. VIA is good fore some, Intel for other uses and users.
And this is not to say why you shouldn't debate things like why VIA xxx chipset is a better choice for the gamers out there or why a Intel yyy chipset speeds things up for people parsing over 10e9 line databases. Those are the useful teaching threads.
H.
Why did I start this thread again? Should have been titled "VIA vs Intel"
...
I love Intel and AMD, i run both, neither has problems in my configurations
Oooh, I thought you were just plain trolling - good hobby as such and wise comments you made.
You guys with strong opinions, grow up. If the world were as simple as which is better: VIA or Intel (just like the good ol' "my daddy is bigger than yours") and there would be only one clear, undisputable answer in all cases only one of those companies would be left within days. Same goes for which is the best monitor, car, RAM-type, school, Harddisk, ****-star, PC-game: anything you name.
The real world is not black and white but greyscales and color. VIA is good fore some, Intel for other uses and users.
And this is not to say why you shouldn't debate things like why VIA xxx chipset is a better choice for the gamers out there or why a Intel yyy chipset speeds things up for people parsing over 10e9 line databases. Those are the useful teaching threads.
H.
