• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does the athlon outperform the pIII??

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HellRaven: Sorry, I have NEVER claimed that Intel is more stable, in any of those threads I participated. And it IS a fact that Intel have wider options than AMD. Please, you just proved yourself, dont put words into my mouth that I never said. In the other thread(s), I was arguing that you'll need higher quality parts to run an AMD machine than Intel, never a thing about stability nor performance.
 
"Don't be ignorant. I challenge you to build a system that is noticeably more stable than an Athlon machine."

I have bx and 810 machines and they are rock solid, none of them have ever crashed in the three years Ive had some of them. I havent ever had any of the stability or compatibility problems that people mention about athlon in these forums, even with supposedly quality brands like asus. If you want proof that the athlon platform is crap, go in to any retail store that carries athlon and pentium machines and youll see that all of the athlon machines are frozen or have been turned off and that all of the intel machines will be up and running. And may be cheaper, but the potential headache isnt even close to being worth it.

I am grateful to amd for breaking intels monopoly though. Intel was so dominant a year ago that they were able manipulate the market to force their junk on consumers, things like the 810, rambus, and timna, which is what got them in trouble. Now with Athlon, they have pretty much had to back off of all of these.
 
Lets face it, without a m d right now the top of the line intel chip would be running 600mhz and sell for $1000 + 600 for rambus memory; without intel a m d would be making chips for cell phones. Everyone has had different success with different chips. My all time favorite comp is a celeron 300a @ 450mhz running on the 440 bx chipset. And I currently have an athlon which was a nightmare because I had to buy athlon approved ram. And to this day I have problems with it which I believe are caused by my mx300 sound card. However the ram problem is justifiable because a m d improved it's product to a 200mhz bus while trying to keep it compatible whereas intel took the easy route and went with the expensive non compatible rambus. However the sound card problem (this isn't my athlon's only problem I have many problems that nag me to this day) you could see as an advantage to intel because when manufacturers such as diamond produce a product i'm sure it's safe to say that it's much more rigourously tested on the intel platform. Again though not a m d's fault. So incase you couldn't tell i really like a m d, but i am currently selling my athlon and buying a p!!! which i will be using with an asus cubx. I would have to say in the end a m d makes sweet chips but there board's/chipset's aren't as tasty as there sweet as gravy chips. Enough of this i'm going to go grab a bowl of fruity pebbles.
 
Paco,

I don't know about the "frozen" and "turned off" machine part. I've been to CompUSA, radioshack, and many other places that sell Athlon machines (mostly Compaqs and HPs) and they don't seem any less stable than their Pentium3 counterparts.

Oh, I dont know! Perhaps the staff reboots them - but its pointless to discuss this without some testing.
 
Paco21,

<<If you want proof that the athlon platform is crap, go in to any retail store that carries athlon and pentium machines and youll see that all of the athlon machines are frozen or have been turned off and that all of the intel machines will be up and running.>>

I tell you not to be ignorant, and this is what you respond with? I am in awe of your profound stupidity. Please don't pollute this thread any further. Your asinine claims about the stablility of AMD platforms lack any basis in reality. Do yourself a favor and head over to the Intel forums where people will appreciate you.

Modus
 
Gotta love Modus. My argument is aren't system crashes primarily due to the software (specifically the operating system) and not the hardware (P.O.S. macs aside). I mean I could see a 286 with 256k of RAM crashing because of the lack of good hardware but todays machines? Why than does Linux proclaim themselves to have so much more stability than windows (which is true)? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Modus:

&quot;Your asinine claims about the stablility of AMD platforms lack any basis in reality&quot;
You seem very insistent in your beliefs but you completely ignore the typical problems that people such as ghetto buck continue to have with the Athlon platform. Paco is right about most Athlon demo systems in retail store always being down. In fact my local Costco recently stopped selling Athlon systems because they got too many returns due to their instability. Amd's own internal testing has shown they have a less stable platform. In fact, they buy Intel machines for their offices and factories. It looks to me like the only ignorant person here be joe mama's baybee.

Jaydee:
Computers rarely crash because of Windows. They are more often caused by poor assembly of the hardware (such as mixing memory) or drivers. Also Linux is much less stable than windows. Youd be lucky if you could run gnome kde or netscape for an hour without it crashing
 
<<Computers rarely crash because of Windows>>

As soon as I can quit laughing and get up off of the floor I'll respond to that.











O.K. I'm done.

Window has to be the biggest fscking POS I've ever seen. Win 98 rarely shuts down correctly and I have as of yet to see ANY PC running Wincrap in any flavor not crash from windows.

<<Computers rarely crash because of Windows>> This speaks volumes about llort

BTW my 700Mhz Slot A T-bird running @ 900Mhz is the most stable machine I've used in the last 5 years including home builts, 1BM, Dell, Compaq or Gateway. Unfortunately 2 of my design engineers now want me to build them each one but I don't have the time.

Thanks for the laugh, everyone have a good day.



 
WOW llort, you dare to make such a bold statement? millions worldwide will hate you for that! i cant say much about office situations but nobody out of a dozen in the dorm who have athlons had any problem with stability, only one of them being custom made (mine no doubt)
 
I recently built my first AMD machine ever. It's an Athlon 700 which is in the same office as my P3 700. I really can't tell the difference and I was pleasantly relieved in the wallet. Other machines in my stable: P2 400 and a P3 550. FWIW
 
llort :


<< Computers rarely crash because of Windows. >>



heheheh...I laugh real loud when I see this statement,
thinking this guy doesn't know much about Windows.
But then,



<< Also Linux is much less stable than windows. Youd be lucky if you could run gnome kde or netscape for an hour without it crashing.
 >>



Wow, I can't help myself not to reply to this thread.
Since when linux is less stable than Windows ?
If you use netscape and it crashes, I bet the problem is with
netscape. I use netscape under Solaris (unix) sometimes
it crashes, give me segfault, does it mean unix is not stable ?
Tell this to all the big corporate guy.
Btw, I've never had kde crashes on me b4.
And please note, when you are using linux, and an application
crashes, it doesn't hurt anything, only your application is
crash and you can start another application or even the
same application again, you DON'T have to reboot.
But, when you are using Windows, and an application crashes
sometimes it gives you blue screen and you have to REBOOT.

I bet there are thousands of machines out there, running
unix that hasn't reboot for 20 or more years. When
you are running MISSION CRITICAL tasks, the choice of OS
is clear which is UNIX. And linux inherits some of this
stability from unix.

Do you know when Microsoft took over Hotmail several years
ago, Hotmail was running linux and/or unix before Microsoft
takes over. Then Microsoft held a big press announcing the
change of OS to Microsoft NT to use in hotmail server.
About 1 week (or maybe 1 month), Microsoft QUIETLY switched
the OS back to UNIX due to so many problems they were
having when they run their own OS.
🙂
 
After reading two webpages of posts, we got some stupid people, and we got some smart people who know about hardware. But it seems like everyone wants to know what CPU will make your system faster? Well, first off, if you want a fast system, get a kick ass hard drive. A SCSI 10000 RPM drive should do you fine. People should know that a super fast hard drive is probably the most important thing you want when it comes to speed. Next is memory, and I would prefer mushkin 256 MB of HSDRAM, espcecially if you want stability when you overclock. Next would be the board. Probably the best board out there when it comes to stability and performance are the BX boards, especially when it comes to overclocking. KX133 boards for AMD sound really nice too. From my own researching, we all know that intel chips cost more than amd chips. But finding a good AMD board is pretty expensive also, but you can find many types of boards supporting the coppermine for a good price. So when it comes to buyin a cpu, it doesn't matter, becuase they are both fast. I am not including the T-bird in my post, because I havenn't seen much of it yet, but if you want to run faster in applications, go with AMD, with a 200fsb, can't beat that. But if your a hardcore gamer, the coppermine will do you better, because as you all should know, gaming requires that cache to be kinda fast. With the amd, the cache is cut up 1/2 of the core speed!!!!! Intel provides full speed on die cache. In conclusion, it all depends what you want, no one is right or wrong, because everyone wants something different. Remember, its not just one component that makes your system blazing fast. You must compliment everything, good luck, peace.
 


<< Computers rarely crash because of Windows. They are more often caused by poor assembly of the hardware (such as mixing memory) or drivers. Also Linux is much less stable than windows. Youd be lucky if you could run gnome kde or netscape for an hour without it crashing >>


LOL!!😀 You're kidding, right? Windows 9x is a joke when it comes to stability (and performance) compared to Linux. I've got a Dual PPro router/firewall that's been running for almost a year and it's never crashed. In fact, the only time I ever reboot it is when I'm upgrading/modifying the kernel. Not to mention, the entire time it's running as my Q3A server while it's doing all the routing chores. Linux is the most stable/robust OS/NOS widely available to the consumer market. The only reason Windows (any flavor) is still dominant is due to it's ease-of-use and application availability.

I'll admit that Win2K Pro is quite a bit better than Win 9x in most situations, but even it's not as stable or as fast as Linux. Not to mention it also requires a lot newer/more robust HW (mostly due to the incredible bloat).

To your credit, you are right on one point. Drivers are usually the cause of most system failures/lock-ups. But that's only due to the poor interaction between the Windows kernel and the driver.
 
Paco said &quot;I have bx and 810 machines and they are rock solid, none of them have ever crashed in the three years Ive had some of them.&quot;


Man while everyone concerns themselves w/ the quote of windows stability, i gotta jump on this one... Since when have i810 boards been out for 3years... hell BX hasnt been out that long. Also you must be running some serious OS to be stable for 3 years. I would also like to know your definition of &quot;rock solid&quot;... is that like solid running win9x and rebooting them every few hours just to &quot;clean&quot; up the processes?.... riiight. I would appreciate it if you actually knew what the hell you were spilling out of your mouth before you posted such ignorance... i really hate to think that someone will actually take your post seriously and buy a system based on that...

alin
 
About the athlon beeing cheap.

I don't know how it is in the US, but in europe only the cpu itself is cheaper. For AMD you need a more expensive Mobo, more expensive powersupply, and memory. Adding this all up an Athlon 700 + all other components are about $70 more expensive then a PIII. on 800 Mhz its about level.


--------------------------

Who laughs last,
dies too.
 
Smurk: Well, your statement is exactly what I thought. But apparently our buddies here don't believe the Athlon motherboards are more expensive, nor do they believe you'll need higher quality RAM and power supply.
 
Overall, Athlon systems are cheaper and perform about the same as the P!!!. Also a socket-A motherboard will be much more upgradable for the future. P!!!'s will be discontinued around the 1.2Ghz level, which is not very much headroom.
 
Okay.. here's a price breakdown between standard and &quot;athlon&quot; compatible items.


Antec 300W P.S. $38 from Egghead
Cheap@ss Compusa 3ooW P.S. $30 $8 more

Crucial PC133 Sdram CAS2 $140
Standard PC133 Sdram $129(off Pricewatch) $11 more

Asus K7V $140
Abit BF6 $90 $50 more

K7-700 $150
P3-800 $346

Total price of &quot;generic&quot; components with P3-800: $595

Total price of &quot;premium&quot; athlon components with 700mhz athlon: $468

I dont' see the athlon 700 + &quot;premium&quot; componenets being $70 more than a comparable p3-800 config. NOT to mention that most power users would opt for the higher quality components anyways.

Lxi, I highly suggest that you research what you are talking about just a bit before you blab off about it. Your ignorance is almost to the level of &quot;paco21&quot;
 
Dear Mikewarrior2

if you would've actually read what I wrote. I told that here in europe more specific in Netherland, it adds up that way. I dislike to be called ignorend in a matter you obviously don't know sh!t from.

It wasn't an opinion I gave I merely stated the facts as they are here now..

athlon 700 + components Vs PIII 700 = PIII $70 cheaper
athlon 800 + ,, vs PIII 800 = equal


My opinion is that its crap to say t-bird 700 is to be compared with P 800. Don't know where you found that on. I used these:
http://www7.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q2/000619/duron-08.html
-----------------

Who laughs last,
dies too.
 
First off, i edited my post when I saw you were from europe.

Secondly, LXI is completely ignorant about his love for Intel and dislike of AMD products. And don't just look in this htread, there are plenty of others.



Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top