Athlon XP processor or Pentium 4 processor?

[colson]

I need to upgrade my comp and a new processor is on my list. I've always used the AMD processors so I was just wondering how good the pentium 4 processors were. Since I always see these things in crappy comps that are made at staples and shit I have remained skeptical of their performance. Could you guys plz help me out and give me the low down between these two companies because I don't really have a clue. Thanks for the insight.

 

[DrDevin]

AMD = Good
Intel = Bad

Dual Core Benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484
Single Core Benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2456

Currently you will want to pick up either an athlon 64 or an X2 (which is a dual core chip that makes multitasking much faster). Right now AMD leads in both price and performance unless you are talking about mobile or low power solutions where the Pentium M is the current leader.

 

[giant384]

y would u want to go to p4 if that requires u to buy a new mobo anyways so go with amd 64

 

[DreadLord]

Who would by a P4 in this day and age?

AMD64 FTW

 

[WhiteZero]

y would u want to go to p4 if that requires u to buy a new mobo anyways so go with amd 64

He'll have to get a new motherboard anyway, depending on what model AMD it supports.

 

[Ev!lP!e]

AMD ftw, lots cheaper and perform alot better

 

[Adabiviak]

...I give this thread 20 more posts before it flames out. Intel v. AMD? Please...

 

[OCybrManO]

Sure, the early Athlons had better price/performance than the corresponding Pentiums (I forget when the Athlon line started in comparison to the Pentium line)... but the lead was gradually shrinking over time. In fact, just before the release of the Athlon 64, Intel was significantly beating AMD in the price/performance ratio of their processors and in raw performance. Even a 2.4GHz P4c could actually stand toe-to-toe against an Athlon XP 3200+... for less than half the price! Then, after the Athlon 64, AMD bounced back to the top (and should get another nice boost when 64-bit software is more popular). Don't go with any component by name alone. Check the reviews/benchmarks and prices before making a decision.

 

[Uriel]

What's Pentium up to? I mean they were top dog not too long ago then AMD started whopping and what'd they do? nothing. Just wondering if they have any plans

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Neither, Athlon XP is outdated, Pentium 4 is downright bad for gaming. Go with the Athlon 64.

 

[bosox188]

What's Pentium up to? I mean they were top dog not too long ago then AMD started whopping and what'd they do? nothing. Just wondering if they have any plans

Well apparently Intel was just threatening and bullying all the companies like Dell, Compaq, etc. and also bribing them so they would only sell Intel based PC's. At least that's what AMD says and is why they're suing Intel. If it's true, bad news for Intel.

 

[dream431ca]

I say whatever is cheapest.

 

[xLostx]

Pentium II for teh win.

 

[WhiteZero]

Neither, Athlon XP is outdated, Pentium 4 is downright bad for gaming. Go with the Athlon 64.

I use my P4 for gaming. It works great...

 

[Cole]

I use my P4 for gaming. It works great...

It isn't bad at all for gaming. It's very good, just not the best.
Thats all, Leeroy Jenkins needs to get his facts straight.

 

[Asus]

My friend upgraded from an Athlon XP 2800+ (2.08GHz) to an Athlon 64 2800+ (1.8GHz) and it was a pretty good difference in the games he played, such as Battlefield series and HL2. He uses an ATI 9800Pro 128MB (256bit) gfx card.

I also had an Athlon XP 2800+ although OCed to 2.2GHz (Athlon XP 3200+ speeds) and I upgraded to an Athlon 64 3000+ and that performed a lot better as well. I have since OCed my Athlon 64 from 2GHz to 2.4GHz and it does very good (similar performance to the A64 3700+ model).

 

[giant384]

it was better because there is higher l2 cache and fsb