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
But that was to be expected.
We were moving away from a totally command line OS, DOS, to something based on a GUI.
We were exploring a new way computers could operate, no longer was Windows just an application on top of an OS, it was the OS itself.
Sure, it kept it's roots firmly based in DOS and did so right up until the release of WinME (Unless you had jumped the Win9x ship before then).
Windows 95 wasn't a particularly unstable OS, sure it had it's teething problems like anything else out there, but once it had matured, once it hit the A release it was really forming itself nicely into a good OS.
Even then bad hardware could take the OS down extremely easily and even quicker would be badly written drivers.
I remember my early days with Windows 95, running on a P90 and basically it was a very stable system.
I used top quality pieces of equipment even back then, Seagate HD's, Diamond video cards, SB16's, etc and found that my productivity increased ten fold with the release of Win95, I didn't have any real teathing problems with it.
Windows 2000/XP is a rock solid OS.
All these people who have problems with these OS's are usually doing one of two things:
1. Overclocking, well of course, even the slightest overclock will reduce the stability of your system and consequently your OS.
2. Not running an Intel based system
I cannot remember the last time I saw a Win2k/XP PC crash.
Sure I've seen plenty of applications crash and in the corporate world that is usually the fault of the application, but I cannot remember the last time I saw a proper OS (Win2k onwards) taken down and totally crashed by a bad application or anything software related.
We were moving away from a totally command line OS, DOS, to something based on a GUI.
We were exploring a new way computers could operate, no longer was Windows just an application on top of an OS, it was the OS itself.
Sure, it kept it's roots firmly based in DOS and did so right up until the release of WinME (Unless you had jumped the Win9x ship before then).
Windows 95 wasn't a particularly unstable OS, sure it had it's teething problems like anything else out there, but once it had matured, once it hit the A release it was really forming itself nicely into a good OS.
Even then bad hardware could take the OS down extremely easily and even quicker would be badly written drivers.
I remember my early days with Windows 95, running on a P90 and basically it was a very stable system.
I used top quality pieces of equipment even back then, Seagate HD's, Diamond video cards, SB16's, etc and found that my productivity increased ten fold with the release of Win95, I didn't have any real teathing problems with it.
Windows 2000/XP is a rock solid OS.
All these people who have problems with these OS's are usually doing one of two things:
1. Overclocking, well of course, even the slightest overclock will reduce the stability of your system and consequently your OS.
2. Not running an Intel based system
I cannot remember the last time I saw a Win2k/XP PC crash.
Sure I've seen plenty of applications crash and in the corporate world that is usually the fault of the application, but I cannot remember the last time I saw a proper OS (Win2k onwards) taken down and totally crashed by a bad application or anything software related.
I personally have had a number of VIA chipsets, ranging from the ol' Apollo Pro 133A for my Intel system to the KT133A with an AMD system. I never had any problems with any VIA platform either. However, from the number of forum posts I've read, hassles at work and the problems that my friends have experienced, I personally would seek out any alternative. Sure I can get it going myself no problems, but the reputation alone, and the fact I'd always be left wondering whether I'd have any problems or not, is enough to put me off.
I decided to avoid the whole situation. I'm currently using a dual Athlon platform with an AMD chipset. Aside from the broken USB, (not too much of an issue for me - Asus included a USB2 card, so I lose a PCI slot, but I wouldn't be using it anyway) I haven't had a single problem. Fast, rock-solid and I didn't have that niggling feeling that I'd have any problems. Even before I migrated to my dual Athlons, I was using an Abit KG7-RAID, based on the AMD761 chipset. Ok so it wasn't the fastest out there, but it wasn't the slowest, and more importantly, I'd heard of very little issues and had no problems myself.
So to summarise, yeah I like VIA, I've had no hassles with them in the past, but due to the numerous forum postings I've seen/read/heard about, I will seek out alternatives if at all possible. I also like Intel systems - I have a P4 and a dual P3 system, (incidently, the dual P3's are running on a VIA chipset) and they've never given me any hassles either. As has been mentioned before, a processor is only as good as its supporting chipset - and VIA isn't the only chipset available for an Athlon platform.
I decided to avoid the whole situation. I'm currently using a dual Athlon platform with an AMD chipset. Aside from the broken USB, (not too much of an issue for me - Asus included a USB2 card, so I lose a PCI slot, but I wouldn't be using it anyway) I haven't had a single problem. Fast, rock-solid and I didn't have that niggling feeling that I'd have any problems. Even before I migrated to my dual Athlons, I was using an Abit KG7-RAID, based on the AMD761 chipset. Ok so it wasn't the fastest out there, but it wasn't the slowest, and more importantly, I'd heard of very little issues and had no problems myself.
So to summarise, yeah I like VIA, I've had no hassles with them in the past, but due to the numerous forum postings I've seen/read/heard about, I will seek out alternatives if at all possible. I also like Intel systems - I have a P4 and a dual P3 system, (incidently, the dual P3's are running on a VIA chipset) and they've never given me any hassles either. As has been mentioned before, a processor is only as good as its supporting chipset - and VIA isn't the only chipset available for an Athlon platform.
I do agree with you, but AMD's SMP chipset isn't a bad performer at all. They just need to keep working to produce a decent performing uni-processor one to target the enthusiast too, whilst providing support for things like PC2700, etc.
Having said that, Intel's chipsets are rock-solid stable and decent performers and that's what makes them so appropriate in the business sector. When it comes to pure performance though, the Intel chipsets are hardly the fastest. It's almost the same story with AMD chipsets - they're stable, believe it or not, and they're not the best performers, but they don't have many issues.
As for the heat issues, there's no denying that Athlons run hotter than P3's and P4's, I agree, but my two MP 2000+ chips which run at a default of 1666MHz, are currently sitting at 42 degrees whilst overclocked to 1812MHz - it's not that horrific. My heatsinks aren't even that special - they cost £22 each which is $31. As a comparison, my P4 1900 system runs at about 30 degrees with a dodgy cooler - an overall difference of 12 degrees isn't that significant a margin though.
Having said that, Intel's chipsets are rock-solid stable and decent performers and that's what makes them so appropriate in the business sector. When it comes to pure performance though, the Intel chipsets are hardly the fastest. It's almost the same story with AMD chipsets - they're stable, believe it or not, and they're not the best performers, but they don't have many issues.
As for the heat issues, there's no denying that Athlons run hotter than P3's and P4's, I agree, but my two MP 2000+ chips which run at a default of 1666MHz, are currently sitting at 42 degrees whilst overclocked to 1812MHz - it's not that horrific. My heatsinks aren't even that special - they cost £22 each which is $31. As a comparison, my P4 1900 system runs at about 30 degrees with a dodgy cooler - an overall difference of 12 degrees isn't that significant a margin though.
