If you were me ... you would choose which one of these ??




AMD Athlon XP 2800+, 2.083 GHz, 128 kB L1 + 512 kB L2 Cache, FSB 333 MHz, Socket 462 (Barton), BOX
Socket 462 EPoX 8K9A2, VIA KT400, FSB333, 3x DDR400, AGP8x, ATA133, 6x PCI, 6x USB 2.0, 6 ch Audio
DDR 512MB PC3200 (400MHz), Micron, Samsung, Infineon
Matrox Millenium G550, 32 MB DDR, Bulk
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9, 120 GB, 7200 rpm, ATA133, 2 MB Cache
COMBO DRIVE LG 16x DVD, 48x Write, 24x ReWrite, 48x Read, ATAPI, RETAIL
SkyStar 2


or ..



Intel Pentium 4 2.40 GHz, 512 kB Cache, FSB 533 MHz, Socket 478, BOX
Socket 478 Gigabyte 8SQ800, SIS 655, FSB533+, 4xDDR400 (DualDDR), AGP8x, ATA133, 5x PCI, 6x USB 2.0, 6 ch Audio + SPDIF, FireWire, HT
DDR 512MB PC3200 (400MHz), Micron, Samsung, Infineon
Matrox Millenium G550, 32 MB DDR, Bulk
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9, 120 GB, 7200 rpm, ATA133, 2 MB Cache
COMBO DRIVE LG 16x DVD, 48x Write, 24x ReWrite, 48x Read, ATAPI, RETAIL
SkyStar 2
Posted on 2003-06-05 08:51:26 by Azrim
Athlon rulz :grin:!!!
BTW: I think this thread is for "Holy wars" forum :grin:
Posted on 2003-06-05 09:23:17 by JohnFound
There was a link to a site where some guy compared AMD & Intel, but I cant find it now, anyway
according to him AMD kicks Intel.

I am not starting a war here, just cant decide which of these to take, or just stick to my
"old" P4 1.8 GHZ

So, I kindly ask of you to "dump" some good points for both...
Posted on 2003-06-05 09:37:46 by Azrim
If you have "old" P4 - 1.8GHz I think this is useless to waste money for new computer. Better buy some periferal devices - new laser printer, scanner, TV tuner, new monitor, new brand keyboard, digital photo camera, more RAM, bigger hard disk, DVD writer...... Actually I follow this strategy on my "actually old" K6-2 500MHz and I am happy with it. You know - the computer is a tool like a hammer, not a fashion coat. :grin:
Posted on 2003-06-05 09:45:55 by JohnFound
...oh.. I am aware of that.. and trust me I will be using my good "old" P4 for a long time .. together
with my P3 603 MHZ -- I will stop using them when they melt..

.. but I NEED the new one.. not a fashon thing



I guess I just buy both of them and run a benchmark test and throw the "bad" one away...
Posted on 2003-06-05 09:49:44 by Azrim
From the immediate choice its difficult. Neither are particularly future proof.

The 533MHz FSB on the P4 limits it to that class of processor, and also negates to some extent the DDR400 (the clocks running asyncronously bettween the FSB (133MHz) and the memory (200MHz) will reduce it from maximum performance). Intel is already pushing the 800MHz FSB with the latest P4 3GHz, so you'll be buying an expensive dead end. Also the 533MHz chip doesn't support Intel's hyper threading (it was intro'd with the 2.8GHz chip, and will be stretched back to the 2.6GHz @ 800MHz FSB el-cheap-o chip).
Also from what I've heard the Prescot chip will be announced soon, so prices will drop when it is, so Intel can clear stock space in preparation.

Similarly though, the Athlon you've chosen is similarly crippled, the KT400 doesn't (officially at least) support a 400MHz FSB, VIA are bringing out the KT600 to remedy this. If you want a fully approved 400MHz chipset look at the nForce2 (although I hate to say it nVidia did a good job with this chipset). It will allow you to move to the 3200+ and above should they ever bring one out (not sure if that'll happen because of AMD64).

The only other thing to bear in mind is that the P4 has SSE2, but then again your current P4 does too should you ever need it.

But in all honesty the machines seem to be a bit of a mish-mash, neither having the top grunt, but neither having massive disk storage, or powerful graphics. The PCs seem to be lost in a rather expensive "jack of all trades" type specification.

If you need real power, go with the 3GHz @ 800MHz FSB P4, it'll go a little way further in my opinion than the Athlons, they're at the end of the line.

If you need graphics, either processor is fine, just whack in a Quadro, or big old Wildcat.

If you need disk speed, get a proper SCSI controller, and RAID the pants of 5 big IBM disks.

If you don't really want any of those, stick with the current P4, lets face it, its good enough.

Mirno
Posted on 2003-06-05 13:57:20 by Mirno
According to an article at tomsharware AMD sucked big time. Much slower than the corresponding pentium. I don't really know what to believe because I have seen tests that proves the opposite.
Posted on 2003-06-05 14:13:41 by Delight

According to an article at tomsharware AMD sucked big time. Much slower than the corresponding pentium. I don't really know what to believe because I have seen tests that proves the opposite.


You must find out when the article/benchmark was written. Yes, AMD kicked Intel's butt a year or two ago. If the benchmark is around that time, you will definitely see that "AMD rules!" review.

But, since then AMD slowed down. So, in recent reviews, you are more likely to see "P4 is better" review. I don't know what happened, but AMD screwed up big time. Their CPU is not cheaper. Their CPU is not faster. There CPU is just about Intel's in many respects, except, of course, the infamous heat.
Posted on 2003-06-05 18:20:35 by Starless
..well.. it's gonna be this:




Intel Pentium 4 2.40 GHz, 512 kB Cache, FSB 800 MHz, Socket 478, BOX
Socket 478 Gigabyte 8IPE1100, Intel 865PE, FSB800, 4xDDR400 (DualDDR), AGP8x, ATA100, 5x PCI, 8x USB 2.0, 6 ch Audio + SPDIF, Serial ATA, HT
DDR 512MB PC3200 (400MHz), Micron, Samsung, Infineon x 2
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9, 80 GB, 7200 rpm, ATA133, 8 MB Cache
Matrox Millenium G550, 32 MB DDR, Bulk
COMBO DRIVE LG 16x DVD, 48x Write, 24x ReWrite, 48x Read, ATAPI, RETAIL
SkyStar 2



I got really tired :(
Posted on 2003-06-06 03:12:05 by Azrim