Why are AMDs better than Pentiums now?

[phatj]

I just dont understand.... example; at newegg, a Pentium 4 2.8ghz processor is $112... but a 1.8GHz AMD 64 (the 3000+ cpu) is $136?

I mean, I know that GHz isn't EVERYTHING in a CPU... but an entire 1GHz difference and the AMD is still better?

How?


I ask cuz i wanna build a computer again (it's been like 3 years since my last build)

 

[DrMrLordX]

You also have to realize that supply & demand are major factors here. The 2.8 ghz P4 isn't much slower than the 3000+ in some apps, and may be faster in some encoding tasks, but the combination of its heat output and unpopularity compared to dual-core processors pushes its price to artificially low levels in the market place.

For us enthusiasts, we know that the 3000+ is much easier to overclock(especially if you get one of the newer ones with a lower stock vcore), so this adds additional value to the CPU, further explaining why people would be more willing to pay $136 for the 3000+.

Prescotts aren't very good CPUs. If you want an Intel CPU now, you should look at something like the Pentium D 920, though the X2-3800+ is a better chip.

 

[dguy6789]

This subject has been spoken about many, many times. Please use the search function for your future questions, and if you do not find an answer, then post a thread. Many people will come in and tell you to search, so be prepared.


Starting now, forget comparing the cpus of AMD and the cpus of Intel via clock speed. ONLY use clock speed as a reference between processors within the same company. For example, a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 is faster than a 2.8Ghz Pentium 4. A 2.4Ghz Athlon 64 is faster than a 2.2Ghz Athlon 64. Do not compare the Mhz of AMD to the Mhz of Intel, or you will become confused.

Yes, the differences between clock speed are quite large. The reason for this is because the processors are based on completely different architectures. A 1.8Ghz Athlon 64 compares to a 2.8-3Ghz Pentium 4. The differences between them are FAR too great for me to list here within any reasonable amount of time.

If you want to do some rather lengthy reading for a true answer, than here are some indepth artices on the AMD64 architecture.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1815
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.html?i=1816
http://www.anandtech.com/it/showdoc.html?i=1817
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.html?i=1818
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1884

Those links are in order of what you should read first, starting at the top.

The easiest way to go about it without much research is to look at AMD's model numbers. In general, you can expect them to be correct for general usage. An Athlon 64 3200+ can compare to a Pentium 4 3.2Ghz(3200Mhz). An Athlon 64 3500+ can be compared to a 3.5Ghz Pentium 4.

Things get confusing when you start talking about dual cores. AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4800+ is dual 2.4Ghz cores. This would not be the same thing as a 4.8Ghz Pentium 4. For information on dual core processors and SMP in general, I recommend here:

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=126186

On average, 99% of the people on this forum will recommend AMD over Intel. I agree with that. An Athlon 64 3200+ normally is faster than a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 in just about everything. Sometimes by a lot, sometimes by a very little bit, but it usually comes out on top. This can pretty much be said about all the model numbers.

Since you are going to build a new computer, I HIGHLY recommend you build a dual core machine. The benefits of a dual core machine are huge. For example, with a dual core, you could burn a cd/dvd while playing a game with no drop in performance. You could encode media while playing a game without a drop in performance. You could scan with an antivirus and play a game and not have a drop in performance. You can do pretty much any cpu intensive task, and still have an entire other cpu core available for something else.

I hope this helps a bit.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Agreed, anyone looking at a Pentium 4 would do well to get a dual-core processor instead. The X2-3800+ is a good deal.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Yup.. dual core AMD is the way to go! X2 3800 is good, but depending on your desires you can consider an Opteron 165 as well. They seem to tolerate heat a little better and REALLY overclock well in my experience.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The 2006 X2 chips seem to OC better than the 2005 ones, so the only real advantage to the Opteron 165 and 170 is the extra cache which causes the chip to run a bit hotter. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference, but I'd go for the 3800+ even for overclocking(as long as I got an '06 chip)

 

[F1shF4t]

Well i'm very happy with my 3800+ x2, even a really bad one should be able to hit at least 2.4ghz and i have to say i would prefer a dual core 2ghz over a single core 2.6ghz anyday.