No clear performance winner between Athlon XP and P4

[susie]

http://www.tech-report.com/news_reply.x/2980

go to the above site and read if your are interested.

[nightwing7]

There may be no clear winner, but the AMD is cheaper, so thus we have our winner!!

[susie]

I agree with you that AMD cpu(s) are cheaper in price.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 15:48:29, nightwing7 wrote:
There may be no clear winner, but the AMD is cheaper, so thus we have our winner!!
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[d4n13l]

Why most people think that an Athlon is much faster than a P4 is because they look at benchmarks. What they seldom realize is what the benchmarks mean. Take for instance the Athlon, it beats the P4 in office productivity - wow! All that means is that M$ Word works faster with an Athlon.
The P4 was never designed with this in mind; Intel figured "How much faster can you make a word processor work?". Instead, they concentrated on inproving performance in tasks such as encoding and other media related tasks.
Im not saying the P4 is the fastest CPU - Its not. I am mearly stating that is not a clear cut a case as many people think. The Athlon is a faster CPU overall, but is it the fastest at the tasks that really matter to people?

Before it goes unmentioned, there is another Intel CPU that is unknown to many - the Xeon: A high end workstation CPU. Expensive it may be, but in dual cpu machines (Intel/AMD-wise) there is nothing faster.

[susie]

Yup. (I have an Intel P4 system)

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 16:05:24, d4n13l wrote:
Why most people think that an Athlon is much faster than a P4 is because they look at benchmarks. What they seldom realize is what the benchmarks mean. Take for instance the Athlon, it beats the P4 in office productivity - wow! All that means is that M$ Word works faster with an Athlon.
The P4 was never designed with this in mind; Intel figured "How much faster can you make a word processor work?". Instead, they concentrated on inproving performance in tasks such as encoding and other media related tasks.
Im not saying the P4 is the fastest CPU - Its not. I am mearly stating that is not a clear cut a case as many people think. The Athlon is a faster CPU overall, but is it the fastest at the tasks that really matter to people?

Before it goes unmentioned, there is another Intel CPU that is unknown to many - the Xeon: A high end workstation CPU. Expensive it may be, but in dual cpu machines (Intel/AMD-wise) there is nothing faster.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[zzyzzx]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 15:48:29, nightwing7 wrote:
There may be no clear winner, but the AMD is cheaper, so thus we have our winner!!
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

I agree, and based upon the pricing I'd say that the AMD is quite a bit better. I don't understand why anyone would pay $$$ for an Intel processor, presumably so that they could subsidize Intel's advertising campaign.

[susie]

Because there are so many software producer that support Intel CPUs.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 16:39:55, zzyzzx wrote:
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 15:48:29, nightwing7 wrote:
There may be no clear winner, but the AMD is cheaper, so thus we have our winner!!
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

I agree, and based upon the pricing I'd say that the AMD is quite a bit better. I don't understand why anyone would pay $$$ for an Intel processor, presumably so that they could subsidize Intel's advertising campaign.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

[pinoy2201]

there is no clear winner to this, both chip are equaly the same both have ups and downs..if u want great acurate performance and a good speed go get Intel pentiums..if u want alot speed and u dont want to spend alot go get an AMD Athlon which give avrege performance...
To me speed is not important but performance the chip gives and how long it will last

Its ur opinion to whats the best chip dont listen to all the people thats say "this is the best" "thats the best"(this poeple make me pist off )its ur money and ur computer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tinycorkscrew]

Regarding the Xeon processors, a system with 1.7 ghz dual Xeons isn't faster than a 1.2ghz Athlon MP system.

I built a dual processor workstation a few months ago, and wanted the best components I could get. I won't say money wasn't an object, but I would have bought a dual Xeon system if it really performed better. I went with Athlon MPs because they were better than or equal to the Xeons in the majority of benchmarks in which the two were tested.

Also, it's a common misconception (propogated by ZDNET and other sites aimed at less-informed consumers) that Athlons are better at office applications and Pentiums are better for 3D and games. One of the only major games that performs better on a Pentium 4 is Quake 3. Other games, like Unreal Tournament, Serious Sam, etc, perform better on Athlons.

Heck, read the old review at GamePC (a Pentium-biased site):

http://www.gamepc.com/reviews/hardware_review.asp?review=p4xeon&page=1&mscssid=&tp=

While the reviewer concludes the article by saying he'd go with a dual Xeon system, if you read the whole article you see the Athlon winning the majority of the benchmarks.

[K808]

Also keep in mind that Intel is a HUGE supporter of CNET, and CNET did the review.

Im not an Intel "hater" I built 2 P3s and a P4 for myself, but right now price-performance wise its not worth the money.

I totally agree with the post above...its your money...Ive decided to finally add an AMD computer to my setup, an XP 1800 (1.53ghz), the parts will be in on Tuesday. Ill keep you guys informed how the comp performs.

You really dont need to worry about how long a companies chip will last, because they are manufactured to typically last 10years, and realistically it wouldnt even be worth keeping it for that long anyway.

[d4n13l]

tinycorkscrew, I am a subscriber of a big UK PC magazine with no real CPU biases (infact, they are more in favour of AMD). Last issue september 2001, they had a review of an Amari workstation (RX860) with dual Xeons. They proclaimed it to be the fastest dual cpu machine that they have ever tested - faster than the dual amd they had tested previously. They said the Xeons only really show their true power when running specific software, namely code for the double speed ALU's and 128bit SIMD2 that need to be taken advantage of. It wasnt really much faster than the dual athlons at most tasks. However, if Xeons are running the right software, they will trounce any dual amd - And so they should considering the cost.
Whoever would want to buy dual Xeons to play Quake and make word documents is wasting their money. These are high performance workstation CPUs that are designed for CPU intensive tasks like encoding and rendering etc. Until there is more specific software, the Xeons will not look as powerfull as they really are. Performance of the Xeon will be variable UNTIL software developers have got fully tweaked compilers and produce the software for it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-10-11 18:10:34 ]</font>

[kinneera]

Here it goes again...

[d4n13l]

Not really. All CPUs have advantages and disadvantages. I dont give a rats ass for any... Im not buying a CPU.... yet.

I like Athlons, but then the P4s arent at their full potential yet: It will be interesting to see what the scene is like by mid-late 2002 when Brookdale is at 2.5Gz and there is more software support for P4. All Im trying to do is state that the differences are not that clear cut.
If I were to buy a dual CPU then I would be seriously considering a dual AMD - I wouldnt even consider Xeon's as they are far too expensive.

[gf]

O.K. if we don't use benchmarks what do we use? CLOCKSPEED?
Benchmarks are just programs that perform certain functions and we measure the time it completes in, like MPEG4 Video Encoding,MPEG2 Video Encoding, Gaming, 3D Rendering & Animation not only "office productivity". I give AMD the thumbs up if they have a processor that has PERFORMANCE of a processor that is running 250Mhz or faster than theirs.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1543

[gf]

Why should people go out and buy new compiled software just to get performance on the pentium4 line. I sure as he## won't. And if the xeons are so good why did Intel pull the 2Ghz model and wait for the 2.2Ghz:0)

[thxkid]

If you are interested in speed then go get a Quad Sun Microsystem, it will rip and Intel or AMD system, by the way my brother bought one these babies for state of arizona internet (he runs and maintains it) each Cpu (4 of them) is 1 gig with 1 meg of cache built on and he runs 3 gigs of ram on the system also, price well its not for us - $53,000.
Its been on line for 8 months 24-7 and has never crashed, they actually bought 2, one for a backup for when one is down for maintence.
The point is we buy what we can afford, 3 months ago I got a AMD 1.2 Thunderbird 266 bus with a Epox motherboard with 2 ide and 2 raid for $199, been great very since now I see Intel pent 4's with motherboard for $239, might have gotten one of those instead if I had waited, can't wait forever, so I wnet with what I saw as a good deal for what I needed it for, Video editing, and Glyde games with my VooDoo 5500 card. Been up for 3 months now has never locked up or gave my any probs, I am even running WIN98 gold.
Heck maybe I am just flat lucky and happen to get all the right combinations.

[susie]

Have people given a thought as to why AMD CPUs are much cheaper than Intel CPUs ?

Lower your price to kill competitors ?


<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 15:48:29, nightwing7 wrote:
There may be no clear winner, but the AMD is cheaper, so thus we have our winner!!
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: susie on 2001-10-12 10:09:40 ]</font>

[d4n13l]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 18:20:52, gf wrote:
Why should people go out and buy new compiled software just to get performance on the pentium4 line. I sure as he## won't. And if the xeons are so good why did Intel pull the 2Ghz model and wait for the 2.2Ghz:0)
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
I dont know why Intel pulled the 2Ghz model; All I said was that dual Xeons are faster than dual Athlons. Thats all, I would buy Athlons personally, but thats me. I was just trying to state the facts here - Im not an Intel lover by a long way. Dual Xeons are faster than dual Athlons, end of.

Clockspeed is very misleading. The differences between architecture are too vast. Would you compare a Power Macs clock speed to an Athlon and think that the Athlon was faster, just because it had a faster clock speed?
You shouldnt really have to go out and buy specially compiled software, this is just one of the ways Intel try to out manouvre their opponents. I havent ever paid for software but most of it is compiled for Pentium CPUs, which makes it run faster.

thxkid, true... there are many faster systems than intel/amd. Apart from Sun Sparc's there are Alpha, IBM Power PC and Risc based machines. The prices of these machines are massive though compared to intel/amd based systems. Sparc's are industrial strength, professionals computers, amd/intel are for Joe Public.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-10-12 13:45:05 ]</font>

[d4n13l]

Which CPU is faster?

Which benchmark matters more?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2001-10-12 16:58:48 ]</font>

[jonyutah]

You can buy a dual athlon 1.53ghz system for the price of a p4 2.0ghz system and have money left over to get a GeForce 3. If you can't see who the winner is then you must be one of the ignorant ones that Intel love. A suzuki GSXR will beat a Ferrari hands down and cost about 1-20th the price. whos the winner there? The flashy Ferrari? P4 is all hype, Athlon Gets the job done. I can't believe that there are people Supporting an overpriced Inferior product. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!

[d4n13l]

Who are you talking to?
All threads here have all been for AMD - Who exactly is supporting the P4 here? Not me, all I did was state that Xeons (Xeons - NOT the standard Pentium 4's) are faster than athlons, but I also said that they are very expensive for what they are. I may have said a few things for the P4, which is what anyone with neutral bias would have said, but I said better things about the athlon ie. They are a lot better value for money. All I was doing was stating the facts. Despite people like you that only see in black and white, others present a less biased view towards each product. You will probably be the victim of your own bias, still blindly supporting the athlon when it is no longer king of CPUs, just as Intel lovers support the P4 now. No one here has suggested that people should buy a P4: Why dont you "OPEN YOUR EYES" and read each post carefully next time?

Also, I am interested; where can you buy 1.53Ghz MP certified athlons?

Oh, and just incase you didnt get the 'subtle' hints: If were to buy a CPU tomorrow, then it would be an athlon.

[nfl2k2]

How would I make a Dual 1.5 athlon system?

[TheInformer]

IMHO, the true benchmark is $$$ :^)

Let's say you have $300 to spend on a CPU/mobo/RAM combo.
What combination is going to give you the most bang for the buck?

I myself do not have the luxury of buying whatever I can; I have to buy what I can afford. The P4/Athlon discussions are moot and remind me of the Atari 2600/Intellivision, Apple/IBM, NES/Genesis, and N64/Playstation "mine is better than yours" discussions.

If I can get an Athlon CPU, good mobo, and 256 megs RAM for the $300 and still have money left over for a GeForce or TV Tuner card, then go with that combination. Ditto if the same can be said for the P4 setups.

[gf]

This reply is for nfl2k2.
A good start for a dual AMD system would be here.

http://www.tyan.com/products/html/athlon.html

[gf]

check out MPEG2 benchmarks!!!!!!

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000227

[Havic]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 16:09:16, susie wrote:
Yup. (I have an Intel P4 system)

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-10-11 16:05:24, d4n13l wrote:
Why most people think that an Athlon is much faster than a P4 is because they look at benchmarks. What they seldom realize is what the benchmarks mean. Take for instance the Athlon, it beats the P4 in office productivity - wow! All that means is that M$ Word works faster with an Athlon.
The P4 was never designed with this in mind; Intel figured "How much faster can you make a word processor work?". Instead, they concentrated on inproving performance in tasks such as encoding and other media related tasks.
Im not saying the P4 is the fastest CPU - Its not. I am mearly stating that is not a clear cut a case as many people think. The Athlon is a faster CPU overall, but is it the fastest at the tasks that really matter to people?

Before it goes unmentioned, there is another Intel CPU that is unknown to many - the Xeon: A high end workstation CPU. Expensive it may be, but in dual cpu machines (Intel/AMD-wise) there is nothing faster.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Damn dude your retarded..AMD is by far the better chip have you ever played with both types of chips...A Athlon is by far the better chip and the chip sets that go with it are by far better...Your big intel p4 has sucky FSB for one
They cost double in price....I have seen a Athlon 1.4 in a machine against a P4 2ghz and by far the Athlon only being a 1.4 ghz blows the P4 2ghz out the water...As for your
xeon that chip is fast but it sucks for the price..I work
for a big computer firm that supports more than 10,000
Stores nationwide....We perform test on new chipsets and processors all the time and xeon is fast but speed dont have to be a weeks pay....So I think you need to learn your facts a little better..

[rasch]

Here's my 2 =Y= on why Intel is still the market leader in procs dispite AMD's obvious price and performance superiority:

If you ever call up software or hardware technical support for anything and the person can't find an obvious reason for whatever difficulty you're having they'll ask what proc you're using. If you say AMD then you get, "Well there ya go! I should have asked you that to start with. Our software/hardware doesn't run well on an AMD"

This is frontline BS that tech-support people fall back on when they can't figure things out. I've been dealing with tech-support people at all levels for quite a few years now and this is a universal trait handed down from generation to generation of tech-support personnel in the guise of actual knowledge. However, it's perpetuated by the industry (Intel, MS, etc).

The Athlon MP 1.2Ghz out performs the P4 1.7Ghz by a small margin. Xeons outperform the standard Athlon. An UltraSparc III 750Mhz will smoke any x86 proc config on the market. Why? CPU generation and overall architecture.

AMD, since they got past the K6 compatability issues, has consistantly produced better quality architecture than Intel. I believe AMD even released a press statement at some point this last year that they are no longer going to focus on clock speed as thier _primary_ performance metric. AMD intends on putting more focus on architecture ... which is why the 1.2 MP out erforms a P4 1.7

The only thing that Intel is going to put out in the near future worth looking at is the Itanium proc. I saw some performance metrics on this bad boy at work ... wholly caffeine rush batman! 4 FPU's in that thing!

Summary: AMD rocks.

[d4n13l]

Havic, damn dude, you must be retarded.
LOL!
I know Athlons outperform the P4. I know that. I said that. Cant you read?
Just for the record I said:
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
"Im not saying the P4 is the fastest CPU - Its not. I am mearly stating that is not a clear cut a case as many people think. The Athlon is a faster CPU overall, but is it the fastest at the tasks that really matter to people?"
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
The Athlon does not outperform the P4 at EVERY single benchmark, thats all I was saying. I know full well that overall, an Athlon craps on the P4. I was just clearing some myths about the P4 being as bad as some people would like us to believe.

As for my facts they are all correct:
Xeons are faster than Athlons.
The Xeons do cost mega $$$$'s, so are not really viable for most.
The P4 is way overpriced.
The Athlon does not outperform the P4 at every single task.
The Athlon outperforms the P4 at nearly all benchmarks.
The P4 is inferior compared to the Athlon.
The Athlon is the better value of all the x86 CPUs by a big margin.

Which one of these would you disagree with?
Why dont you read what is being said and get your facts right? RETARD!
ROFLMAO at you!

Just because I may have a couple of small things to say in Intels defence, doesnt mean that I love the P4, far from it. I wouldnt buy one if I was paid...
Learn to read man, it would benefit you in the long run.


jonyutah,
I am still waiting to find out where I can buy a 1.53Ghz MP Athlon - Looks like you clearly dont even know what you are talking about. hehe.

[d4n13l]

For people that have no subjectivity:

I love Athlons.
I dont love P4's.
Understand?

lol

[jdgrabb]

Alright, I have had it with the Athlon Elite.
I work at a university in multimedia production let me give you the run-down.
1) Athlons are fast...until they have issues.
Yep thats the bottom line. Athlons have a way higher failure rate than any intel cpu-period. Thats why Dell and some other companies won't touch them. Also they tend to slag in genuinely catastrophic fashions. I have never seen a liquid metal drip out of an intel but I've seen it in like three different AMD systems.
2) Software is an issue...even now.
Thats right. Like it or not software and hardware the world-over is still written to the intel standard, not the amd's. This means that no matter how much we may want to talk about high blindingly fast an Athlon is it will still never have the advantages of software being written specifically to suit it. You want a test on that? Put any two production machines with identical hard drives, video cards, etc. with only the motherboards, ram, and cpus being the exception on the line to run something like Premeire, Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects and I can already tell you who has won. The code favors the intel. Thats why the forum sites are full of Athlon users bitching about weird errors in their production programs.
3) The Athlon is inexspensive...well sort of..
I don't get this. There's like a whole $40 of difference for the high end athlon system and the high end intel system. I'm sorry guys I've done the math and on top of that the Intel has rdram which should be way more exspensive than AMD's DDR ram.
4) Dual support in Athlons...sort of.
I don't trust anybody who just now manages to pull this off...what took so long? Sorry, my tech head paranoia takes over there. Same reason I wouldn't buy a Voodoo 5500. I liked Voodoos, something just made my spine tingle about it taking so long to get them out.

So, in a production evironment where I have to get results or get fired I take the Intel every time. Its the option that makes sense for professionals. You'll never see anybody that I know that works professionally in multimedia using athlons as more than word processors and internet pcs, period.

If you like Athlons despite these things more power to you, it shows you are a pretty good tech-head to avoid these issues, but for those of us in the intel camp that know that productivity is time not spent fixing intel is the choice. It doesn't tarnish you guys and it doesn't have to be a slam fest going on about how intel is evil. IT SPECIFICALLY MEETS OUR NEEDS SO IT IS NOT OUT OF LINE TO RECOMMEND IT TO OTHERS WITH SIMILIAR NEEDS.
Thank you.