Athlon 64 Or INtel P4 ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it can overclock pretty far...

Tom's Hardware was able to get a Extreme Edition (modified Northwood) to go up to 5ghz...
 
knuckle50 said:
No, its not a marketing plot. The purpose of Prescotts is that Intel can make much faster rocessors with the Prescott core, up to 4.2 ghz I've heard, while the Northwood core cannot go higher than 3.4 ghz. In reality the Prescott is not that bad, once you get up to 3.6 ghz it outperforms the Northwood. This is the purpose of it, because even though it runs hotter, most people won't care about that, because they don't overclock. They are just happy it runs faster. You have to remember that the vast majority of Intels processors are bought by companies like Dell, only a few are sold off for people to build their own.

My point is that the prescott could have been a lot better if Intel would have spent more time on it than on Tejas and Jayhawk , which they canned because of a heating problem which was way worse than the prescott' .
Tejas was geared to go at even higher speeds than prescott so the overheating problems were even worse. If prescott can only go to 4.2 GHz its only a temporary solution . Intel should implement a solution on their prescotts like AMD's Cool and Quite technology . This would decrese the prescott's heating problems . Intel needs to change their architechture so it doesn't consome so much power which is the root of the prescott's overheating problems .
 
str8lazy said:
that is prolly why dells and other computer that come prebuilt suck so much, because that thing can make some heat, and then it cant get released from the case(because pre-built cooling sux @$$). Therefore making sluggish performance

I am gonna have to say go AMD 64bit with a 939 socket. In my opnion you get the most bang for your buck.

rofl bang for ur buck compared to what? the 939's start at 500$ and up
northwood: extreme ocer'
amd xp's: budget
amd 64: expensive performance
 
yeah i agree the prescott should and could have been a lot better, its intels worst blunder since williamette... wait, williamette wasnt that long ago :p
 
YourPrinter said:
rofl bang for ur buck compared to what? the 939's start at 500$ and up
northwood: extreme ocer'
amd xp's: budget
amd 64: expensive performance


northwood: good Ocer
AMD XP's: budget
AMD 64 754: great bang for buck/lack upgradability
AMD 64 939: poor bang for buck/ will be upgradable for a long time
 
slvrstang said:
northwood: good Ocer
AMD XP's: budget
AMD 64 754: great bang for buck/lack upgradability
AMD 64 939: poor bang for buck/ will be upgradable for a long time

I wasnt reffering to the 939 as the best bang for your buck, but AMD in general. I was saying that I am gonna get a 939 cuz that can kick any p4's @$$. Sorry for the poor wording of my sentences
 
intel is no way cheapter then amd

amd is like half the price of intel and is better at gaming.

if your going to go for programs such as computer graphics, autocad and stuff, then you should go for intel if you have the money.

for gaming definitely go for amd
 
str8lazy said:
I wasnt reffering to the 939 as the best bang for your buck, but AMD in general. I was saying that I am gonna get a 939 cuz that can kick any p4's @$$. Sorry for the poor wording of my sentences

I wouldn't say ANY P4's ass but the 939's are incredibly fast and incredibly upgradable if you get a PCI express motherboard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom