AMD / Pentium

[Ouch!]

i'm sure this has been asked, but im buying a new pc, and the big decision is do i buy a Pentium (the 3.73Ghz one) or do i buy an AMD processor (whichever has the highest GHz). Don't mention price, its not a factor. Same with all that cooling shite. Just performance wise, which one is better??

[Lewiji]

Depends what you're doing.

AMD is better for gaming.
Intel is better for video encoding and the like.

Note that AMD's speed ratings don't go on ghz (although obviously a higher rating does have a higher clock speed), it's based around pentiums, so a 4500+ should perform to an equivalent of a 4.5ghz Pentium 4.

[Ouch!]

oh right..... i kind of get you.... the 2 processors are:
This AMD:
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 / 1MB Cache / 2000MHz FSB / Socket 939

or

This Pentium:
Intel Pentium 4 660 3.60GHz Processor

it would be for a mixture of gaming and music stuff. But mainly gaming.

[Lewiji]

Definitely the FX57, best gaming processor you can get at the moment I believe.

[Timmeh]

FX57 FX57 FX57 FX57

I said it a few times just to make sure.

The FX57 is sex, I have one in my house server, believe me, it's about the fastest retail CPU on the market at the moment.

[1kcattiesofgold]

Oh, the Pentium all the way.





I'm sorry, I can't say that with a straight face. Go with the Athlon. The FX-57 is the bestest processor out there right now (until the 59 is released this winter).
In the gaming arena, it was no contest. The FX-57 system demonstrated its prowess on Unreal Tournament, where it produced 185 frames per second at 1024 by 768 with 32-bit color and 181 fps with 1280 by 1024 at 32-bit color. In contrast, the X2 system had 167 fps, the two FX-55 systems averaged 151 fps, and the 3.73-GHz Pentium EE system had 148 fps at 1024 by 768 resolution with 32-bit color.

[Paradigm^]

Your post would have been quality, had you not used PC World as a source :(

[Lewiji]

Your post would have been quality, had you not used PC World as a source :(

I believe it's PCWorld.com, the tech advice site, not PCWorld.co.uk, the crappy know-nothing monopoly store :)

[Timmeh]

I believe it's PCWorld.com, the tech advice site, not PCWorld.co.uk, the crappy know-nothing monopoly store :)

The man he is quite right.

[Stringy Pete]

Note that AMD's speed ratings don't go on ghz (although obviously a higher rating does have a higher clock speed), it's based around pentiums, so a 4500+ should perform to an equivalent of a 4.5ghz Pentium 4.
The AMD nomenclature was originally intended to be compared to Pentium 3 chips, so the 4500+ would meant to be compared to a 4.5GHz P3, which incidentally is faster clock-for-clock than a P4, meaning the P4 would have to be even higher clocked.

[/pedant]

[1kcattiesofgold]

I believe it's PCWorld.com, the tech advice site, not PCWorld.co.uk, the crappy know-nothing monopoly store :)

Quite right. I actually didn't realize there was another PCWorld to be confused with (my week in UK consisted of the inside of a pub, the inside of a cab, and the inside of my friend's flat).

[Paradigm^]

In which case I stand corrected and retract my earlier post.

[Timmeh]

Quite right. I actually didn't realize there was another PCWorld to be confused with (my week in UK consisted of the inside of a pub, the inside of a cab, and the inside of my friend's flat).

Ah PC world. They employ you with "interest in computing" on your CV.

They tell you to buy things you quite blatently don't need.

One of their employees once told me I needed to buy a new computer from them after going in to buy a floppy drive because "it's the first thing to go, better to get a new PC now than have it die on you".

Enough said.

[1kcattiesofgold]

WOW

That's like buying a computer at Walmart....

[Paradigm^]

I'd love to work at PC World.

[1kcattiesofgold]

Extremetech.com (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1831454,00.asp) did a few benchmark tests and tells you how to overclock you shiny new FX-57.

[Pie R Squared]

Money wise (I know you didn't want to hear it, but it sickens me people spending 600 quid plus on something that can be had for much cheaper) a better bet would be the Opteron 146 (S 939) as they use the same core as the FX 57 bar they are clocked slower, but I have yet to talk to anyone who hasn't managed at leat 2.8 Ghz out of one easily by overclocking. The Opteron costs £110 or there abouts for a 2.0 Ghz part from here (http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/AMD_Athlon_MP.html)

Couple that with either the DFI LanParty NF4 SLI DR or Asus A8N SLI Deluxe / Premium if you're gonna be looking at an SLI rig, or possibly the DFI LanParty UT RDX200CF-DR Crossfire board if you're gonna be looking at ATI's Crossfire approach to multi GPU gaming.

Just thought I'd throw in an opinion from the overclockers point of view, so please don't flame me

Andy

[monkrocker]

If you do choose AMD (as it looks like you probably will) make sure your system is going to be cooled properly. AMD chips are notorious for running hotter than Pentiums.

[Pie R Squared]

If you do choose AMD (as it looks like you probably will) make sure your system is going to be cooled properly. AMD chips are notorious for running hotter than Pentiums.

Sorry mate, that's utter shite. It's quite the opposite. The TDP on the Athlon chips and even the X2's pale in comparison to Intel's equivalents. The Prescott core wasn't nicknamed Press Hot for nothing, and the new cores in the EMT 64 enabled Socket T chips are no better. Try actually researching a fact before posting in future mate, otherwise you could be flamed (not that I will :) )

[Timmeh]

If you do choose AMD (as it looks like you probably will) make sure your system is going to be cooled properly. AMD chips are notorious for running hotter than Pentiums.

Wrong...

Sorry mate, that's utter shite. It's quite the opposite. The TDP on the Athlon chips and even the X2's pale in comparison to Intel's equivalents. The Prescott core wasn't nicknamed Press Hot for nothing, and the new cores in the EMT 64 enabled Socket T chips are no better. Try actually researching a fact before posting in future mate, otherwise you could be flamed (not that I will :) )

DINGDINGDING we have a winner :).

Though whatever CPU you get, keep it cool, CPUs like being cool :). Try to get as much airflow in your case as possible by tying up leads etc.

[Ouch!]

OK an update for all:
Despite it being imensely easier to build a pentium based pc, i think ill go for the AMD. Thanks for the advice all!

[Timmeh]

OK an update for all:
Despite it being imensely easier to build a pentium based pc, i think ill go for the AMD. Thanks for the advice all!

It's exactly the same to build either

:p

[Nocashvalue]

It's exactly the same to build either

:p

Lawl.
He's right.
You just shove the chip in the right hole, shove some thermal grease on, fit cooler, instant win.

:D

[flapjackboy]

The AMD nomenclature was originally intended to be compared to Pentium 3 chips, so the 4500+ would meant to be compared to a 4.5GHz P3, which incidentally is faster clock-for-clock than a P4, meaning the P4 would have to be even higher clocked.

[/pedant]

Actually, the post Athlon XP nomenclature is used to rate performance against earlier versions of the Athlon, not Intel chips. [/bigger pedant]

[Ouch!]

It's exactly the same to build either

:p

the motherboard i had picked out for the pentium one was very straight forward and all was well. the amd one, i got confused briefly.

[reno]

fanboys and fangirls unite!

I used to be in the same boat. But several Athlon/Athlon XP/Athlon 64 chips later, I'm changing my tune.

See, I like AMD because they're more aggressive in pushing newer technologies (64-bit computing, for example). I also like them because they don't make you sign a second mortgage to purchase one of their chips. What's not to like about them, really?

Wait... it's coming to me.... ohhhhhh here it comes...!

Stability

Before, I tried justifying the massive problems people have with AMD processors. I think, well, they don't stop opening the case. If they'd just leave their system alone once it's built, they probably wouldn't keep fucking up their chips. Most AMD-users I know are modders/tweakers. Alot of them are gamers. And every single one of them has had problems with their AMD chips, yet they still continue to swear by them.

Honestly, I don't know why you can get an equivalent AMD chip for 500 dollars that would cost you over 1000 on a Pentium. I'm not making any suggestions about the quality of the chips, but the old saying applies: you get what you pay for.

When I started noticing that modders with Pentium systems had a hell of a lot longer system life than AMD users, I started becoming suspicious. Heat issues weren't as severe, and system stability rarely became an issue. I thought that maybe these Intel-users knew something I didn't.

Well, I was wrong. They don't know a damn thing more than I do. The difference came down to their preferred brand, nothing more.

I'm sure I'll get flamed to hell, since it's basically a moral code among computer geeks to bash Intel and praise AMD, but I'll go public about making the switch. There's just something about a Pentium that says "reliability."

Other benefits include massive support, as well as motherboards made by Intel itself. No more tricky compatibility issues. It's like an assurance that everything works like it's supposed to, since nobody knows a product like the creators do.

In closing, I'd recommend a Pentium D processor. It's dual-core, 64-bit. But it has one thing that, in my mind, AMD does not: a solid reputation.

fin

[Paradigm^]

And with that, reno signs his own death warrant.

:p

[Pie R Squared]

When you say you're trying to justify all the massive problems AMD users have, what problems are they?! I've not heard of or experienced ONE massive problem with any of the AMD chips I have owned. I can't say I've experienced any problems with Intel either, bar the Prescott heat issue, but that was quickly resolved due to my preferred cooling method.

I could argue the case here and sound like the a typical AMD fanboy, but I'm not going to purely for the fact that the arguments are based on the assumption that the overclocking demographic in your area follow the buying traits that the online community do, which obviously I don't know is true.

It's mainly down to personal experience with the processors in question and then personal preference and maybe a bit of brand loyalty (it's inevitable, even I suffer from it to a degree dispite attempting to remain impartial.

Regarding your last comment however, I have to say that that is utter crap, AMD do have a very solid reputation for stability hence the ever increasing mainstream use of their products in enterprise class market products, I don't think it will be long now before you see Dell using AMD products either.

Anyway, that's enough about this, we're already off topic!

[Lagmeister]

I would also like to bring up the tale about one of the older Pentium chips (I think it was a pentium in 1994) would do something very very wrong with dividing, though unlikely to occour it did.

edit : http://www.willamette.edu/~mjaneba/pentprob.html

[Taekwon-joe]

I was considering upgrading my pc. Im curntly using a pentiumIII and it sucks so i looked at some upgrade options HERE (http://www.komplett.ie/k/kc.asp?bn=10293)

I was thinking the Pentium D 2.8GHz for 450 euro was a good choice. What do you all think? Would an AMD one be better?

[reno]

laggy, I remember that. But it's also common knowledge that you use an Intel processor you're planning on doing any precise mathematics, especially with floating-point numbers. AMDs don't handle those terribly well, which is why you don't see them used in many scientific endeavors that require precision.

Pie R -- I don't know, maybe I'm just better connected than you are. AMD has a solid reputation among people who use AMD. The fact that they use more modern technologies in their chips is also a factor, even though "newer" is almost synonymous with "untested". But again, at least they've been making the effort while Intel has been milking the 32-bit platform.

The lower price is the main reason their chips soared into popularity--any reason other than this is purely wishful thinking. Markets drive the price as much as prices drive the market. Again, there's a reason why they can bring you a so-called equivalent product for such a lower price. You'd be daft to ignore the fact that almost always, when cost is cut, quality suffers. In that regard, I imagine companies like Dell will start using them as soon as any existing exclusive contract with Intel expires.

It's not like I'm comparing AMD to Cyrix--they're still usable. But I wouldn't use them in anything in which I needed assurance that I'd have maximum up-time.

-----------

EDIT : I just checked out the Techy Bollocks page and saw that 9 or 10 people are viewing this thread. In light of this, AMD RULES AND INTEL SUXORZ (please don't kill me)

[Pie R Squared]

I don't know how you can say that AMD don't hand FPU calculations well, they hold their own against Intel very well.
The only reason that Intel held (holds) the majority vote as an FPU intrinsic application hardware choice by large comapnies is because at the time, the larger stage pipeline that Intel use in their architecture in comparison to AMD's smaller (more efficient in everyday tasks) allowed FPU tasks to be done easily so basing an argument on that alone is pointless as it is no longer the case.

AMD's current processor line (the dual core lines especially) complete FPU operations just as quick as Intels' cores yet don't have as high a TDP hence the number of companies jumping on the AMD bandwagon. AMD's parts are every bit as expensive as the Intel equivalent nowadays anyway.

I'm not disputing that prices play a crucial part in the markets acceptance and success of a product as that's part of the basic fundamentals of business, but saying that AMD sells well simply JUST as its products are cheaper is not true.

Also, Dell could have used AMD's technology at any point, and have been considering it for ages, but only recently have AMD proved point that that they can easily keep pace with Intel in the areas that business require (FPU calculations) and when you say that " "newer" is synonymous with "untested" can you give me a good example bar the introdution of AMD's 64 bit technology?

Edit: Apologies to all if I sound fanboyesque in my rantings! and lol at reno's edit!

[reno]

Yeah, but how many people have dual-core processors?

Don't get me wrong, I drool over the X2 chips just as much as anybody. Thing is, I just don't trust AMD anymore. Especially not after my brand spankin' new A64 burnt up last weekend. What had happened is the fan died. And while these things (as well as the board) are supposed to have heat protection, the thing just sat and burned.

On a P4 machine at the office, the fan went out and that was the problem--all I had to do was replace the heatsink fan. To be fair, I've had a fan go out on an Athlon XP Barton chip, and it survived. But the problems I (and others, all of whom work in IT or computer repair) am having with nearly every Athlon chip I buy is just too much proof in my mind. Hell, I've had better luck with Semprons than Athlons. And no, before anyone asks, I don't bother with overclocking. System stability is my main stickler, which is the whole reason I've made the switch.

Maybe you can chalk up my argument as a developers standpoint.

Oh, now that I think about it, there's another thing about AMD that pisses me off, but really it applies to computer parts manufacturers universally.

In a nutshell, marketing.

3200+. I know it's supposed to mean that it compares with Intel 3.2GHz processors, but I'm not buying it. First off, ####+ is misleading. And AMD is not the only company that does this. RAM makers and Motherboard manufacturers are almost worse. Touting a 400MHz front side bus when it only has a 200MHz FSB.

"Well, with DDR it's like having 400MHz."

Kiss
my
ASS!

For a moment in PC history, it seemed like the CPU-to-RAM bottleneck had been alleviated somewhat. But no. It was just a marketing tactic.

Hard drive manufacturers are especially guilty of this. 1 MB = 1024 KB. 1 GB = 1024 MB. Yet somehow when I purchase a 120GB hard drive, I only end up with about 111 GB. It's bad enough that they're putting things in 1MB clusters, but now they're further limiting the space by LYING about the size of their drives. From what I gathered, it stems from the debate of 1MB being 1000KB or 1024KB, and so on--even though it's common knowledge that saying 1000 instead of 1024 is a matter of simplification. In other words, the hard drive companies are also using their marketing tactics to take advantage of people.

AGH. (yes, I know, we're now so far off topic it's unbelievable, so I'll stop posting in this thread before I start declaring that I've switched again to become an ardent Apple supporter).

[Pie R Squared]

In all fairness, it sounds like you have merely been unlucky with your equipment which is unfortunate.
As far as thermal throttling and thermal cut offs go, you can quite rightly get an RMA for the board and/or CPU as they have not done the job correctly.

If the processor was installed using the stock heatsink fan combo and still failed (check if the fan works from a different header than the one on the mobo) then RMA the CPU.
If it's the mobo's CPU fan header that has failed, RMA both. If you were using a third party heatsink/fan combo and you installed it yourself, check if that fan works on the header and if not RMA the board :D
Even if you don't have a new processor to go into the board, you could sell it and make enought to go towards something else :)

As mentioned previously in the thread by the ever informative Stringy Pete, AMD changed the nomenclature to denote speed in comparison to previous AMD processors instead of the Intel equivalent with the introduction of the A64 line. I still agree that it's stupid, but as you illustrated it happens with everything nowadays. *Cough* Intels 800 Mhz FSB anyone? *cough* ;)

[Ouch!]

before this gets violent, i'd just like to point out that my friend and i have set up a competition to decide it. We both are going to spend much monies buying 2 pc's of equal stature, mine will be AMD, his Pentium. We will put them through rigarous testing in the form of lan playing for a long time, and from that, we will decide a winner. The only problem is the eta for our pc's is the end of next summer as we are both very broke.

[Pie R Squared]

Hehe, by the time that happens both companies might be playing on a level field, as AMD would have migrated to a new socket and DDR2 support and Intel might finally crack the integrated memory controller marchitecture and drop it's legacy FSB technology on it's VIIV line :)

[Al]

my brand spankin' new A64 burnt up last weekend. What had happened is the fan died. And while these things (as well as the board) are supposed to have heat protection, the thing just sat and burned.
Similar thing happened to my first ever Athlon back in the day. Difference is, even though I turned mine off while it was sitting there heating up, it worked perfectly when I got a new fan for it.

Trusted AMD ever since :)

[Stringy Pete]

Hard drive manufacturers are especially guilty of this. 1 MB = 1024 KB. 1 GB = 1024 MB. Yet somehow when I purchase a 120GB hard drive, I only end up with about 111 GB. It's bad enough that they're putting things in 1MB clusters, but now they're further limiting the space by LYING about the size of their drives. From what I gathered, it stems from the debate of 1MB being 1000KB or 1024KB, and so on--even though it's common knowledge that saying 1000 instead of 1024 is a matter of simplification. In other words, the hard drive companies are also using their marketing tactics to take advantage of people.
Just thought I'd pull you up on the size point, it actually stems from a misinterpretation of numerical values in scientific terms, although you could just say it is simplification, it is more complex than that.

In science Mega = 10^6, Giga = 10^9 etc
Thus, a 120GB hard drive is in fact just that, 120 x 10^9 bytes, however, a computer counts a Giga-Byte as 1024x1024x1024, and not 1000x1000x1000, and therein lies the problem. Neither are lying....

To counter this problem the IEC defined a new unit of storage in 1998, the MiB, or mebibyte, which is defined as 2^20 Bytes, the proper computer way. So, as it turns out, it is your operating system that is lying to you, by calling the figure Megabytes, when it is in fact a Mebibyte ;) (and I know a Megabyte etc can techincally be either base 10 or 2, but I'd rather side with the scientists and SI nomenclature)

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte

[/pedant geek mode]

[reno]

That doesn't matter a bit. Again, it's a matter of semantics, and is meaningless as such.

The nomenclature in digital computing is very cut and dry. First off, the HD companies are using a 10^ system in naming their products capacity even though computers work off of a 2^ system, and 2^ alone. The terminology used in measuring it is incorrect, but that still doesn't exonerate them of the incredibly shady use of 10^ when it is blatantly established that the terms are intended to mean 2^ in computing. And the fact that they resort to technicalities to defend their position makes it more obvious that they're cheats, at least in my mind.

In short, the hard drive manufacturers are still rip-off bastards.

EDIT -- I'd plus you for the handy factoid, but it won't let me. :nana:

DOUBLE-EDIT -- And another thing-- if they're using a 10^ measurement, then you should only lose *almost* one gig for every 40 on a hard drive. (1024 * 40) - (40 * 24), (<== using that instead of 1000*40 to make it visible as to how much you're losing) which should amount to exactly 64 MB more than 39 GB. However, I'm looking at my 40GB hard drive right now, and it says I only have a capacity of 37.2 GB.

Again, they're lying bastards.

[Stringy Pete]

That doesn't matter a bit. Again, it's a matter of semantics, and is meaningless as such.

The nomenclature in digital computing is very cut and dry. First off, the HD companies are using a 10^ system in naming their products capacity even though computers work off of a 2^ system, and 2^ alone. The terminology used in measuring it is incorrect, but that still doesn't exonerate them of the incredibly shady use of 10^ when it is blatantly established that the terms are intended to mean 2^ in computing. And the fact that they resort to technicalities to defend their position makes it more obvious that they're cheats, at least in my mind.

In short, the hard drive manufacturers are still rip-off bastards.

EDIT -- I'd plus you for the handy factoid, but it won't let me. :nana:

DOUBLE-EDIT -- And another thing-- if they're using a 10^ measurement, then you should only lose *almost* one gig for every 40 on a hard drive. (1024 * 40) - (40 * 24), (<== using that instead of 1000*40 to make it visible as to how much you're losing) which should amount to exactly 64 MB more than 39 GB. However, I'm looking at my 40GB hard drive right now, and it says I only have a capacity of 37.2 GB.

Again, they're lying bastards.

Nope, you're not taking into account kilobytes as well

1024x1024x1024 - 1000x1000x1000 = 7.3something x10^7
You lose 73MB for every GB in this cheating system, 1GB lost in about every 13.5.

My quarrell is with whoever decided to call them MegaBytes and GigaBytes etc, because they were using a base10 nomenclature for a base2 system, when usually they're singing from the rooftops about how wonderful base2 is for computers, they're lazy as hell and use SI naming, thus being the cause of the simplification.

[Ouch!]

oh jees!!! i found a site where im probably going to get the bits from:
AMD FX-57 (or whatever the best one was) >$1000
Pentium (The 3.8ghz one) <$600

Now im confused again!!!!!!

[Borzoi]

I'd love to work at PC World.

I think AMD is the better processor for anything. But thats my personal opinion. As for PC World: They took about 2 hours looking for something that doesn't exist. I went in there and asked for a filangilator as a joke and after the 2hours they said they would try to order some. Their shortlisting questions have nothing to do with computers and if you have or are doing a level 3 or higher qualification in computing they say your overqualified.

[Lagmeister]

I think AMD is the better processor for anything. But thats my personal opinion. As for PC World: They took about 2 hours looking for something that doesn't exist. I went in there and asked for a filangilator as a joke and after the 2hours they said they would try to order some. Their shortlisting questions have nothing to do with computers and if you have or are doing a level 3 or higher qualification in computing they say your overqualified.

Correction you are overqualified to work at PC World with that sort of background

[Borzoi]

I was close. I just got a call from PC World saying that the filangilator may take longer than expected to be ordered. When shall I tell them the thing doesn't exist?

[Lewiji]

I just got a call from PC World

How convenient