Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dev_Master

Athlon vs. Pentium

Recommended Posts

Martee    476
Not again!

Here are the responses you will get;
Athlon is suck, Pentium is win!
Pentium is suck, Athlon is win!
Athlons are hot. They catch on fire.
Pentiums are for lamers.
Athlons are faster.
Pentiums are faster.


Seriously, though, neither one is better. In general, Athlons offer a better price/performance ratio, and in general, Pentiums are less troublesome (e.g. you don''t have to worry about the AMD Reg Fix, VIA 4-in-1 drivers, and the like).

I''m sure I will get flamed by people on both sides now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martee    476
quote:
Original post by Null and Void
No one has said anything flamish yet, how are you right ?


Aah! I am offended! That was a flame!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster   
Guest Anonymous Poster
This isn''t a flame war.

I would like to know what the technical difference is, honestly. If it''s a flame war, it''s a bunch of people bad talking the _names_ "Athlon" and "Pentium." If it''s a technical discussion, you consider the voltage, cache memory (what is that exactly?), efficiency, and circumstantial performances.

By "circumstantial performance", I mean how a CPU is faster when 4 programs are running on 2 different threads than it is when 50 programs are running on 100 threads. No P4 will always move at 2 Ghz. It''s not going to happen. When you have the MS Office toolbar running in the background w/ a bunch of resident programs running alongside it, on top of Quake 3, that P4 will slow down to hog heaven (what is _that_ exactly?).

Also, the statement that an Athlon is better than a Pentium is actually true. The statement that an Athlon is better than a P3 or P4 is arguable. Older Athlon models move at 750Mhz, and newer models move at well over 1Ghz. Later Penium models move at 266Mhz, and the latest P4 reached a 2Ghz benchmark. So yes, an Athlon is better than a Pentium [1].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kwizatz    1392
I doubt you will get a serious discussion here, we are mostly kids trapped in young adults/adults bodies, isnt it obvious from the fact that we all play and want to make games???

P.S.: AMD ROCKS!!!
is faster and cheaper.

Edit: changed Athlon to AMD, gotta love the whole company



Edited by - kwizatz on January 31, 2002 10:54:18 PM

Edited by - kwizatz on January 31, 2002 11:03:56 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ELS1    127
Pentium is like a crappy import car. you have to rev up high in order to get power.

Athlon is like an american muscle car. all the power is down low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster   
Guest Anonymous Poster
Athlon suck coz they just simply use dirty tactic for their bussiness strategic Athlon TB 1.9GHz = P 4 1.6 = wat the hell is this??? we should get 1.9GHz power insteaad 1.6 . BTW do you notice that it is easy to get sponsorship from them if you are just i game developer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vlion    151
From a more "user" standpoint:
AMD makes chips which seem to process more Hz-wise.
Intel`s chips don`t do as much, but they go faster Hz-wise.

Also; Intel is more expensive per Hz, from what I see.
Intel also has more major computer makers using them.
I think Micron and maybe on or two other major computer makers use AMD.

Most computer makers, Dell, Gateway, HP, etc, use Intel.

What kind of intruction sets each uses and their tradeoffs are I don`t know; I`m sorry. But I can tell you that I would like to buy a AMD because the chips are slightly cheaper, meaning I can use the $ on other items.

Anyway, thats my take on things.


Bugle4d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
utwo007    122
AMD isn''t cheaper when you have to buy DDR to use it. Yikes! I love AMD, personally. If I had the money, that''s the way I''d go, but I can''t afford the DDR.

No, I''m not a student. I''m just poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Null and Void    1088
quote:
Original post by utwo007
AMD isn''t cheaper when you have to buy DDR to use it. Yikes! I love AMD, personally. If I had the money, that''s the way I''d go, but I can''t afford the DDR. No, I''m not a student. I''m just poor.

That''s not true. You can use SDRAM with a AMD chip if you buy a motherboard that uses SDRAM (most of them do). I personally bought a DDR board when I upgraded since it was cheap at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anozireth    122
Well, this is only personal experience but I''ve had two athlon systems die on me, one after only 3 months of use, the other after only about a year. I am now running on a P3 and it has been much more stable than the athlons ever were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Null and Void    1088
quote:
Original post by Anozireth
Well, this is only personal experience but I''ve had two athlon systems die on me, one after only 3 months of use, the other after only about a year.

Yes, only personal experience. What do you mean by "die" anyway? I could have been another peice of hardware at fault or insufficient cooling. My Athlon has been going for a decent while now without issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Colin Jeanne    1114
I have an Athlon system that uses SDRAM, and have never had a processor die on me (had a 166mhz P1 since 96', 500mhz P3 since 98', 800mhz Athlon since summer 00').

I haven't had problems with either processor and don't have comparable processors (nor applications that would use so much power that I could tell a difference) so I cant say from experiance which is better/worse. I think it's more important to decide based on price and what you need.

The only piece of equipment that has died on me is a monitor.

*EDIT noticed mistakes...

Invader X
Invader's Realm

Edited by - Invader X on January 31, 2002 12:03:18 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anozireth    122
The one that died after a year was DEAD, no video output, no drives spinning, nothing. Both the Mobo and the processor were gone. I tried swapping both with identical working ones (my friend had the exact same setup) and neither worked. The other one that died didn''t go quite the same way, but I think there was more something wrong with the mobo, but it would randomly truncate files on the hard drive to 1k, and it wouldn''t let me re-partition the drive. And it''s not the drive because that same drive is now working without a problem in my current setup. I doubt it was a cooling problem, I had appropriate fan/heatsink setups, and even so, why would the mobos have died too? Ahh screw computers =D PCs anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Null and Void    1088
Anozireth, the first is hard to diagnose but the second was much more likely a motherboard issue (or issue with the OS dealing with that motherboard), as you can probably see. Heating issues can potentially ruin the motherboard too, but it doesn''t seem like a heating problem, like you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Araanor    122
Practically all problems with Athlon XP are because of the VIA motherboards.

We''re comparing Athlon XP with Pentium 4 aight? The Athlon is much better bang for the buck. I wouldn''t hesitate.

Meself I have an Athlon with the first AMD motherboard, never messed with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
newpers    122
I feel that amd makes a much better processor than intel, but again that is just my opinion. I have had heard many complaints about intel, and little to none about amd. Again, I just like amd as a company better than intel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster   
Guest Anonymous Poster
If you are willing to put up with the loud, low toned cooling system for your AMD then go for it, that''s all I have to say from experience. I have an AMD Athlon 1.2GHz and it is too loud to leave on overnight or through a good movie on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaiiden    5710
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
I would like to know what the technical difference is, honestly.


You really wanna know? The down and dirty goes like this:

Intel's P4 has this huge 21-stage (21? 22? something like that) pipeline for processing data. The benefits of this is that a larger pipeline is the key for bumping the clock speed up faster, which is why the P4 is already clocked in at 2.1GHz. The downside is when the processor screws up its branch prediction and has to flush out the entire pipeline and start again. ouch Luckily it has very good branch prediction, but mistakes still happen. The second (bad?) thing about the P4 is it's coupling to RDRAM (Rambus). Not only is this memory type twice the cost of DDR, it's not even worth the cost right now. This is because although RDRAM has a nice fat bandwidth pipe, the P4 is not yet going fast enough (3GHz will start to tax it) to make it worthwhile. Right now, DDR RAM will feed a P4 sufficiently, and Intel only recently released a P4 DDR chipset. When the P4 gets faster, DDR will choke and RDRAM will be worth the cost - but not yet.

Over on AMD's side, they are sticking to a much smaller stage pipeline (I forget the exact number... 4-8?) which is why Athlons have only reached 1.67GHz in speed. Since AMD supports DDR RAM and has supported it in the past, it has become the top consumer CPU due to cheap costs compared to a similar Intel system.

Some other noted differences are that the Intel P4 Northwood chip runs at 2.1GHz top speed (so far) and is made with a .13 micron process and uses copper interconnects. This significantly reduces power consumption and heat output. The AthlonXP is still at .18 microns and a top speed of 1.67GHz. However AMD's new chip, Thouroughbred, will drop doen to a .13 micron process, so hopefully a lot of AMD heat problems will be releived

In short, Intel is an industrial CPU best used in servers and for people who do a lot of content-creation (Photoshop, AutoCAD, Premier, etc). AMD is the best consumer CPU (right now) due to cost and speed - the AthlonXP 2000+ (1.67GHz)holds its own admirably next to the P4 2.1GHz in general tests.

I can only say that the thing that ticks me off most is people who can't see past the clockspeed. This is a common thing, as evidenced by AMDs AthlonXP marketing scheme (the 2000+ is clocked at 1.67GHz but performs like an Intel 2GHz). Clockspeed ain't all that. You also have memory bottlenecks (try using a P4 with SDRAM and you'll see what I mean), instruction sets, chip architecture.... always look past the clock speed.
quote:

If you are willing to put up with the loud, low toned cooling system for your AMD then go for it, that's all I have to say from experience. I have an AMD Athlon 1.2GHz and it is too loud to leave on overnight or through a good movie on TV.


Get a fanbus installed so that you can turn down your fans when you aren't using your PC.

_________________________________________________________________

Drew Sikora
A.K.A. Gaiiden

ICQ #: 70449988
AOLIM: DarkPylat

Blade Edge Software
Staff Member, GDNet
Public Relations, Game Institute

3-time Contributing author, Game Design Methods , Charles River Media (coming GDC 2002)
Online column - Design Corner at Pixelate

NJ IGDA Chapter - NJ developers unite!! [Chapter Home | Chapter Forum]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrKappa    122
Athlon architecture is ways better designed than p3 one.
AMD''s first k7 had a clock speed of 500mhz, and now they are still selling a cpu featuring almost the same architecture at 1.67Ghz.
One of the reasons why p4 release has been accelerated is that p3 architecture didn''t allowed intel to keep up the pace in clock speed race.
From a technical point of view, Athlon performs more ipc than any p3-based cpu. That''s another reason why k7 is superior to p3.

As for p4 vs athlonxp, things are less clear.
AthlonXP has still some advantage, allowing amd to sell 1.67Ghz cpus with a 1.900+ mark, but if you look at the architecture, p4 can get a lot faster in ghz race. p4 fpu is slower than a p3 fpu because intel had to accelerate its release, but next step will improve fpu performance. SSE2 could help p4 to reduce the gap, but everybody knows the time needed for developers (and programming tools vendors) to support new instructions is 12-18 months.

p4 is the base of upcoming intel cpu series and amd isn''t going to push Athlonxp as x86-64 is scheduled for q4 2002.

My 2 eurocents:
k7 vs p3 = k7.
k7 vs p4 = p4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites