Hi,

I know that AMD is better and cheaper than Pentium but 2 friends of mine told me that Pentium is better. :confused: So I'm confused now, isn't AMD faster and cheaper than Pentium?
Thanks

What are we comparing here? The entire AMD company to the original Pentium or what?

If we are comparing the Athlon XP to Pentium 4's then it was definitely AMD kicking Intel, but since the release of the new 2.2GHz P4, I am not so sure... Also it really depends on what you want out of your chip.

Once the new AMD thoroughbreds or whatever they are called come out, it will be time to reassess again. Then after them the Hammer CPUs should start to appear.

Most ppl perfer Pentium because it's more reliable. The only thing good about AMD is that they have 3DNow. as for speed, Intel is much faster. AMD Althon XP 2000 runs at 1.7Ghz while Intels running at 2.20-overclockable to 3.0Ghz

You can not compare the two clock per clock as Intel have been working on faster clock speeds, AMD on the other hand have been taking a different approach. One can't really say which approach is better, they are just different ways of doing it.

But the fact remains that here a P4 2.2 is worth $1330.00 AUD Vs $580 for an Athlon XP 2000.

As for Pentiums being more reliable.. I leave my XP 1800 on for days without any problems.

In general Pentiums may have an edge in reliability. Pentiums are used much more in mission critical applications, such as servers, and seem to have less overheating problems. However, AMD processors generally give more bang for the buck as they are faster for any given price.

I have always went with Pentiums but after being hemmed into a corner with the overpriced Slot 1 Pentium III Xeons on my dual CPU Supermicro motherboard, I will move to AMD with two AMD MP processors. It will cost me over $1000 US to upgrade one PIII 500 mhz XEON CPU to 700 Mhz ($2000 for dual 700mhz Xeons). :mad: Unfortunately this is the fastest PIII Slot 1 Xeon available. Having 1MB cache is great but at what price?

For $1000 I can buy a Tyan Tiger MPX (2466) motherboard, two MP1800+ CPUs, and Ultra160 SCSI controller card to replace my Supermicro motherboad and Pentium Xeon processors. If you're worried about AMD reliability, do like I'm going to do and spend a few dollars more for a retail boxed processor with a 3 year AMD warranty (it'll still be much cheaper than a Pentium processer of equal performance).

According to Pricewatch these are the following prices as of today:

P4 1.8 $171
Athlon XP 1800 $133

To the Athlon you may add the cost for extra fans and heatsinks and we talk abou tvery small differences in price.

Apart from that Pentium has now the Northwood chip that is running at even lower temperature and is definitely to prefer to AMD if you are concerned about heat which yo should be....

Just read previous postings here. How many people have had problems with the temperature with AMD and how many with Intel? It's crystal clear!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=athlon%2Coverheating

More hits turned up by this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pentium%2Coverheating&btnG=Google+Search

What is your point??

Let me suggest y'all read this http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/index.html Read the entire article. It's very interesting and informative!

And don't forget to download the video with the test http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/heatvideo-05.html I think that video talks for itself and no further explanation is necessary.

P4 1.8 $171 (or $192 depending on the socket)
Athlon XP 1800 $133

That's still almost a 30% price difference (and about 45% for the socket 423), and here's the price difference for the symmetric multiprocessors (from PriceWatch):

P4 XEON 1.8 $298
Athlon MP 1800 $201

Multiply these differences by 2 for a dual processor system and it comes to almost $200, then add that to the more expensive XEON motherboards and you're adding over $300 to the system cost for a dual processor system.

The prices you posted represented price drops for the Pentium line this week, next week as they were last week the price differential could be much higher.

BTW, the cheapest Pentium III Xeon 700MHz 1Mb 2.8V - OEM SL49P on PriceWatch is $1199. This would be the cheapest upgrade for my motherboard (unless I want to upgrade from 500mhz to 550mhz), and I need two. :mad: I believe if Intel had sold you on dual CPUs that would require $2398 to upgrade for a mere 200mhz higher clock rate, you would not be defending their price policies. ;)

Well Keymaster, here you talk about XEON and MP... The "normal" user don't use those. But the fact is still that AMD has more overheating issues than Intel. And many here have posted that too when they talk about stability and reliability. That counts too... Or?

Another fact is that you will need a bigger power supply in order to make sure that Athlon is running stable (although it is recommended to have a 350-400W even if running Intel). And the fan, heatsink, thermal paste etc. Athlon requires more monitoring and more carefulness when it comes to installation. These are just pure facts.

I am aware of the fact that Athlon is faster than Intel but personally I prefer a stable system to a fast an not as reliable/stable system. But that is a question of taste.

I have already acknowledged the overheating issue:
Originally posted by Keymaster
In general Pentiums may have an edge in reliability. Pentiums are used much more in mission critical applications, such as servers, and seem to have less overheating problems. However, AMD processors generally give more bang for the buck as they are faster for any given price.


I just wanted to point out that there is a trade-off and in some cases the obvious choice is AMD despite the overheating issue. As I also stated purchasing the retail package with the 3 year AMD warranty, minimizes the overheating risk.

If you are only concerned about heat, then go for a VIA CPU, they are the coolest running, but also worst performing...

It is all a matter of what you want out of a chip and personally the heating issue doesn't bother me. It just comes down to speed and price.. Just think how much Intel chips would be if AMD had not stepped up the competition.

Originally posted by celtic_druid
If you are only concerned about heat, then go for a VIA CPU, they are the coolest running, but also worst performing...

It is all a matter of what you want out of a chip and personally the heating issue doesn't bother me. It just comes down to speed and price.. Just think how much Intel chips would be if AMD had not stepped up the competition.

Never said AMD were bad, but did point out the heat issue that does exist.

Competitionwise, think how incredibly slow AMD would be without Intel... AND expensive! Do you really beleive that AMD is doing the market a favor? My answer is NO. They charge as much as they can for their products in order to sell the highest amount of them, just like any other company on the "free" market. Intel does the same. DELL does the same. Asus does the same. It's all well calculated. Highest possible price is what they go for in order to maximize their profits in order to attract more stock holders etc.
So, don't make it sound as if AMD was doing us a favor! It's just that they have found a break-even point at a certain price at which they can maximize the sales. Simple as that!

Exactly "They charge as much as they can for their products".

Don't you think that Intel could afford to charge just a little bit more if they were the only kid on the block??

Competition is good for everyone and Intel has definatly had to drop their prices in order to remain compedative..

Also as you said AMD has had to come up with better and more inovative products to also remain compedative.

OK, so end of discussion and back to the facts about the two systems in which I remain with my initial idea:

For blasting speed (and actually more than you can take advantage of with todays applications) AMD or the higher Intel.

For reliability and comodity (not having to monitor the heat nor have it in mind) any Intel with do.

This is just my opinion. Lots of people haven't had any problems with AMD though, but the risk is there and the video clip from Tom's Hardware to which I linked in my previous posting talks for itself.

St

Originally posted by Stoichkov
OK, so end of discussion and back to the facts about the two systems in which I remain with my initial idea:

For blasting speed (and actually more than you can take advantage of with todays applications) AMD or the higher Intel.

For reliability and comodity (not having to monitor the heat nor have it in mind) any Intel with do.

This is just my opinion. Lots of people haven't had any problems with AMD though, but the risk is there and the video clip from Tom's Hardware to which I linked in my previous posting talks for itself.

St

These same to facts or were they opinions, could be interpreted differently depending on the conusmers needs:

For blasting speed that is required for the apps said consumer is running (and not able to pay the "Intel tax") AMD.

For reliability and comodity (not having to monitor the heat nor have it in mind) buy the retail AMD with 3 year warranty because after that it's time for an upgrade anyway or Intel if itt's affordable. ;)

Originally posted by Stoichkov
...Highest possible price is what they go for in order to maximize their profits in order to attract more stock holders etc. So, don't make it sound as if AMD was doing us a favor! It's just that they have found a break-even point at a certain price at which they can maximize the sales...

This is a little like putting the cart before the horse. You are correct a company will charge the price to achieve it's own goals, but it will not necessarily be by charging the highest price possible, and it won't be to attract more shareholders. Management sets prices to maximize (current) shareholder wealth.

This means it may be much less than the highest price possible, or even the price that maximizes sales, and it may not even maximize short term profits (if allowed companies have been known to practice predatory pricing, pricing below costs to drive a competitor out of a market). It should maximize the current shareholder wealth since they are the owners of the business. The current shareholders don't have a goal to attract more shareholders unless it benefits them and the company works for the current stockholders. They do have a goal to see their own stock price rise and/or dividends increase.

Originally posted by Keymaster


it will not necessarily be by charging the highest price possible

Well, the OPTIMUM price then. That is, the highest price the can put on it without loosing customers and hopefully attract more customers to buy their product.

Originally posted by Keymaster
Management sets prices to maximize (current) shareholder wealth.

As far as I know the market economy is about demand and supply. The higher the demand for a stock is (usually when the company is doing well and can pay the shareholder well) the higher the stock price goes. And AFAIK the companoes do want to attract more shareholder since that means more investment capital to the company and so forth more resources to be able to cope with the race that Intel is currently leading by far! :laugh:

OK. Enough economy now. I assume there are forums for those discussions too but as I posted in my last post, let's stick with the facts/opinions/ideas about the functionality of AMD and INTEL which by the way is a never ending story...:round:

Originally posted by Stoichkov
Well, the OPTIMUM price then. That is, the highest price the can put on it without loosing customers and hopefully attract more customers to buy their product.

As far as I know the market economy is about demand and supply. The higher the demand for a stock is (usually when the company is doing well and can pay the shareholder well) the higher the stock price goes. And AFAIK the companoes do want to attract more shareholder since that means more investment capital to the company and so forth more resources to be able to cope with the race that Intel is currently leading by far! :laugh:


Optmum price is correct. However, not lossing customers and attracting more is not necessarily the goal. That is not the goal of premium price producers, it is the goal of discount price producers. A premium price producer (market leader) may decide it's not worth the support (or other) costs to maintain a large user base and raise prices considerably (IBM and Plextor are in this category).

The market economy is about supply and demand. But why would existing shareholders want to raise investment capital if it doesn't maximize their wealth? Again don't put the cart before the horse. The goal or mission is to maximize shareholder wealth, the strategy may be to sell more stock to raise more investment capital or it may be to buy back stock because the company has too much capital for the market it is in.

The company may also determine they have too little debt (and interest rates may be low and the market depressed), so they would be better off borrowing money than diluting the existing shares by offering more stock (you divided the pie into smaller pieces with no guarentee that the pie will grow). To sell more stock requires a stock offering which is done under the right conditions, not just the exchange of existing stock, which puts no money in the firms pockets.

I guess this kind of adresses AMD and Intel zealots everywhere. I find it amazing how people can go on completely blind advocacy trips... one company can do no wrong while the other is bent on evil. I'm all for intelligent discussion about things, talking facts with specific goals in mind... but playing with words like this... If you prefer to see the world in sweeping generalizations, I guess thats your decision, but why post if your opinion is already set in stone? Is it to perpetuate argument because you enjoy it? What do you or anyone else gain?

This discussion is completely pointless. An example of a discussion with an actual POINT is this: "I want to do a lot of 3D gaming. My budget is X dollars. My case is ATX, and i'd like to keep noise below 30db. Which chip should I choose?" OR "I'm building a computer for the office. I need good performance on office applications, no 3D. Small, cheap, and quiet are what I am aiming for." Such topics have parameters and goals, and can be worked out in facts instead of thoughtless rhetoric and blanket terms.


Sorry if I'm not writing as well as I usually do - i'm really tired.

I understand your point. While it may make sense to ask which is best PS2 or Xbox (I don't mean to start anything just using an example ;) ). It certainly doesn't make much sense to ask Sony vs. Microsoft in this forum, since the game consoles are almost the only products they produce in the same market. What's better Mercedes or Honda? Why ask if your're in the market for a $150,00 luxury car or a $12,000 sub-compact?

Interesing note; last quarter Intel regained market share by strong sales of it's low price Celerons, while AMD was successful by strong sales of it's top of the line Athalon chips. Who would have thought Intel's low price products were key to it's success while premium CPUs were key to AMDs success? Go figure :D

Aren't bus, ram, video cards and hard drive transfer rates the new bottle necks?
CPU speed is yesterdays news.
Can anyone tell the difference between Athlon 2100, Intel 2.5,Duron 1000, Celeron 800 unless you peeked under the coffin lid?
AMD needs fat heat sinks. Pentium require fat wallets.
This is all marketing and the zealots as well as concerned buyers are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
I still prefer low end ghetto systems, so I don'y have to pay for the luxury of being a chump.

Apple clones w/OS X and Cyrix cheapo PC's are worth mentioning as well.

As computers are becoming more redundant and new ones not much improvement on the old, the price of everything heads to unprofitablilty, zero. But the initial cost of development was paid for through military contracts and monopoly tech companies high margins. Authoritarian politics, public money, and socialized risk built these free markets. The market for computers (nor almost anything we buy)wasn't groomed privately nor freely. Market apologists rarely seem to recognize these little details. Markets are ingenious at determining prices (however volatile and unpredictable) yet totally inept at determining value, intrinsic or extrinsic.

Thx for reading.