Pentium or Athlon?
- Thread starter Chopper
- Start date
- Status
dethangel
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 934
http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/processors/pentium4/index.htm?iid=ipp_desk_proc+prod_p4p&
in case you were wondering where i got it from:
800 MHz system bus: 3 GHz
in case you were wondering where i got it from:
800 MHz system bus: 3 GHz
Martin
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 1,422
- Location
- California
Wonder if that's a match for the upcoming Athlon 64.
The 2800+ Athlon 64 running at 1.6 GHz is capable of toppling a 2800+ Athlon XP and 2.8 GHz P4.
The 2800+ Athlon 64 running at 1.6 GHz is capable of toppling a 2800+ Athlon XP and 2.8 GHz P4.
þÄ®âÃÖx
the flaming hermit
- Messages
- 950
Personally, the 64-bit thing isn't a big selling point for me. The Hammer will be a great processor in that it will blaze a trail for 64-bit in the future, but I don't think there will be enough support for it at first to make it worthwhile.
Simply Athlon
It seems funny how people can be lead to believe almost anything they here. I don't wish to scrutinize, only set some things straight (I'm sure a bunch of people are going to say "in your opinion...").
Anyways, back in the day of the K6 processor, Intel lead the market for reliability purposes. Athlon struct back with the Duron. They had increased reliability and profit, but not enough to keep up with Intel.
Amd decided the way to get ahead is to simply "rethink their inks." Their engineers developed a processor that had a more efficient design. This allowed for executing most 32-bit instructions in less CLK cycles.
This simply put is how AMD is staying ahead in effieciency category. They do not lead in marketing or heat efficiency.
My only thought, that has no merit and is purely opinion, is that the reason they are so hot is because of the short pipelines; providing faster speeds but less area for "natural" cooling.
Oh yeah, and that bus speed thing... Check the stat's AMD's bus in only at 400 MHz top, but Intel's is 533 MHz.
Overall AMD is a better performer, but only because of the fact that they sat down an made the most time efficient CPU...
It seems funny how people can be lead to believe almost anything they here. I don't wish to scrutinize, only set some things straight (I'm sure a bunch of people are going to say "in your opinion...").
Anyways, back in the day of the K6 processor, Intel lead the market for reliability purposes. Athlon struct back with the Duron. They had increased reliability and profit, but not enough to keep up with Intel.
Amd decided the way to get ahead is to simply "rethink their inks." Their engineers developed a processor that had a more efficient design. This allowed for executing most 32-bit instructions in less CLK cycles.
This simply put is how AMD is staying ahead in effieciency category. They do not lead in marketing or heat efficiency.
My only thought, that has no merit and is purely opinion, is that the reason they are so hot is because of the short pipelines; providing faster speeds but less area for "natural" cooling.
Oh yeah, and that bus speed thing... Check the stat's AMD's bus in only at 400 MHz top, but Intel's is 533 MHz.
Overall AMD is a better performer, but only because of the fact that they sat down an made the most time efficient CPU...
its a close race, I play lots of games. I have a celeron 1.7 and it runs cold, with an ok cooling system. Games run alright on my system, and i only paid 135 for my mobo and cpu, and that was almost a year ago. they may not perform as well but i love my celeron, and it does what i need it to. and its cheaper then amds.
- Status
Similar threads
