AMD or Pentium?

[Megagix]

Hello,

I'm having a dilemma trying to pick between a P4 or AMD XP Processor. I'm kind of leaning towards the AMD Processor because we've been using our old AMD-k6 for quiet a few years without ever having a problem... I've heard a few rumors about the Pentium Processors, such as spying or something as such... But I dont pay much attention to hearsay. I just want to get a few recommendations.

Thank you,
-Jason

[squirellplaying]

I have a p4 2.?63?ghz, ht technology and it runs great. So does my AMD Duron and thats 4 years old. Both computers boot in under a min. The amd in 45sec, p4 about 15 to get to the log on screen. I would go with an AMD though if you are building it your self to have the option of overclocking.

[Ultragames]

i always use AMD, btu thats a preferance.

As far as boot times go, AMD 2200 with WINXP, 23seconds.

[oracleguy]

There isn't really a correct answer to that question. It is sorta like having to decide between BMW or Mercedes when buying car, for a lot of it, it is a personal preference.

I personally would go with a Pentium 4 since you can get hyper-threading and an 800MHz FSB and then use the PC3200 DDR.

There isn't much they can put into a processor that can spy on you... lol... I'd be more worried about actual spyware getting onto your system through the internet.

[liorean]

Well, no spying, but there is the Palladium...

[Ultragames]

AMD 64 will kick the *** of any other AMD, or any P4

[squirellplaying]

From my research I've found a 64 bit processor is almost useless for home users. There are no OS that use a 64bit processor to its fullest ability and is estimated most programs will not use it till 2010. Basicly, if your going to upgrade your computer before 2010 then get some thing other then an AMD 64 because it's more money for less power.

Now for most consumers, this won't make much of a difference because most home systems don't even come with 1GB of memory, but for high-end users that do CAD/CAM or scientific research, this can make a huge difference. It also is very important for server systems running large applications such as databases.

http://compreviews.about.com/cs/cpus/a/aapr64bit.htm

[liorean]

Not until software and hardware comes optimised for the 64 bit handling, it won't. The Athlon64 is about equal to a P3 at the same Mhz, compared to the AthlonXP which can beat any processor Intel throws at it on the same clock frequency. As for the hyperthreading, it's underused in current software as well, but it's not entirly absent, which is the case for the 64 bit handling in the Opteron and Athlon64 systems.

As for the boot time comparisons, don't bother. The boot time is very little related to the processor, and very much related to internals and peripherals, as well as system loading. And the XP systems aren't loaded to the same level as Win2k or Win9x when the login starts, so that's an unfair comparison too. For example, I have FireWire, SCSI, RAID/IDE, Ethernet and Wireless LAN card in my computer, and just the RAID and SCSI systems take over a minute in initialisation before the OS even starts to boot up.

[Ultragames]

XP64 beta is already out.

Also, with XP proccessors, you can only have 3gb of RAM. You can have one terrabyte with a 64. Though no MB will allowe it. lol

[oracleguy]

I wouldn't consider getting an Athlon64 for another year or so, unless you really need the 64-bit support.

[super kobs]

Definitely P4 if you have the cash

[Megagix]

Originally posted by oracleguy
There isn't really a correct answer to that question. It is sorta like having to decide between BMW or Mercedes when buying car, for a lot of it, it is a personal preference...

That's sort of what this post is about, getting people's personal opinion about Pentium and AMD Processors. I'd like to know more about the pros and cons of each, but maybe a little evidence to support why one is better than the other.

Thank you all for your time!
-Jason

[firepages]

I have a 64bit beta edition of 2003 Enterprise Server thats nearly a year old needless to say its still in the box but at least now I could use it if I wanted to.

The 64bit Opteron runs 32bit or 16bit as required and the 1MB cache can't hurt either , give it a couple of months for the price to level out & I am definately up for 1, even now an 800mhz board (aopen) is only about $30 more than intel and I guess that will come down pretty fast as well.

Whilst I mostly push Athlon where I can ... I built my first 2.6Mhz 800Mhz PIV on an intel board last week w 2 x 256MB and was tres impressed ...

..... but on Monday I built an XP2500( Barton core 333mhz ) on a cheap as chips asrock board , and for the difference in price .... well I am sure some benchmark software could show me the difference but I could not spot it for sure.

[Celtboy]

I've always been an AMD fan. I love their performance/cost ratio, and they've been the underdog. in the early to mid 2ghz range wars, their performance levels were out of reach of the fastest intel pentium chips, even though they weren't clocked as high.

With the advent of new memory, bigger busses and larger L2 /L3 caches, Intel has passed the fastest AMD chips. I have both. Durons, Celerons, AthlonXP's and a P4. i like the p4's performance ... it kicks my other chip's bootays. (granted, it is clocked at 600 mhz higher with DDR instead of SDRAM...but it's much more than considerable.....).

Anyway, in 2 years, I'll buy an Athlon 64. Maybe.

It depends on what's important to you.

If you want top performance regardless of cost- Pentium
If you want to pay the least possible for the maximum cost - Athlon.


-Celt

[oracleguy]

Yeah it really depends on what you want out of it. I built a 1GHz Duron system a few years ago on an nForce chipset for like 400 bucks. (The whole thing, with monitor). The person just wanted to check their email on it and use the internet. With the exception of a modem, there were no expansion cards in it, which was kinda cool.

My primary system at home is a xp 1600+ which is over 2 years old. I plan to build a new machine in June which will probably be an Intel since they seem to do better in encoding, which I am starting to do a lot of. I've been converting old VHS tapes to DVD/DivX. I do gaming, programming, and Internet on it and it works reasonably well, kinda slow with the video encoding and gaming but that is to be expected since it is old.