AMD or pentium4

[arv]

I hear p4 has more Hz but AMD gets more work done/clock cycle ..
Any views on what to get p4 or an good AMD processor??

[zepherin]

go with the athlon XP. The P4's have a lower IPC than the PIII's and a much lower count than an XP.

Firingsquad benchmarks
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...onxp/page5.asp

[stflook]

Long story short, AMD processors currently perform better than the P4, and are cheaper as well. What's not to like?

[Focmaester]

I would go for AMD, has better performance and is cheaper then Intel.

[Code-X]

Pentium4 sucks rigth now and athlon is cheaper and much better
the only athlon problem that everyone told me was that it get really hot ,so u need a good coler

[Code-X]

the only reason that everyone buy pentiums is because INTEL have their name is history of market and AMD was always behind intel, but now this has changed and a few people know that

only who seek for informations about it

[antihaxor]

There are pros and cons with both chips. I have built many systems using both chips. AMDs are less expensive and in many ways faster and more efficent. There is a problem with them however.....they burn out in micro seconds without a fan. Unless they have made some recent adjustments they do not have an auto shutdown when overheating feature either. Intel chips have this going for them...you can actually let one fully post without a fan then they automaticly shut down. If you get a reliable fan and good thermal adhesive you will do best with AMD imho

[Vorlin]

*parades around holding a sign saying "Staunch AMD supporter"*

That aside, AMD's only downfall I've seen is the power consumption. Heat isn't really an issue as long as you have a certified heat-sink (rounded cables help a lot too) and a good system fan for your case. I have two AMD XP 1800+ procs on two Epox 8KHA motherboards and haven't had a hitch with them yet. AMD I will always stick with. They owned Intel the entire year of 2000 without missing a shipping date and none of their procs had to be recalled because of "floating point" errors. They're also more efficient because they get more done per clock cycle instead of stamping "2 gigahertz" on the side of the box. Gigahertz isn't everything.

[antihaxor]

Originally posted by antihaxor
There are pros and cons with both chips. I have built many systems using both chips. AMDs are less expensive and in many ways faster and more efficent. There is a problem with them however.....they burn out in micro seconds without a fan. Unless they have made some recent adjustments they do not have an auto shutdown when overheating feature either. Intel chips have this going for them...you can actually let one fully post without a fan then they automaticly shut down. If you get a reliable fan and good thermal adhesive you will do best with AMD however imho

[ThePreacher]

Just remember when choosing a chip that processor speed is not a definite indicator of performance. There are other considerations as well, including the type of RAM that you will be using, and the speed of the front side bus on the system board. A 2 ghz P4 using pc133 sdram will not perform as well as an AMD 1800+ chip using PC2100 DDR, or a similar P4 with RDRAM. Also if you are planning at looking into celeron processors, be aware that the boards for celerons only have a 100 mhz frontside bus speed. Most boards for AMD processors have 266 mhz bus speeds. An increase in bus speed can drastically improve performance.