Not sure which brand I should buy. just want the fastest/best for my money. Mostly for high end graphics workstation work. Photoshop, 3D Studio Max, Form Z, Flash, etc. Any suggestion?
AMD XP or Pentium 4?
- Thread starter swifty3
- Start date
I'd say go amd. It beat intel in most of the benchmarks that i've seen and if it doesn't it's really close. And the money you'll be saving for a system that has the same performance as a p4 if not better. Just my own $0.02.
Spikesoldier
Diamond Member
- Oct 15, 2001
- 6,766
- 0
- 0
Gunslinger08
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2001
- 13,234
- 2
- 81
From what I've read, it seems that MPs explicitly support SMP, while XPs just "do it on the side." 
Also, the MPs all come unlocked from the factory, so you don't have to fool with super glue + defogger kits around your brand new CPU.
Josh
Also, the MPs all come unlocked from the factory, so you don't have to fool with super glue + defogger kits around your brand new CPU.
Josh
I'll say go for the AMD XP CPU. It is better in terms of value vs performance. AMD MP could be a bit pricey for w/station. Furthermore, XP run SMP as well as MP. There is no reported cases where XP wouldn't run in a SMP environment.
swifty3,
Welcome to Anandtech. I think what Spikesoldier is getting at is that most mulimedia applications like the ones you've mentioned have the ability to use simultaneous multi-processor systems (SMP). Currently Intel has disabled the P4's ability to run in multi-processor platforms. So the fastest you could get would be the new Tualatin PIII's which would still be nice IMO. The Athlon XP's on the otherhand will work in SMP. The MP's are just guaranteed to do so. One Athlon XP 1800+ will beat or compare nicely with a P4 @ 2Ghz, and two will be significantly faster. The real kick is the price you pay. For the price of a top of the line P4 system, you can get a dual Athlon XP setup and still have money left over. Here's a quick breakdown:
P4 2.0Ghz 478 CPU.................................$432
ASUS P4T-E...............................................$172
RDRAM Samsung 256MB X2................$168
------------------------------------------------------------
Total: $772
TYAN Tiger MP S2460..............................$204
AMD ATHLON XP 1800+ X2....................$386
DDR Crucial 256MB X2.............................$84
----------------------------------------------------------
Total: $674
So you see, for about $100 less, you get a significantly more powerful system that can probably render as good or better than a Xeon server that costs even more than the single P4. It should be noted though that if you decide to go with the Athlon MP's instead of XP's, the overall system cost will be $824, $52 more than the single P4. One benefit to the MP's is that they are unlocked, making overclocking easy...although overclocking a server platform is generally unwise and difficult.
Welcome to Anandtech. I think what Spikesoldier is getting at is that most mulimedia applications like the ones you've mentioned have the ability to use simultaneous multi-processor systems (SMP). Currently Intel has disabled the P4's ability to run in multi-processor platforms. So the fastest you could get would be the new Tualatin PIII's which would still be nice IMO. The Athlon XP's on the otherhand will work in SMP. The MP's are just guaranteed to do so. One Athlon XP 1800+ will beat or compare nicely with a P4 @ 2Ghz, and two will be significantly faster. The real kick is the price you pay. For the price of a top of the line P4 system, you can get a dual Athlon XP setup and still have money left over. Here's a quick breakdown:
P4 2.0Ghz 478 CPU.................................$432
ASUS P4T-E...............................................$172
RDRAM Samsung 256MB X2................$168
------------------------------------------------------------
Total: $772
TYAN Tiger MP S2460..............................$204
AMD ATHLON XP 1800+ X2....................$386
DDR Crucial 256MB X2.............................$84
----------------------------------------------------------
Total: $674
So you see, for about $100 less, you get a significantly more powerful system that can probably render as good or better than a Xeon server that costs even more than the single P4. It should be noted though that if you decide to go with the Athlon MP's instead of XP's, the overall system cost will be $824, $52 more than the single P4. One benefit to the MP's is that they are unlocked, making overclocking easy...although overclocking a server platform is generally unwise and difficult.
Spikesoldier
Diamond Member
- Oct 15, 2001
- 6,766
- 0
- 0
Warning: rant ahead!
Oh no, too late.
<rant>
My defenition of "Workstation" may be different than most. (Or at least in this overclocking forum). Workstations in my eyes are mission critical and can never be down/inaccessable at any given time. In this environment overclocking is not an option, not even in anyone's wacky quacky dreams. Do you value your work? Any movies/images/ect... can you afford to lose them, at any given moment? I wouldn't comprimise my valueable data with something petty as overclocking "to make things go a little faster". When your'e in this kind of environment you want to buy computers from companies like Dell, and get the longest, best, warranty you can get. If you want one of those "set and forget" workstations, then go intel. Through the years I have Never had a problem with anything with an Intel processor and Intel chipset in it. I'm about to consider using AMD, but I am still skeptical. So basically if your'e in my position (and I think you kind of are, evidently you are in the workstation market) I would get whatever I thought would best fit the task at hand, and be sure it does what it is advertised to do, and nothing its not.
</rant>
<!---kicks the soapbox hes standing on and walks away from the podium---!>
<muttering>well that wasn't so bad.</muttering>
Recap: Go buy an XP or MP, whichever you see best fitting your needs. But I think its worth the extra ~$30 down the road if you plan to use it in SMP.
Oh no, too late.
<rant>
My defenition of "Workstation" may be different than most. (Or at least in this overclocking forum). Workstations in my eyes are mission critical and can never be down/inaccessable at any given time. In this environment overclocking is not an option, not even in anyone's wacky quacky dreams. Do you value your work? Any movies/images/ect... can you afford to lose them, at any given moment? I wouldn't comprimise my valueable data with something petty as overclocking "to make things go a little faster". When your'e in this kind of environment you want to buy computers from companies like Dell, and get the longest, best, warranty you can get. If you want one of those "set and forget" workstations, then go intel. Through the years I have Never had a problem with anything with an Intel processor and Intel chipset in it. I'm about to consider using AMD, but I am still skeptical. So basically if your'e in my position (and I think you kind of are, evidently you are in the workstation market) I would get whatever I thought would best fit the task at hand, and be sure it does what it is advertised to do, and nothing its not.
</rant>
<!---kicks the soapbox hes standing on and walks away from the podium---!>
<muttering>well that wasn't so bad.</muttering>
Recap: Go buy an XP or MP, whichever you see best fitting your needs. But I think its worth the extra ~$30 down the road if you plan to use it in SMP.
wow, thanks for the great replys. I'm running dual PIII's now with a gig of RAM, but I don't really great very fast performance, and much stability. That's why I want to switch to a single CPU. Should I even consider a dual XP setup?
Spikesoldier
Diamond Member
- Oct 15, 2001
- 6,766
- 0
- 0
<< simultaneous multi-processor systems (SMP). Currently Intel has disabled the P4's ability to run in multi-processor platforms. >>
I thought it was Symmetric Multi Processing.
Maybe your price comparison would be a bit more balanced if you used a 1.9GHz Pentium 4 (Which is ~$130 less than its 100MHz faster brother (I doubt you'll see any difference except POSTing)), and if you used 512MB of ram with the AMD setup. (You know, 256Megs to each processor) But even with that, the AMD setup is defenately a better buy. Though it may be about a ~$150 - ~$200 difference between the Intel setup.
Spikesoldier
Diamond Member
- Oct 15, 2001
- 6,766
- 0
- 0
I thought it was Symmetric Multi Processing.
Err...yeah, symmetric, that's the thing. I seem to be mixing up my multi-processing with my multi-threading.
Err...yeah, symmetric, that's the thing. I seem to be mixing up my multi-processing with my multi-threading.
I'd go P4 for several reasons:
1. More stable. (below is a quote from Tom's hardware):
"Another factor is the stability and product quality of a system:
while all Athlon processors suffered from occasional instability in
our tests, the Pentium 4 platform ran without a glitch."
2. Upgrade path.
AMD appears stuck at approx. 1.5 Ghz, yet Intel has retooled for .13 Micron which will give a socket 478 MB a path to 3Ghz or higher.
3. Memory choice:
Have it your way with P4. DDR, SDRAM, or Rambus.
4. Overclock:
If you choose to OC, it's no brainer with P4. Buy a couple notches down from the top and than crank up FSB. P4 1.7's are rock solid at 1.9 and higher. Intel spec's it's CPU's more conservative than AMD which gives you more OC gain if you choose to do it.
5. Better thermal management:
P4 throttles down in an overheat situation. Athlon self destructs.
6. Noise:
The Intel supplied heatsink/fan is very quiet.
On the other hand Athlon has slightly better price/performance but the differences aren't that significant. Another quote from Tom's Hardware:
"In the SiSoft Sandra Benchmark 2001, the overall performance is
uneven - both Athlon XP and Pentium 4 switch places several times".
1. More stable. (below is a quote from Tom's hardware):
"Another factor is the stability and product quality of a system:
while all Athlon processors suffered from occasional instability in
our tests, the Pentium 4 platform ran without a glitch."
2. Upgrade path.
AMD appears stuck at approx. 1.5 Ghz, yet Intel has retooled for .13 Micron which will give a socket 478 MB a path to 3Ghz or higher.
3. Memory choice:
Have it your way with P4. DDR, SDRAM, or Rambus.
4. Overclock:
If you choose to OC, it's no brainer with P4. Buy a couple notches down from the top and than crank up FSB. P4 1.7's are rock solid at 1.9 and higher. Intel spec's it's CPU's more conservative than AMD which gives you more OC gain if you choose to do it.
5. Better thermal management:
P4 throttles down in an overheat situation. Athlon self destructs.
6. Noise:
The Intel supplied heatsink/fan is very quiet.
On the other hand Athlon has slightly better price/performance but the differences aren't that significant. Another quote from Tom's Hardware:
"In the SiSoft Sandra Benchmark 2001, the overall performance is
uneven - both Athlon XP and Pentium 4 switch places several times".
<< Warning: rant ahead!
Oh no, too late.
<rant>
My defenition of "Workstation" may be different than most. (Or at least in this overclocking forum). Workstations in my eyes are mission critical and can never be down/inaccessable at any given time. In this environment overclocking is not an option, not even in anyone's wacky quacky dreams. Do you value your work? Any movies/images/ect... can you afford to lose them, at any given moment? I wouldn't comprimise my valueable data with something petty as overclocking "to make things go a little faster". When your'e in this kind of environment you want to buy computers from companies like Dell, and get the longest, best, warranty you can get. If you want one of those "set and forget" workstations, then go intel. Through the years I have Never had a problem with anything with an Intel processor and Intel chipset in it. I'm about to consider using AMD, but I am still skeptical. So basically if your'e in my position (and I think you kind of are, evidently you are in the workstation market) I would get whatever I thought would best fit the task at hand, and be sure it does what it is advertised to do, and nothing its not.
</rant>
<!---kicks the soapbox hes standing on and walks away from the podium---!>
<muttering>well that wasn't so bad.</muttering>
Recap: Go buy an XP or MP, whichever you see best fitting your needs. But I think its worth the extra ~$30 down the road if you plan to use it in SMP. >>
Thats why none of the computer I've ever owned has been put to use in overclocked state. I might get a rig to overclock just to be overclocking, but not this one. If I want something faster, I'll just buy a faster CPU.
PS: I thought Intel had a big recall on their i810 or something chipset?
<< Not sure which brand I should buy. just want the fastest/best for my money. Mostly for high end graphics workstation work. Photoshop, 3D Studio Max, Form Z, Flash, etc. Any suggestion? >>
Why are so many people so cheap, especially in US? Look at CD-R medias. There are so many low quality stuff floating around there, because alot of consumer cares just about price and maximum recording speed(performance). When a lower quality stuff comes around at lesser price, they abandon high quality stuff and get something thats the fastest and cheapest.
Quality is often compromised for competition. 400w and 300w PSU at the same price would most likely mean much more sale on 400W, because they are led to believe they're getting more for the money. A high quality 300W PSU with good circuit design using high quality parts with enough margin will likely cost more than a 400W power supply built on crappy design with all the electronic parts pushed to just tiny below the limit. When 120V rectified, it will result in 170V DC. Since the line voltage can fluctuate by 10%(the voltage regulation tolerance of most utility company) DC volt may go up to 187V. The cheapies will probably use 200V capacitors. High quality PS's will more than likely uses more expensive 250V or 300V rated caps. Pushing the compoenents to the limit is a way to cheap out on stuff and it usually result in reduced reliability.
I'd go P4 for several reasons:
1. More stable. (below is a quote from Tom's hardware):
"Another factor is the stability and product quality of a system:
while all Athlon processors suffered from occasional instability in
our tests, the Pentium 4 platform ran without a glitch."
Statements like that are hard to quantify. I have an ABIT KT7-RAID going on 58 days of uptime. Is that unstable? The only time I have to reboot it is for a Microsoft update. Without knowing what the instabilities were and on what motherboards this is meaningless. In the many reviews of the Tyan K7 Thunder it has been shown that their stability is unquestionable.
2. Upgrade path.
AMD appears stuck at approx. 1.5 Ghz, yet Intel has retooled for .13 Micron which will give a socket 478 MB a path to 3Ghz or higher.
The 1900+ runs at 1600Mhz stock. The Thoroughbred will use socket A as well, and there has been no evidence thus far that they will be incompabtible with existing boards.
3. Memory choice:
Have it your way with P4. DDR, SDRAM, or Rambus.
Until AMD acts upon their license for Rambus, this is how it is. Few will argue the benefits of RDRAM over DDR however. In real world applications its virtually nill. Intel's support of DDR in the next year will be at least equal if not greater than RDRAM.
4. Overclock:
If you choose to OC, it's no brainer with P4. Buy a couple notches down from the top and than crank up FSB. P4 1.7's are rock solid at 1.9 and higher. Intel spec's it's CPU's more conservative than AMD which gives you more OC gain if you choose to do it.
With AMD chips not only can you overclock the FSB but the multiplier as well. This is simply not possible with Intel CPU's. Even if Intel is more conservative when they bin their CPU's, that doesn't mean you can't overclock AMD chips as well. Some AMD chips reach 50% of their rated speed with appropriate cooling. Your chances of getting that with an 1800 or 1900+ are less likely though, at least until the Thorougbreds come out. But again, megahertz is not an accurate measurement of performance. This is especially true with the P4.
5. Better thermal management:
P4 throttles down in an overheat situation. Athlon self destructs.
No argument there. Intel's thermal management is excellent. Your Athlon won't self destruct however. Unlike Tom's test, simply setting the BIOS to shut down at 50-60C will prevent your CPU from being fried. It's not as accurate as the on-die thermal diode, but it works.
6. Noise:
The Intel supplied heatsink/fan is very quiet.
On the other hand Athlon has slightly better price/performance but the differences aren't that significant. Another quote from Tom's Hardware:
"In the SiSoft Sandra Benchmark 2001, the overall performance is
uneven - both Athlon XP and Pentium 4 switch places several times".
Generally speaking, I like the HSF Intel provides over those of AMD. As pointed out earlier though, a 2.0Ghz P4 will run you $432, a 1.6Ghz Palomino with a good HSF will put you out $275 or so. In the end, you're going to have to decide what meets your needs best. Take comfort in the fact that these days you have a choice...that wasn't always so. I'll leave you with this, from Tom's hardware:
With its new Athlon XP 1900+, AMD has widened its lead in performance even more. In virtually all the benchmark disciplines we re-selected, the Athlon XP 1900+ takes the gold. The Athlon XP 1900+ is especially effective in CPU-intensive situations, for example audio/video encoding or classic 3D rendering. However, we have observed an important trend in this area: the frequent appearance of application patches and updates that increase performance of the Pentium 4 via SSE2.
Intel's efforts to gain a foothold for SSE2 in the market are beginning to show results, although it still cannot be claimed that SSE2 has really established itself at wider level. For the typical office user or gamer, the extra performance offered by Intel's fastest processor (Pentium 4/2000) makes only a marginal difference when it comes to practical applications.
However, the difference between Athlon XP 1900+ and the fastest Intel processor - the Pentium 4/2000 - is, realistically speaking, minimal in most cases. There is still a clear argument in favor of purchasing the Athlon XP 1900+ speed-demon - its price: AMD is launching this processor at a price of 265 dollars. The fastest Intel processor costs 400 dollars with fan (boxed version).
1. More stable. (below is a quote from Tom's hardware):
"Another factor is the stability and product quality of a system:
while all Athlon processors suffered from occasional instability in
our tests, the Pentium 4 platform ran without a glitch."
Statements like that are hard to quantify. I have an ABIT KT7-RAID going on 58 days of uptime. Is that unstable? The only time I have to reboot it is for a Microsoft update. Without knowing what the instabilities were and on what motherboards this is meaningless. In the many reviews of the Tyan K7 Thunder it has been shown that their stability is unquestionable.
2. Upgrade path.
AMD appears stuck at approx. 1.5 Ghz, yet Intel has retooled for .13 Micron which will give a socket 478 MB a path to 3Ghz or higher.
The 1900+ runs at 1600Mhz stock. The Thoroughbred will use socket A as well, and there has been no evidence thus far that they will be incompabtible with existing boards.
3. Memory choice:
Have it your way with P4. DDR, SDRAM, or Rambus.
Until AMD acts upon their license for Rambus, this is how it is. Few will argue the benefits of RDRAM over DDR however. In real world applications its virtually nill. Intel's support of DDR in the next year will be at least equal if not greater than RDRAM.
4. Overclock:
If you choose to OC, it's no brainer with P4. Buy a couple notches down from the top and than crank up FSB. P4 1.7's are rock solid at 1.9 and higher. Intel spec's it's CPU's more conservative than AMD which gives you more OC gain if you choose to do it.
With AMD chips not only can you overclock the FSB but the multiplier as well. This is simply not possible with Intel CPU's. Even if Intel is more conservative when they bin their CPU's, that doesn't mean you can't overclock AMD chips as well. Some AMD chips reach 50% of their rated speed with appropriate cooling. Your chances of getting that with an 1800 or 1900+ are less likely though, at least until the Thorougbreds come out. But again, megahertz is not an accurate measurement of performance. This is especially true with the P4.
5. Better thermal management:
P4 throttles down in an overheat situation. Athlon self destructs.
No argument there. Intel's thermal management is excellent. Your Athlon won't self destruct however. Unlike Tom's test, simply setting the BIOS to shut down at 50-60C will prevent your CPU from being fried. It's not as accurate as the on-die thermal diode, but it works.
6. Noise:
The Intel supplied heatsink/fan is very quiet.
On the other hand Athlon has slightly better price/performance but the differences aren't that significant. Another quote from Tom's Hardware:
"In the SiSoft Sandra Benchmark 2001, the overall performance is
uneven - both Athlon XP and Pentium 4 switch places several times".
Generally speaking, I like the HSF Intel provides over those of AMD. As pointed out earlier though, a 2.0Ghz P4 will run you $432, a 1.6Ghz Palomino with a good HSF will put you out $275 or so. In the end, you're going to have to decide what meets your needs best. Take comfort in the fact that these days you have a choice...that wasn't always so. I'll leave you with this, from Tom's hardware:
With its new Athlon XP 1900+, AMD has widened its lead in performance even more. In virtually all the benchmark disciplines we re-selected, the Athlon XP 1900+ takes the gold. The Athlon XP 1900+ is especially effective in CPU-intensive situations, for example audio/video encoding or classic 3D rendering. However, we have observed an important trend in this area: the frequent appearance of application patches and updates that increase performance of the Pentium 4 via SSE2.
Intel's efforts to gain a foothold for SSE2 in the market are beginning to show results, although it still cannot be claimed that SSE2 has really established itself at wider level. For the typical office user or gamer, the extra performance offered by Intel's fastest processor (Pentium 4/2000) makes only a marginal difference when it comes to practical applications.
However, the difference between Athlon XP 1900+ and the fastest Intel processor - the Pentium 4/2000 - is, realistically speaking, minimal in most cases. There is still a clear argument in favor of purchasing the Athlon XP 1900+ speed-demon - its price: AMD is launching this processor at a price of 265 dollars. The fastest Intel processor costs 400 dollars with fan (boxed version).
I'd go P4 for several reasons:
1. More stable. (below is a quote from Tom's hardware):
"Another factor is the stability and product quality of a system:
while all Athlon processors suffered from occasional instability in our tests,
the Pentium 4 platform ran without a glitch."
This quote is pretty much useless considering Tom was using a KT266A board, which certainly can't begin to compare with the Tyan Tiger boards in terms of stability.
Remember, you could get dual Athlon XP 1800+ processors on a Tyan Tiger board for less money than a single 2GHz P4 on an ASUS P4T-E board. The dual 1800+s will yield better performance than the single P4 setup for less money, and both would offer excellent stability.
Btw, [/i]here's what Anand had to say about the Tyan Tiger board:
During our weeks of testing we never encountered a single problem with the Tiger MP, even after testing it outside of AMD's and Tyan's specifications by using Dual Athlon (Thunderbird) CPUs and Dual Duron (Morgan) CPUs.
1. More stable. (below is a quote from Tom's hardware):
"Another factor is the stability and product quality of a system:
while all Athlon processors suffered from occasional instability in our tests,
the Pentium 4 platform ran without a glitch."
This quote is pretty much useless considering Tom was using a KT266A board, which certainly can't begin to compare with the Tyan Tiger boards in terms of stability.
Remember, you could get dual Athlon XP 1800+ processors on a Tyan Tiger board for less money than a single 2GHz P4 on an ASUS P4T-E board. The dual 1800+s will yield better performance than the single P4 setup for less money, and both would offer excellent stability.
Btw, [/i]here's what Anand had to say about the Tyan Tiger board:
During our weeks of testing we never encountered a single problem with the Tiger MP, even after testing it outside of AMD's and Tyan's specifications by using Dual Athlon (Thunderbird) CPUs and Dual Duron (Morgan) CPUs.
AGodSpeed wrote:
"This quote is pretty much useless considering Tom was using a KT266A board"
Well, that explains that. VIA sucks, and everyone knows it. Tyan's duallie boards have been proven rock solid. Anand's review aside, I can certify the same, running both S2460 and S2462 around the clock with no downtime. These are workhorses, built for a fraction of the cost, which simply wipe the floor with the competition.
But let's face it, the P4 is more stable and has the Intel name. That's worth a few hundred extra dollars and less performance.
"This quote is pretty much useless considering Tom was using a KT266A board"
Well, that explains that. VIA sucks, and everyone knows it. Tyan's duallie boards have been proven rock solid. Anand's review aside, I can certify the same, running both S2460 and S2462 around the clock with no downtime. These are workhorses, built for a fraction of the cost, which simply wipe the floor with the competition.
But let's face it, the P4 is more stable and has the Intel name. That's worth a few hundred extra dollars and less performance.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter