Taking the AMD plunge

[apache_lives]

AMD has been kickin Intels butt since the K7 release where have you been.

Actually when AMD released the K7 the P3 was still a bit more efficent and in the end the Coppermine P3 was cooler and slightly slower (but more expensive) until they hit the wall at 1ghz.

The P4 a bit later matched the AMD (not clock for clock but equal chips etc, eg AMD 1400 vs P4 1800) and finally (years later) the P4c put the K7 design to shame - the P4 2.4C managed to beat the Athlon XP 3200 at a few benchmarks, but the AMD as always was cheaper.

Intel's have always been there, and even now Intel's and AMD's cpus are still "compeditive" - there aint that much between a Pentium4 and an Athlon 64 and im sure no one could tell the diffrence between machines side by side.

 

[cbcjr]

Intel's have always been there, and even now Intel's and AMD's cpus are still "compeditive" - there aint that much between a Pentium4 and an Athlon 64 and im sure no one could tell the diffrence between machines side by side.

Is this true for even my situation: P4 3.4 (single core) vs. 4800 (dual core)?

Everything I read seems to indicate that I should be able to see a small increase in some areas and larger ones in others.

In fact, I'm counting on it.



C

 

[apache_lives]

There is not much between - i mean like A64 3500 vs P4 3400, and dual core vs dual core not an unfair match like P4 3.4 vs A64 X2 4800, theres like a 5% gap mostly, but the A64's are "winning" cause they offer that 5% above the fastest P4's while maintaining better temps, and mostly cheaper prices.

 

[endyen]

Actually when AMD released the K7 the P3 was still a bit more efficent

Just to be historicly accurate, that isn't quite true. In fact, the early thunderbirds had faster cache, and an extra FPU. They had a clear advantage across the board over equally clocked P3s at that time.

 

[apache_lives]

efficent - yes the amds were a bit quicker at the cost of heat.

 

[RichPLS]

I belive an X2-4800 is more in line with a P4-3800

 

[cbcjr]

Thanks all for the feedback. Really appreciate it.

I just picked up some elements of the system today and will spend the next 3 weeks getting it ready to replace my current desktop.

Although I normally never go such a route, I am just too busy to bring down / modify / cannibalize my current system.

I'll post a few comments along the way.



C

 

[linux_0]

Something like this perhaps?

http://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/WishShareShow.asp?ID=1848293

I have built many AMDs over the years and with the exception of some defective parts I have not had any major problems whatsoever.

I have had Unix and Linux (AMD) machines that have been running for years without interruption.

The only crashes I have experienced were software related, where the game ( s ) or application ( s ) crashed and caused windoze to freak out and reboot. The funny thing is the exact same hardware runs fine under Linux.... go figure....

Some games like morrowind, empire earth, empires dawn of the modern age and others crash on me all the time causing my AMD64 XP dual boot system to reboot.

What's interesting is my P4 2.8 was crashing even more frequently running morrowind and several other games.

 

[apache_lives]

What's interesting is my P4 2.8 was crashing even more frequently running morrowind and several other games.

BTW this is not a flame or fanboy thing or anything but (and unless it was the board or chipset) do you think the P4's were less stable then AMD's?

Im actually interested, iv noticed higher clocked chips like the P4's are somewhat a little less stable or something (might reset 5% more often or something) - only just, perhaps not enough to measure.

Then again it could be all down to bad boards, crap cooling and anything else...

 

[lakedude]

Actually when AMD released the K7 the P3 was still a bit more efficent

Just to be historicly accurate, that isn't quite true. In fact, the early thunderbirds had faster cache, and an extra FPU. They had a clear advantage across the board over equally clocked P3s at that time.Just to be clear this is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I was talking about performance vs efficiency and reliability. The Coppermine was an awesome chip the was a clear winner if you took all aspects into account. At that time the AMD chips were using about twice the power so they got really hot and at that time they also lacked heat protection so they would burn up if anything went wrong with their heat solution. In those days AMD was for people who liked to take chances and Intel was totally solid (except for the one CPU that got too hot when they released it too early trying to keep up with AMD).

Proof:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2001/09/17/hot_spot/

Today the situation is somewhat reversed. The AMD chips are more efficient per clock and per watt.

 

[dvdpiddy]

good for you your not really taking the amd plunge your just liberating yourself from intel bull crap