Absurd Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 And you can overclock a P4 1.6 / 1.8 to 2.4/2.8 for less than a 'slower' AMD. Read em and weep AMD users: http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1690&p=10 and: http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1690&p=9 Also, AMD's are ovens: "The Intel Pentium 4 CPU needs a big fat cooler, because its heat output is up there with that of the faster Athlons. But the P4's much harder to damage, or even just cause to crash, if you use a lousy cooler, or even none at all. The P4's thermal throttling feature lets it drop its speed when it gets too warm. So under-cooled P4 systems may be a lot slower than they should be, but there's a good chance that they'll keep running, and the CPU won't be smoked." http://64.85.13.100/coolercomp_p5.htm Need more proof AMD's are hot burning and slow running? Check out this video (make sure you have the latest Divx codec): http://www12.tomshardware.com/images/THG_CPU_Cooling.zip Not to mention VIA chipsets are the most incompatible motherboard chipsets in the industry. Intel all the way baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clem Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 intels pop as soon as u run them without the fan ... they are NOT tolerant of heat ... this is from the experience of the person that made my pc so what if AMDs run warm? .... who cares as long as its not damaging it also intels are TWICE the price of AMDs ... so y bother AND THEY HAVE THAT ANNOYING TUNE IN ALL ADDS GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted August 27, 2002 Author Share Posted August 27, 2002 Originally posted by Darth Clem intels pop as soon as u run them without the fan ... they are NOT tolerant of heat ... this is from the experience of the person that made my pc so what if AMDs run warm? .... who cares as long as its not damaging it also intels are TWICE the price of AMDs ... so y bother AND THEY HAVE THAT ANNOYING TUNE IN ALL ADDS GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Uh.. did you even watch the video!?!?!? The Intel keeps running Quake 3 WITHOUT the fan! The AMD BURNS UP. Man - you didn't even watch the video and start spreading ignorance. Sheesh. You'll probably want to edit your post because others are going to watch the video and wonder what the heck you are talking about. Also, like I said you can overclock a 1.6 and 1.8 for less than an AMD - you don't even read the original post. See here: http://www.outsideloop.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=olcomp&Product_Code=CMB-P4OC&Category_Code=int-cmb I don't even hear my (retail) fan, where with an AMD you have to run the mega jet propulsion sounding fan to keep it cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivy Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 i upgraded my pc to an amd athlon xp 1800+ and when i bought it it was the same price at a celeron 1000mhz, did i make the wrong choice? i don't thing so. at first i was a bit sceptical as i had always used intel before, so i did my homework. from 3 different computer magazines they said that the 1800+ outperforms the p4 2g and it's 1/4 of the price. I have had it for awhile now and i have had no problems with it whatsoever. also i have a heatsink and fan that can handle 2.2 gb and i can't hear it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Every computer ive had crashes at will, be it Intel or AMD. Overclocking is just dumb imo, why risk burning out a chip for the sake of a few measly Mhz. It will only cost you money when the damn thing blows up and it will eventually. Running things above there specified limit will ultimately end up with reduced reliablity and false economy. The best thing you can do is spend as much as you can afford to and be happy with what you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivy Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Originally posted by Jah Warrior Every computer ive had crashes at will, be it Intel or AMD. Overclocking is just dumb imo, why risk burning out a chip for the sake of a few measly Mhz. It will only cost you money when the damn thing blows up and it will eventually. Running things above there specified limit will ultimately end up with reduced reliablity and false economy. The best thing you can do is spend as much as you can afford to and be happy with what you get. amen brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 Intel owns AMD?!?!?!? you mean they are the same company, damn i'd never had guessed. Was there a boardroom takeover or did intel secretly buy up as many shares as they could lay their hands on? WOW the way the PC world works is unbelivable. next you will tell us Microsoft 0WNz Apple, whatever next I wonder?!?!? PS SivyB, your siggy is cool, love that homerism!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivy Posted August 28, 2002 Share Posted August 28, 2002 didn't you know bill gates owns everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted August 28, 2002 Author Share Posted August 28, 2002 Originally posted by Jah Warrior Every computer ive had crashes at will, be it Intel or AMD. Overclocking is just dumb imo, why risk burning out a chip for the sake of a few measly Mhz. It will only cost you money when the damn thing blows up and it will eventually. Running things above there specified limit will ultimately end up with reduced reliablity and false economy. The best thing you can do is spend as much as you can afford to and be happy with what you get. I didn't realize that 1.6 - 2.4 is a few measly mhz. Overlocking is just fine, and chips don't burn out cause of it. Gee, even if they did, who keeps CPU's longer than 6 months? Guarenteed overlocked systems are ran with Prime95 and other torture tests. You'd be surprise that many CPU's are exactly the same except for not passing the Intel / AMD super torture tests, which go far beyond anything you'd do with your own computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummo.nz Posted August 29, 2002 Share Posted August 29, 2002 Originally posted by SivyB didn't you know bill gates owns everything? yes, i did know that. http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents.html oh, and also a look into his ethics: http://www.theonion.com/onion3321/windows98.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forinec Posted August 29, 2002 Share Posted August 29, 2002 Have you even read the reviews for Athlons? They're made to play high-end games. Almost every PC gaming magazine I've read has PC's featuring Athlons. Just because it costs more doesn't mean it's the best thing you can get. That's how companies rip off people. Grab an Athlon and see the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JandoFett1842 Posted August 29, 2002 Share Posted August 29, 2002 No ****! Shourlock!! no offence ment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teutonicknight Posted August 29, 2002 Share Posted August 29, 2002 Bah! All companys are evil. And I already knew that Microsoft owns everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CagedCrado Posted August 29, 2002 Share Posted August 29, 2002 AMD is only good for games, dont waste your money if you ever use anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted August 29, 2002 Author Share Posted August 29, 2002 Originally posted by Forinec Have you even read the reviews for Athlons? They're made to play high-end games. Almost every PC gaming magazine I've read has PC's featuring Athlons. Just because it costs more doesn't mean it's the best thing you can get. That's how companies rip off people. Grab an Athlon and see the difference. Well, for Athlon's being made games they sure do suck at them compared to Intel's: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1690&p=9 http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1690&p=10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NerfYoda Posted August 29, 2002 Share Posted August 29, 2002 Ok I'll bite... This chart shows JKII running at 158.8 FPS on the P4 2.8 while the Athlon 2600+ reports 144.6 FPS. a) thats a Mhz to FPS ratio of roughly 17.6/1 for the P4 & 18.0/1 fot the Athlon. The Athlon has to work .018 Ghz harder to pull out that extra frame per second. Thats hardly a difference. If you need the extra 14 FPS performance the P4 (which is rated faster than the Athlon 2600+) then go for it, but isnt that a little shallow? The human eye cant read anything over 70FPS or so anyways. Intel is hardly "owning" AMD here. b) The latest pricewatch.com figures show the P4 2.8Ghz at $546, while the Athlon XP 2600+ is $389. It's going to cost you about $150 DOLLARS more to pump out a paltry extra 2.4 FPS c) As for the whole oven thing. I saw the videos too. They look cool , but understand that that P4 running sans cooling unit would eventually crash that box. That test was also run on an older P4, so presumably the newer P4's would run hotter (I may be wrong here though). Anyhow, if you want to keep on replacing your $550 processor every single time you want to show your friends how cool it is to watch your JKII FPS drop 10 to when you remove your fan go right ahead. In terms of bang for the buck Intel will never beat AMD. Bothchips are reliable, but The Athlon's price + its use of the 3D Now! along with Intel's SSE instruction set.... you get my drift. Yeesh I'm turning bitter in my old age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrEEpaGe Posted August 29, 2002 Share Posted August 29, 2002 you people do not take into consideration that a great deal of intel pentium 4 systems will be built with DDR or worse *shudders* SDRAM. thus, they do NOT reap any great reward of the 533 or 400 mhz FSB that keeps them lording over AMD in the high end benchmarks. in the end, oem prices will stay the same intel vs amd, and performance will be VERY comparable. once ddr 533 and 400 and waht not begins to take hold, with AMD's k8 coming out (not as soon as many would hope, but with the xp2400, 2600, and soon the 2700, amd will keep up its marketing pressure on intel (except that the 2.8 value of intel is higher than that of the 2700 of amd, obviously meaning it is of higher value (it is certainly in price)). at any rate, it really does NOT matter because this is all high end rhetoric and a simple race to 3ghz and beyond....marketting marketting marketting and you all who are devoted to either side are all taking their ploys hook line and sinker. *edit* btw, i do believe that most athlon xp systems (in fact nearly ALL) are very vulnerable to die overheat...only now are m/b mfgrs beginning to realise what a terriblet hing this is.....hopefully we can see more solutions like Asus is soon to be bringing, because a burnt out processor is good for no one... and another thing..the 2 new athlon xp's are very over clockable..the 2600 i believe was overclocked to about 2600 mhz by toms hardware guide, corresponding to a model number of about 3400 ( i have not checked my math; in all probability i am wrong )....this is not to say that it can beat the p4...the p4 IS a good processor, albeit an expensive one... and on your video from tomshardware, there are definitely steps being taken to eliminate thermal death from the new processors directly because of that video....its good to mention those things ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
access_flux Posted August 29, 2002 Share Posted August 29, 2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kstar__2 Posted August 29, 2002 Share Posted August 29, 2002 Originally posted by access_flux WTF? LOL i also run an amd athlon xp 1800+ and i never ever had problems with it, i did have a intel pentium 166 Mhz, and i got a hell lot of problems with it, so i guess you could say amd works better that intel don't let yourself get swept away, just becouse intel is better known Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDove Posted August 29, 2002 Share Posted August 29, 2002 I don't know which are better for what. Ehh does 15 FPS really make that big of a difference, or that half fps on other test? I'd rather get my 150$ and spend em on something else like a graphics card, instead of getting those 15fps more... Btw, which one is better for like rendering and picture things? (<notice how I have no idea what I'm talking about) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aka Posted August 29, 2002 Share Posted August 29, 2002 I must admit Intel has the "speed" crown, however there is more behind the scene's going on than just the current CPU lineup. You may or may not know that AMD is working on a CPU line called "Hammer" or Opteron. AMD is not working on a tired old design of the 32-bit kind that Intel uses to up its CPU frequency just to get the titile of fastest consumer CPU. Sure Intel has the Merced "IA-64", but it is only targeted for server based systems and it executes 32-bit programs horribly. The Hammer on the other hand can process 32 bit and 64-bit without performance loss, even in the case of 32-bit there is a better performance reatio mhz for mhz compared to the latest XP line out now. If the PIII were at the same Mhz levels as the Throurghbreds are now they would match up pretty evenly, however the PIV has to have more Mhz to even try to compete with the AMD line. AMD has a more value ended Multi-CPU solution than intel and work a lot better for the money then its Xeon counterpart. Its too bad Intel dropped their value multi cpu chipsets, that would mean more power for less money. I like AMD because it is not Intel, who has dominated the PC industry ever since its beginning. It's competition and that lowers prices. I like Intel too because it has invovates the CPU so much and is continuing to do so. I don't see anything coming from Intel in the next year that will improve current apps that are out now and at the same time can have a 64-bit CPU that people are actually looking forward to. Sure x86 is old and needs to be repaced, but the software needs to be replaced too. That is Intel's problem, they don't wait for the software to catch up and that is their weakness in having a cpu that cannot perform 32-bit code very well. I seen reprts where the Merced performs worse than the mhz equivelent of a PIII. What is that? It reminds me of Alpha's old line up for CPUS that were all risc, but performed poorly on emulation of x86 code. It performed so badly running traditional apps. People have so much invested in old apps that when they do upgrade their systems to 64 bit, will they have to buy completely new software to get better performance or can they stay with the old ones and get more performance while migrating to the new 64-bit code. You seem to favor intel to the point of idolism. Oh and overclocking? overclocking? bah... what do you do with your system? that stresses the components way too much for it to be stable platform for series work. I used to wonder why I couldn't overclick a system that was a critical working machine. Overclocking when done well can have stable results in certain situations, however, it seems the systems that are overclocked way beyonf their designed speed can cause problems overtime even for a gaming system. This in itself can beexpsisive when these components fail. $100 here and $200 there can add up a lot overtime when overclocking, that's why i try to keep it as a hobby and nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clem Posted August 29, 2002 Share Posted August 29, 2002 look absurd .... my info comes from sum1 who builds systems DAY IN AND DAY OUT! not 1 video of 2 cpus ..... the AMD's run hotter but they are more tolerant of heat (my Thunderbird 1.4ghz runs at 60C) ... intels run cooler but pop sooned when they start to warm up! this is from experience dont knock it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted August 29, 2002 Author Share Posted August 29, 2002 Originally posted by Darth Clem look absurd .... my info comes from sum1 who builds systems DAY IN AND DAY OUT! not 1 video of 2 cpus ..... the AMD's run hotter but they are more tolerant of heat (my Thunderbird 1.4ghz runs at 60C) ... intels run cooler but pop sooned when they start to warm up! this is from experience dont knock it Hearsay is experience? Hrm ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absurd Posted August 29, 2002 Author Share Posted August 29, 2002 The real problem isn't necessarily the AMD CPU's (though they have issues) - it's mainly the chipset they choose to use - which are VIA. They are just simply incompatible with a lot of software/hardware. Check http://www.viahardware.com and read the numerous tweaks to get a "VIA" based system running. It's ridiculous. Again, never had any problems with an Intel CPU and/or chipset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clem Posted August 29, 2002 Share Posted August 29, 2002 well i cant comment on via chipsets i have an ali chipset on my asus board edit: its not hearsay its his experience with the things and hes passing it onto me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.