Need advice between AMD or Intel

[QuestionsandAnsweres]

Ok lets say u are gonna overclock

the Athlon XP 1800 + CPU from newegg.com cost $130 shipped retail. the Pentium 4 1.6Ghz A retail is $133

basically same price

For a athlon lets say u get a EPOX 8K3A for $114 shipped. The price for a Asus P4S333 is aout the same price.

Now u get the same memory cause u gonna want to overclock. So you decide to get 2 sticks of Samsung Original DDR333 PC-2700 256mb.

ok so far the price for a 1.6ghz INTEL system cost the same as a ATHLON XP 1800+ system. If u want the overclock the athlon xp u will have to buy a $40 fan. meaning its now more expensive. Yet at stock speeds it is faster t han the intel system. Lets say you get your athlon xp to 2100+ speeds. and your 1.6ghz p4 to 2300mhz since the p4 northwood is a great overclocker.

Now the performance is probably overall going to be the same with both CPUs. as RobsTV said. Now INTEL chipsets are more stable than athlons. Its proven fact. I mean when i switched from a athlon wtih soyo dragon + mobo to a intel system i stoped having the Infinite loop error.

And ive noticed now that my system is much quiter than my athlon system and is running COOLER.

Personally. IMO. ATM. The best deal is INTEL.

this could change any time. But at the time of writing this IMO INTEL is the better value.......

(ohh ya btw with the extra $30-40 u spent on a cooler for the athlon so u could overclock. U can get RD-RAM. now not as future proof if u get some pc 2700 but its fast

 

[Jman13]

<<
Now the performance is probably overall going to be the same with both CPUs. as RobsTV said. Now INTEL chipsets are more stable than athlons. Its proven fact. I mean when i switched from a athlon wtih soyo dragon + mobo to a intel system i stoped having the Infinite loop error.
>>



No, it's not a proven fact. For instance: I had a P2-350 on an Intel mobo, and I was rebooting about once a day because of instability. With my AthlonXP (on a Dragon plus as well), I run my system for weeks without any instability. In the last 55 days of running my computer, I have had exactly 1 crash that was just from the system. I had 3 others, but they were because I was overclocking my video card until it puked...so I pushed it UNTIL it crashed. On average, I run my system for about 6 days between reboots...and that's just because I'll update software or something....Like I said, I've had 1 actual crash or reboot due to instability in the last 55 days. I think you can call that stable. I'm sure some AMD users have had instabilty, as have some Intel users. I'm also sure there's plenty of AMD and Intel users who have machines as stable as mine....so it is not a FACT that Intel is more stable than AMD.

 

[Red Dawn]

I just upgraded to a P4 1.6a running @ 2.14 ghz from a AMD Tbird@1.2 and I must admit that I have never been so totally underwhelmed by an upgrade. I guess I was expecting the P4 @ 2.14 to be as fast as an AMD CPU or even a P3 would be if it were running at 2.14 ghz.




<< Now the performance is probably overall going to be the same with both CPUs >>

Only if you OC your P4 to 2+ghz. If you run it @1.6 Ghz then your P4 would run about on par with a 1.2 ghz AMD CPU.

 

[RobsTV]

Needing a $40 hsf is no longer.
My $8.00 HSF from Newegg easily allows me to run my XP at 2 classes above stated
(XP1700+ @ XP1900+). The reason for this is the XP's runs much cooler than previous T-Birds.
Running my CPU at XP1900 with case temp of 32c and CPU temp or 42c. That is normal, not the exception.

If you can not hit 2.4GHz with the 1.6A, and only hit 2.24GHz, that is only about as fast as an XP1900+.
From TCWO, pick up an XP1700+ for $97, then from Newegg get a $7 Volcano5 HSF, and Epox 8kha+ for $91
Clock it to XP1900+ and at under $200 and as fast or faster than P4 1.6A at 2.24Ghz.

Also, more bunk is that P4 is more stable. More Intel false hype.
In fact it is just the opposite when it comes to compatability.
Did you know the P4 is incompatable with many types of hardware?
I will look for link, but it was somewhere in FAQ's for new Sony PC.

EDIT: Taken from the drivers for Sony memory stick reader:


<< The MSAC-US1 is not recommended for use with Intel Pentium IV Computer Systems.
The Pentium IV was introduced by Intel after the MSACUS1 was developed by Sony,
therefore a compatibility issue may occur under some circumstances. >>


Clock on memory stick devices
This was not a hunt for P4 problem I found, but while working on a PC I noticed it.
If there is compatablity issues with one popular piece of hardware, you can rest assured there are more.

Look, the reason I found the P4 info was because my friend that bought the Vaio was complaining about
how slow it was in comparison to his old PC.
His old PC was an HP Slot 1 Athlon 700MHz (or 800MHz) and 128meg, with WinME.
New Sony Vio is P4 1.8GHz with 512meg and WinXP, and what he though was all top of the line parts. Wrong.

I still remember how many complained about how bad VIA chipsets were because you had to patch them,
while Intel's ran fine. That too was bull. Intel has needed just as many patches for chipsets as anyone.
Take a look back to see. Intel TX ring a bell? Point is, one is no more reliable than the other at times.

 

[senior guy]

QuestionsandAnswers is right on the money. I've got 2 rigs - AXP1800+ and P4 1.6A . Because of the more extreme cpu and case cooling necessitated by the hot-running AthlonXP, this rig was definitely the more expensive to build. While both systems, each with similar component specs, perform about the same (I find it very hard to tell much difference), I much prefer working on the Intel rig because it is so much quieter (retail HSF, 300W Antec PSU and just one case fan)!

 

[w9design]

I don't consider myself loyal to any particular platform, but here are my thoughts:

I built an Athlon 1200 system a few months ago, OC'ed it to 1400 using the 1400 retail fan. Originally it was based on a Duron 600 that I won in a contest, but the core met an untimely demise due to the fact that I wasn't careful enough installing the heatsink. Overclocking was a pain, you had to connect bridges and tweak settings and voltage, but eventually everything was fine. The system ran pretty hot and very loud, but hey, it was stable and fast. I would occasionally run into a VIA driver glitch or a random quirk, but it was all fine. It was and is a good choice of a system.

A few weeks ago I built my first Intel system in about a year. Bought a 1.6A, P4B266, and some Samsung PC2100 DDR. 30 minutes after getting home I had the system assembled -- the P4 heatsink mounting is astonishingly easy compared to the Athlon. Regardless, an hour later Windows XP was installed and configured, and the system was faster and more responsive than my athlon at stock speeds. Then, I bumped the voltage to 1.65 and the bus to 160. Booted and stable in Windows at 2.56 GHz, and it runs cooler and quieter than my Athlon. System boots up in 16 seconds.

Get the Intel, you won't regret it. However you wouldn't be making a mistake getting an Athlon, either. Both are great chips with strengths and weaknesses. I chose the Intel and wasn't disappointed at all.

 

[QuestionsandAnsweres]

Jman13
im talking baout i845d chipset. not some old pentium 2?

if u cant figure that out then something is wrong. cause i dont buy pentium 2s anymore for my new systems

another thing is the I845 chipset is much more stable and mature then the kt266a. probably same for kt333 (dont know tho)

Now if u go with SiS like i said above im not sure..... Depends what u want to go for. im sure the sis can overclock hgiher but i havent actually used one YET. if u go with the I845D and overclock a 1.6A to 2.1GHZ u will have a fast. STable as hell system.

only reason i said SIS chipset in my post above was because ive heard really good things about it.

it all depends what u want. But all the intel systems ive owned have been stable. All the athlon motherboards ive owned (beside the epox 8k7a (as long as i didnt have my sound blaster card in it) were some what stable (would crash more than intel systems). the epox 8k7a without the sound blaster card was very stable i must say.


ive had some what bad luck with amds. Btw putting the heatsink on the p4 is easier but i never really had problem with amds. tho ive been building computers for long time.

Both will play any game u want. the main thing u will want is a fast video card. u said u had a nice one so u should be fine (assuming nice is Geforce 3/4 or Radeon 8500/7500)

This is all my opinion. I dont tend to worry about the extra $40 or $50 or evne $100.

I prefer to have a vrey stable and fast system. And atm i think intel is the better solution.

 

[MilkPowderR]

In my opinion, currently, AMD route is still better than the Intel P4.
Here's the reason:

AMD Athlons can be multiplier unlocked. This would allow [H.]ardcore oc'ers to lower the multi(if necessary) on i.e. XP2000+/- and jack it up to 210+mhz FSB. There's no way in hell any P4 w/severely oc'ed will beat that kind of performance.

Intel P4 multiplier cannot be unlocked. You suffer from low FSB oc'ed(especially for the heavy oc'ers).

As mentioned here before, the Athlons have more muscle per mhz than the P4. I don't have to explain the detail cauze ya know it.

But, it's true the T-birds and Durons run hot. That same rule does not apply to the AXP's.

 

[w9design]

MilkPowdeR: Do you consider 160FSB to be a low FSB overclock? P4 1.6A's, which are the topic of discussion, have multipliers that are low enough that it's perfectly possible to achieve high speeds on high FSBs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Athlons are Multiplier UnlockABLE, not unlocked -- you have to do an intricate bridge manipulation to unlock it -- and you can't do it with a pencil anymore like I did with my 1200. And these 210MHz FSB overclocks? Unless the PCI and AGP speeds are locked, there's a limit to how stable that system could possibly be, not to mention a 210MHz DDR clock, which isn't necessarily impossible, but nonetheless difficult.

 

[tolbyn]

Very, very interesting feedback. Must say, I am enjoying everyone's opinions, but its still leaving me stuck in the middle. As I said before, I've always gone with Intel on my system builds, but I think I'm going to go with AMD on this one. Mainly, so I can compare for myself. I think I do agree with w9design though...both sound like great chips and I don't think I can really go wrong with either. Keep the thread going! It's very enlightening to read everyone's personal views and experiences with XP and 1.6a.

 

[MilkPowderR]

<< MilkPowdeR: Do you consider 160FSB to be a low FSB overclock? P4 1.6A's, which are the topic of discussion, have multipliers that are low enough that it's perfectly possible to achieve high speeds on high FSBs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Athlons are Multiplier UnlockABLE, not unlocked -- you have to do an intricate bridge manipulation to unlock it -- and you can't do it with a pencil anymore like I did with my 1200. And these 210MHz FSB overclocks? Unless the PCI and AGP speeds are locked, there's a limit to how stable that system could possibly be, not to mention a 210MHz DDR clock, which isn't necessarily impossible, but nonetheless difficult. >>


hehe.. this guy is mad.. I must have said something you don't want to hear.

I said "AMD Athlons can be multiplier unlocked", you know what that means?... I don't think my english grammar was off here. Try reading my quote again. tip: don't make a fool out of me.

200+mhz FSB is do-a-ble with high performance boards like the Iwill XP333's. Some people have managed to run above 210mhz FSB on the Abit KR7A as well. I have seen quite of them doing this. These OCs don't take magic to achieve a such. Even some of the amateur Duron users on their Iwill XP333 or the Abit KR7A does 172- 178mhz FSB, ROFL. This is nothing new.. byebye.. :Q

 

[Jwyatt]

Flip a coin.

Basically you wont see much difference unless your benchmarking all the time and dong crazy stupid stuff like i am. Currenly i have a XP1700 and a 1.6a running.

The OS's dont really care.

The thing i like the most is intel has been playing the game longer and better than amd. The chipsets are more mature and generally you wont have as many issues with compatibility as you would running a via, amd, sis or whatever chipset.

Although my 1700 is running smooth as silk. My 1.6a had some quirks with the onboard raid controller. If you want ease of installation and support. Go with intel with an intel chipset (845ddr or 850rambus)

 

[308nato]

I have really learned to enjoy these AMD/Intel threads. Some people are very technically informative, some give great real word reviews of their experience. The best though are those that act like they awoke to find someone had peed in their Cheerio's when it is even suggested that their opinion might be more than just that. An opinion.

Buy what you want and have fun. I couldn't make up my mind either a couple of months ago. I read thread after thread and review after review and became more confused than ever. I decided to start looking at it from the perspective of why I wouldn't want to go one route or the other.

For myself it seemed there was more cry for technical help from the AMD side of things than the Intel side. Money seemed to be the issue against Intel. Then the little 1.6a came out for $129. It now has a home.

 

[timmer]

I've built three 1.6a setups running on Abit TH7II motherboards. No extreme OC ing, just 2133 @ 1.55 core volts. These machines run Quake 3 insanely fast and are extremely stable. On the other hand, my friend has an Athlon Xp 1800 rig that is not OC'ed and his machine is also very fast (although it doesn't run Quake as fast as mine) and is somewhat less stable. He has the occasional lockup. I don't know that it's due to the chipset (he's running an Asus A7V266 MB). I guess if you're gonna OC, the Intel setup is probably a better choice. If you do go with Intel, I'd suggest the RDRAM setup; it's the faster solution in most cases.

 

[spanner]

As much as I despise intel, I have to say that at this moment there is no AMD equivalent to an Oced 1.6A northwood. My opinion is that this is a really sucky time to upgrade to AMD because their processors are nearing the end of their lifecycle, i.e future Cpu's will require new mobo's

 

[timebecomes]

Pentium has always had a lead in Quake 3 though for some reason. In most other apps I would assume that the XP would be very close in comparison. I just ordered one today, so I may be a little biased.

 

[w9design]

MilkPowdeR: I wouldn't say I am/was mad. I will concede you said "can be unlocked", and I apologize for not reading thoroughly. My only real qualm is REALISM. A high overclock with P4s is very much realistic due to the 16/x and higher multipliers they offer, plus the fact that the two leading motherboards, the P4B266 and the TH7II both offer a PCI and AGP lock function, so your PCI and AGP clocks remain close to spec at any FSB speed. Most Athlon boards don't have this, though I do realize there are some that do. Regardless, if you're running an Athlon at 200MHz FSB or so your PCI and AGP will USUALLY be hopelessly out of spec, so you're in for some quirks if you've got alot of PCI devices or a finicky video card. Now I do realize that some athlon boards have clock locking, but most do not. If you use primarily non-SSE2 applications that are very FPU intensive (lots of floating-point math), then you do NOT want a P4. Conversely, if you use applications that crave memory bandwidth, like Quake, the P4 excels -- with Rambus it's insanely fast (unfortunately) and it takes better advantage of DDR than AMD; not to mention that fact that it has twice the L2 cache.

Also, you can't build a quiet system from AMD without >$50 heatsinks and expensive fans. A 1.6A P4, due to its .13u process, can run at >2.4GHz comfortably with its retail heatsink and a case fan.

Now please do not think that I'm trying to make a fool out of you -- don't be quite so defensive. I realize my previous post was a bit agressive and I apologize. But my opinion (and yes, it's no more than that) still remains as such:

Both are good platforms, and neither one is a bad choice. I prefer the Intel platform for the reasons above, but the Athlon is certainly a viable platform and I have nothing against AMD.

 

[senior guy]

w9design: From my personal experience, I completely agree with your generalized conclusions re. AMD vs Intel, but be advised that the PCI and AGP lock function on the TH7II doesn't always work well (sometimes drifts higher causing instability). Whenever this happens, a reboot gets it back on track, but it is a nuissance. :frown: