| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 22199 | 2002-07-14 06:32:00 | P4 vs Athlon | citizenZ (995) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 62384 | 2002-07-14 06:32:00 | I'm not being facetious, but can anyone tell me why Athlons seem to be cheaper and perform better than an equivalent P4, yet the P4's seem to be more popular? Do the Athlons lack some features of the P4's ? Just curious. |
citizenZ (995) | ||
| 62385 | 2002-07-14 06:44:00 | atho's are faster in majority of games. but the problem with atho's is heat. heat means more noisy fans hence for office systems p4 would be better choice. less noise and less chance off cpu dying due to fan failing. also intel chipsets are STABLE which is important to majority of uses. don't forget AMD is still the underdog. also marketing, intel can push volume and good prices to oem manafactures. shame the p4 is such a slower performing cpu. |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 62386 | 2002-07-14 09:12:00 | P4's perform better than AMD XP in some applications like video edition, file encoding, sound edition, etc. Most they're multimedia applications. On the other hand, AMD performs better in general applications like office products, games, etc. As for the price, I guess it's something to do with their marketing strategy, that I wouldn't know. To get the best performance out of P4's, you need to run the cpu on Intel chipset + RDRAM. That baby will burn any amd systems. AMD cpu's are better popular for overclocking since it can be clocked using either FSB or cpu multiplier. |
boom23 (176) | ||
| 62387 | 2002-07-14 09:22:00 | There are some P4 systems that I would like to have. Name JB's one which is overclocked to 3GHz. But it's usiing DDR |
-=JM=- (16) | ||
| 62388 | 2002-07-14 11:22:00 | Thanks heaps for the info y'all. | citizenZ (995) | ||
| 62389 | 2002-07-15 12:58:00 | The P4 is currently the best performer on nigh on all applications. The problem is it's still bloody expensive. Hmmmm dual Prestonia... drool. | BIFF (1) | ||
| 62390 | 2002-07-16 00:27:00 | "An important argument in favor of buying the processor is the price, but this can be looked at from two different perspectives: purchasing the CPU separately in a retail store, or purchasing a complete (OEM) system with the said CPU. The Athlon XP 2200+ costs $242 (per 1000 units), which is close to a third to the price of Intel's top model, the P4/2533. But if you look at the cost for a complete system, the difference is less marked. AMD still has a better price/performance ratio if you're less concerned with getting the absolute top performance. In this case, the true benchmark freaks will want to stick with a P4 system based on PC1066." www.tomshardware.com |
tweak'e (174) | ||
| 1 | |||||