I have been an Athlon Fan, however I try to stay Bias. So far the Athlon have been the cheapest CPU along with a very great performer. It has been brought to my attention that the P4's are going down in price so I am trying to do a price comparision between a good Athlon system and a good P4 system. The stuff I need/want is a system with built is RAID, and no need for built in Audio/Video/LAN. To be that stuff only means less voltage to go around, equalling that of bad voltage, I just don't like having stuff I do not need. I know what I would want in a Athlon System, I have been working on them forever, but a P4 system I am completly unsure of. I want performance, performance I will not have to upgrade or anything for about 2 years. I will be buying this stuff in about 2 weeks BTW. So here is what I am into... ATA133 w/ onboard RAID Great performer, I want awsome performance... can you guys help?
Hey I will not cheat myself on anything, just becuase. I always do price checks to make sure I am not gonna loose out. The Pentium 4 has what I need, and I must admit EQ and Star Wars Galaxies will play alot better on a P4 becuase Sony Online is a bunch of Intel Lovers, I am not fond o Intel becuase they are money grubbing bastages, but then again AMD would be the same if they were in their shoes. So if the P4 is better than AMD at the time of buying, then I will go P4, as long as price is not 200 buck or more at the time.. WHat I need is to know what kind of board if best, I have done lots of research since posting this and found that perhaps the Intel 850 chipset with RAMBUS memory is the best route, however the P4 is still a very expencive chip! Which is my delema unless price changes. Plus I have been leaning abck toward the Athlon becuase simply put the 2.2 GHz P4 is just a Highly clocked POS even though it is a new core. I have seen the 2.2 put against a athlon 2000 and they were pretty much on par with each other, however if the new P4 2666MHz core comes out soon I will deffinitly get that becuase in many benches it mocks the AThlon.
i might favor intel for 3d gaming i ran 3dmark on my amd 1.4 ghz & geforce 3 (elsa gladiac 920) with 256mb pc133 ram and got a score of about 5296 (after overclocking the card a tad). this other guy had a 1.6mhz Intel (i think p4) also with a geforce3 (im not sure if his a Ti or not) and 256mb of ram... and his score was about 6184... it definetly looked much nicer, especially once it got to the forest part. i might favor intel on this one. ps. anyone ever setup a water cooling kit? mines bumming out and not cooling the processor at all... and i blue screen once it hits 120 degress farenheit.
Well nybbl I must say something is wrong there... I have the same exact card and got more than 6900 points in 3D Mark 2K1, at all stock speed absolutly no OCing of ANY kind. On my system below: ABIT KG7 Athlon XP 1600 512MB DDR OCZ PC2700 2.5 ELSA Gladiac 920 GF3 blah blah blah, can't remember off hand... And I will say this, the Willamette Core sucked ass, I do not care for that old POS core for anything. Now a new 2666MHz P4 is coming out and it beat the Athlon 2000 in every bench they had, now I will say that for the MHz and all that is crappy scores, but when I do buy a new system soon I will go by pure performance and not anything else(except price). So this is why I am considering the P4. Please, I ask that there be no Bias opinions in helping me, I already know what will be said if you talk crap about one CPU or the other.
who's wrong? [not a flame] You have an XP processor... better for 3d... and notice your DDR ram... slightly better than my worthless pc133 ram.
check out my sig for my hardware......i think alot of people feel compelled to go with amd cause it's "the thing to get"...lets face it, any top end amd or intel will satisfy anyone for shere performance....but, i ended up going with intel......less bugs with the hardware and software.....i have not had a single prob with my setup, yet im constantily fixing friends amd systems....... bottem line, if you have the time and skill to mess with your system to get it working at top performance, and you want to save a few dollers, then go amd..... if you want a bullet proof, low maintence system out of the box, then go intel......anybody who calls a high end p4 slow, is not only stupid, but ignorant......plus, you say your not upgrading for a few years, so spending the extra few bucks will not be wasted....(plus, have you seen how well the northwoods overclock....wow)
I almost 100% agree with cool hand. The P4 Overclocks VERY WELL indeed, in sheer MHz, but the performance gains in both Percentage OC'd and teh amount of MHz is simply... depressing to me, IMHO. Anyone who thinks a P4 sucks is wrong, in a way. The willamette core really 'kinda' did suck when you took into account the price and performance compaired to a AThlon of the same speed. But when Northwood came out myeye started to look over the other way some, but even at 2.2GHz it JUST doesn't cut it compaired to the Athlon, however I take into account that 2.2GHz P4 is somewhat better in performance, PLUS more compadibilty, PLUS the performance differences between it and the Athlon 2000 is unnoticable, I am pretty much on a balance at that point and cannot seem to go one way or the other, UNTIL I look at the price difference between it and the Athlon. Pretty much I am willing to pay UPTO But absolutly NO MORE than 200 bucks for the P4 2.2 over a Athlon 2000+ system. Which it is still over $200 USD. So at this very moment I am still on the AMD side, however if the new 2666MHz P4 comes out and price is fair I will deffinitly go P4, hehe unless the new Athlons that are out at the time are very good contenders. Do you see my delema?
you get what you pay for.....go with amd, and you'll be wondering (even if your happy)....go with intel, and your guarenteed to be happy with a fast, stable system....
That is something else I thought about also Cool Hand, I also think how I will be able to talk **** about both CPU's
what are you building the system for? maby this will help... one of the main reasons i went with intel, is cause my system is a workstation first, gaming system second.....and most of the software i use is optimised more for the p4 than an amd......and i need a dead stable, reliable, fast system.... had i been building a gaming system only, i may have gone with amd myself...just for the simple fact that ide of been tweaking it to death, and could live with loosing a cheaper component due to my own stupidity woth overclocking or what not.... ill tell ya one thing, i dont razz people for going with amd, but ive been told im stupid several times for going with intel...even after i explain in detail why i did......jsut make sure you dont let some amd lovin, intel hateing jsut to hate intel dimwitt influence your decision...
That would be a friend of mine, we are constantly fighting/debating this same thing. He keeps bashing the AMD system and I keep defending it, but not bashing the Intel system. I simply state the facts. But becuase I defend AMD I am a bias person? Ugh he infuriates me sometimes. But he is planning on doing a AMD system becuase Intel is just too expencive, wierd guy. Man I wish someone knew when and for how much those new P4's at 2666MHz are gonna be? I need to find a good MoBo, one with onboard RAID, and is very good. I may wind up OCing some, once you OC you never get away I say. But I am unsure if I want DDR or RAMBUS. I am still unsure though, unless they lower the P4 2.2 a hundred bucks or so I will prolly get a Athlon.
In response to nybble above... SDR isn't so bad....I have a Tbird 1400 @ 1633, with 512MB SDR memory (at 142 CAS 2), and a GF3 Ti200 which is overclocked very close to Ti500 spec, and I get a 3dmark 2001 score of 7490 in 1024x768x32. Thus, I am not so quick to write off SDR. Sure, I wouldn't buy a new SDR based system now, but it sounds like something is badly set up to have such a low score with the kit you've got.
i would like to say this ok intel not only is muchsafer in processer heat and cooling and most hardware is made for intel sytems now i hate to tell u all this the reason why amd get more points in 3dmark2k1 is coz the program is made with amd also amds have a tad more cache then most intels in laymens terms means more caching for better performance all intel has to do is add more on cpu cache or make a baord that compromise for the lack of it and ddr ram is faster and better then intels rdram BUT intel has now imporved ist performance rate with the new northwood p4 which has more onbaord cache 256k and much has improved with it if u havent seen my post in general looking for a job well i got 1 in my job we have to do theese tests and send the results off to mobo manafactures and intel and amd now we test with 3d mark2k1 se and other bench marks which u all should no and intel shat all ova amds in multimedia ie movie making dv edits hdd caching eveything now amds craped all ova intel in office apps suck as ms office scannin printing stuff like that ne thing that had to do with office programs and stuff and amds performed much better then intel so plz do not hate me for tellin u the truth
Corvette, sorry but 3D Mark was not made with AMD in mind, it WAS known as the Intel Bias Benchmark for a very long time, until AMD came out with XP. AMD and Intel are quite on par with each other except in the MHz area of things, which is why Intel has the market share becuase of End Users. Think about what people look at when they are in the Electronics area of the stores... when they look at computers they see MHz and MHz only, they care not of the CPU. But anyways. Intel is also a better processor at handling multiple jobs. I am very, very unsure what is in store with AMD which is why I have no made my desision, on one hand I do not want to take a chance on a ne CPU(like the original P4), but on the other I want RAW perfoormance. I just wish I knew when the hell that new P4 is coming along with when the new .13m XP's
