The Prescott Survival Kit

[TheCDBurner]

<deleted> - Because no one here has a sense of humor, apparently. Or they think Prescott is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Whatever.

My opinion: P4C is way better than P4E; Athlon 64 is way better than P4 except when it comes to video encoding.

[aviationwiz]

That's just stupid, it's not even funny.

[TheCDBurner]

Intel fan-boy, huh?

[aviationwiz]

No, I go for what's best out there at the time I make my purchase

For desktops, it's currently Intel, it was AMD 2 years ago.

When I bought my laptop last year, it was AMD, and it still is AMD. (Comparing Athlon XP to Celeron, of course the P4 will kill the Athlon XP)

[hoxlund]

actually i just got a free upgrade to a prescott 3Ghz cpu

i don't notice that its any hotter

[Shredder]

Comparing Athlon XP to Celeron, of course the P4 will kill the Athlon XP

I wouldn't say P4 "kill" Athlon XP. P4 does perform better... about 10% at most. However, you have to consider the significant difference in the price of each CPU. P4 costs at least twice as much as Athlon XP. So it has to have better performance.

[pchilson]

Comparing Athlon XP to Celeron, of course the P4 will kill the Athlon XP

I wouldn't say P4 "kill" Athlon XP. P4 does perform better... about 10% at most. However, you have to consider the significant difference in the price of each CPU. P4 costs at least twice as much as Athlon XP. So it has to have better performance.

Kinda sounds like them Plextor fans... pay twice as much for 10% performance gain...

[aviationwiz]

It's a noticeable performance gain, and as I said, I go for the best. I remember, going back 2 years ago, when I prefered AMD to Intel, that Athlon XP's actually cost *MORE* than the Pentium 4's. The price difference is hardly noticeable in desktop CPU's, but very noticeable in laptop's.

[pchilson]

It's a noticeable performance gain

Yeah, I can see it now.. when you hit the "Submit" button with that 10% performance gain it just rocks your world now.

[aviationwiz]

Ever heard of gaming, or encoding video?

[hoxlund]

well p4 2.8Ghz is $150 (800 FSB), athlon xp 2800+ (333 FSB) is $85

as far as whole processor, chipsets, mobos are concerned the p4 will outperform and win against the athlon in every test you toss at it

[aviationwiz]

What does the Athlon XP 2800+ perform like to a P4 equivalent? Not a P4 2.8, for certain.

[aviationwiz]

OK, I'll take my prices from newegg for this. After analyzing many tests we (hox & I) decided that the P4 2.8GHZ (800mhz fsb) performs about the same as the Athlon XP 3200+

Athlon XP 3200+: $187
Pentium 4 2.8C GHZ: $180

All prices retail.

[TheCDBurner]

XP2800 ~= P4 2.6 or so.

Some XP's PR ratings are dead-on, some are waaayyy off.

The Athlon 64s, however, are another matter. Their PR ratings match up to the P4 (for the most part, anyway). P4s still do better at video encoding, A64 rocks for games and everything else. Heck, there are some benchmarks that the XP 2500 is matching P4's at 3GHz - but they that's a fairly specialized set of circumstances.

[TheCDBurner]

OK, I'll take my prices from newegg for this. After analyzing many tests we (hox & I) decided that the P4 2.8GHZ (800mhz fsb) performs about the same as the Athlon XP 3200+

Athlon XP 3200+: $187
Pentium 4 2.8C GHZ: $180

All prices retail.

Yup. Dead on. The XP 2500 is close to true; mine beats the snot out of my 2.4GHz P4C (800Mhz FSB). And at $80, it's a great chip.

[aviationwiz]

I got to admit, I was *VERY* impressed with the Athlon XP 2500+ that I put in my mom's computer. It really is a great chip, but it doesn't come to close to my P4 2.6C overclocked to 2.8 with Thermalright SP-94. In fact, it didn't come close to my P4 2.6C when I leave it not overclocked.

[aviationwiz]

I do games, encoding, the whole schemere on my 2.6C, and it's great at doing everything. Well, to each thier own

[Shredder]

I remember, going back 2 years ago, when I prefered AMD to Intel, that Athlon XP's actually cost *MORE* than the Pentium 4's. The price difference is hardly noticeable in desktop CPU's, but very noticeable in laptop's.

No AMD CPU costed more than Intel's.

[Shredder]

OK, I'll take my prices from newegg for this. After analyzing many tests we (hox & I) decided that the P4 2.8GHZ (800mhz fsb) performs about the same as the Athlon XP 3200+

Athlon XP 3200+: $187
Pentium 4 2.8C GHZ: $180

All prices retail.

You do realize that Athlon XP 3200+ runs at 2.2Ghz and it is currently the top of the Athlon XP line, such that comparing cost to lower P4 model is flawed. You might as well compare to the price of P4 2.2/2.26Ghz. Athlon XP 3200+ outperforms P4 2.2/2.26Ghz and costs just about 50 dollars more. According to pricewatch.com, Athlon XP 3200+ retail costs around $190 (give or take a few dollars) and Intel P4 2.2/2.26Ghz retail costs around $140 (again, give or take a few dollars). Which softwares did you guys use to come up such performance comparison? Your performance comparison should be considered flawed if you used any software that has exclusive optimization for one type of CPU.

[Shredder]

I do games, encoding, the whole schemere on my 2.6C, and it's great at doing everything. Well, to each thier own

Most video encoding is IU ("Integer Units") intensive and games are FPU ("Floating Point Unit") intensive. P4 has great memory bandwidth and good IU, while Athlon has great FPU and not-very-good memory bandwith. So when you either playing game or encoding a video with similarly configured except for CPU and motherboard chipsets, say Athlon XP 3200+ on NForce2 chipset motherboard and P4 3.2Ghz on 875P chipset, should show you that Athlon XP 3200+ gives performance within about 90% or so of the performance of P4 3.2Ghz.

[pranav81]

I have used a total of about a dozen of AMD machines.I got tired of constant overheating,as there is no air conditioning here as common it is there in the Western countries.Also the ambient temperature is very high.So I have seen almost all the machines dying on me after a certain time.Also I agree that Intel CPU's cost more,but offer the same back by perfomance and lasting long than their AMD counterparts.I havent seen a 64 machine,but it sure will beat 32 bit Intel CPU's due to their architecture.
Comparing them to Itanium 2,Itanium 2 will surely blow it off.



::Pranav::

[aviationwiz]

Just was thinking, and this might be a good slogan for Intel South Africa.

When your in the middle of the Sahara and you need your laptop to not overheat, trust the Intel Centrino Processor to satisfy your computing needs.

[pranav81]

Thats pretty good.But AMD fans here will protest.


::Pranav::

[Bhairav]

Bah,the new Ahlon 64 chips are very good.Pranav and aviationwiz, don't let Intel blind you guys any more, read any review of the Athlon 64, at places like HardOCP, Anandtech and TechReport and then hopefully you will rethink your positions. Oh, and Google search for "Cool 'N' Quiet", read up on it.

[pranav81]

I knew some AMD fan would reply back.

I agree with you Bhairav.The AMD 64 is a x86 CPU,as you know,which offers 32 bit and 64 bit extensions.So why compare it with the P4?Load a copy of Windows XP 64 Bit Edition (still in beta stage) and then compare the results with Itanium 2.What happens?Athlon 64 disappears.
I agree that AMD CPU's are cheaper,but Intel too has good quality CPU's.



::Pranav::