Is XP really better?

[EfaustuS9]

Intel’s chips are far more inefficient then AMD's chips, which do more instructions per clock cycle. Intel's marketing was keen to the fact that when mr. & mrs. consumer look to purchase a computer they depend on "Megahurts" to make their decision. Therefor Intel increased their instruction pipeline which permits higher clock cycles but the trade off is efficiency (more cycles but less work) and higher power consumption. When Pentium 4’s were first released the savvy complained that PIII could out perform their higher clocked P4 brethren. Ultimately this plain has hit a wall with the new Prescott’s having a ridiculous heat dissipation (as high as 120W). So guess what intels new strategy is... copy AMD, they are moving away from the Ghz to distinguish performance with a new numbering plain, they are modifying the Pentium M (a hybrid PIII/PIV found in centrino laptops which spank the P4's, all the while using lower clock cycles and less power) to be used in desktops, and finally they are adding AMD’s 86x-64 extensions to there next gen chips. Tisk Tisk

Intels New Number Convention:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15076

1Ghz Fewer Cycles But Still Beats Intel:
http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20...escott-09.html

Follow The Follower:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15029

[s0be]

Windows XP runs perfectly on my Athlon-XP 2400 with 768 megs of ram. 120 gig samsung 8mb cache (and an 8 gb IBM deathstar)

s0be

[whiteflip]

@EfaustuS9
Thank you sir.

The Pentium M outpreforms the Pentium 4 and is far more efficent. I dont know why intel doesnt market the Pentium M as a Pentium 5 or make more mboards for desktop pcs.

AMD is cheaper, cheaper chips cheaper boards and cheaper ram.

[mark]

amd athlon m is faster too. at least, its cooler.

when transplanted into a desktop PC they can be REALLY well overclocked...

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
It all boils down to personal preference. AMD is no better than Intel.

code:
$132	 - 	Athlon XP 3000	

$156	 - 	Athlon XP 3000 400	

$109	 - 	Athlon XP 2800	

$100	 - 	Athlon XP 2800 333	

$87	 - 	Athlon XP 2700 333	

$78	 - 	Athlon XP 2600	

$74	 - 	Athlon XP 2600 333	

$75	 - 	Athlon XP 2500	

$73	 - 	Athlon XP 2500 333	

$62	 - 	Athlon XP 2400	

$52	 - 	Athlon XP 2200	

$50	 - 	Athlon XP 2100	

$46	 - 	Athlon XP 2000



$189	 - 	Pentium 4 3.0GHz 800MHz	

$206	 - 	Pentium 4 3.06GHz 533MHz	

$177	 - 	Pentium 4 2.8GHz Prescott	

$165	 - 	Pentium 4 2.8GHz 800MHz	

$154	 - 	Pentium 4 2.8GHz 533MHz	

$165	 - 	Pentium 4 2.6GHz 800MHz	

$148	 - 	Pentium 4 2.6GHz 533MHz	

$144	 - 	Pentium 4 2.53GHz	

$140	 - 	Pentium 4 2.4GHz Prescott	

$151	 - 	Pentium 4 2.4GHz 800MHz	

$130	 - 	Pentium 4 2.4GHz 533MHz	

$132	 - 	Pentium 4 2.4GHz 400MHz	

$131	 - 	Pentium 4 2.2GHz 400MHz	

$126	 - 	Pentium 4 2.26GHz 533MHz	

$126	 - 	Pentium 4 2.26GHz

$112	 - 	Pentium 4 2.0GHz Sock 478	

$138	 - 	Pentium 4 2.0GHz

Riiiight. Are you arguing that a P4 2Ghz ($112) is going to be faster than an Athlon 2800+ ($100)?

[whiteflip]

Great emperical data there. Thats ownage. Right now AMD owns on preformance/power/price in the desktop/low end server markets. I dont know how Intel does in the high end server market. I know that the Pentium M is bad ass in the laptop department but I don't know how it compares to AMD's incarnation of a mobile CPU.

Anyone who buys an Intel P4 over an Atholon XP is ignoring the facts and buying blindly.

Don't buy celerons.

[xzxzzx]

whiteflip: Don't worry, AMD Opterons are pwning in the high-end server market. I don't know about the ultra-high-end, though.

I don't know much about the Pentium M vs whatever AMD has for laptops now-a-days, but my very limited data says that Intel is winning there. I could be wrong.

[AegenemmnoN]

ive found that taking all the fancy "effects" off on my XP made it quite a bit faster when i was running 256MB DDR RAM. if you are running the facncy skins with a crappy video card, it will be bad, trust me, it really slows XP down. (i had a horrible intergrated video card at one point..accually, i just upgraded to a good one on monday*insert giant grin*)

im also using an AMD, and it find it faster then my friends Pentuim...he IS using a Celeron though. :S

i want to get that 3000 AMD... donations anyone?

[mark]

you NEED at least 16MB video for xp. ignore what the box says, thats the bottom it can be doen with. times that by 4 if its generic onboard pap.

[Raz]

I'm still predjudice against AMD for stealing millions of [insert currency here (except lira, because lira suck)] worth of research and getting away with it. Damn copyright laws.

[mark]

from who?

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Riiiight. Are you arguing that a P4 2Ghz ($112) is going to be faster than an Athlon 2800+ ($100)?

Cheaper doesn't always mean better. I said nothing about the costs of the processors. All I said is that it's personal preference.

Don't buy celerons.

My Celeron works just fine. It was a good price, too.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Cheaper doesn't always mean better. I said nothing about the costs of the processors. All I said is that it's personal preference.

"Cheaper" *is* better. A CPU is designed to do so many instructions per clock cycle. Your argument is like:

"I've got a P4 2.0 Ghz and a P4 3.0 Ghz, which is better? Neither, it's a personal preferance."

It's NOT a "personal preferance", AMD has processors that cost less for the same speed, or are faster for the same price.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Did I say anything about the processors' speeds? No. I simply said that choosing WHICH BRAND is a personal preference.

AMD pushes more work per clock cycle. Ok.
Intel pushes more clock cycles.
Six in one hand, half a dozen in the other.

All the computers I've seen around here that are comparatively equipped that are offered with AMD or Intel processors cost roughly the same. So pretty much, it makes no difference whatsoever which processor you decide to buy. IT'S A MATTER OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

[mark]

your six that do more are $100 cheaper than the dozen.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

I said...
All the computers I've seen around here that are comparatively equipped that are offered with AMD or Intel processors cost roughly the same.

[Raz]

They're all good. You could have this if they're not good enough for you?

[godoncrack]

Holy shit, Andre!!
I remember that from back when i was like.....
*recovering archive*
*gasp*
EIGHT!!!!

[Starbucks]

I get all my OSes legally free, so I'm not complaining. Windows does everything I need it to do.

[Starbucks]

your six that do more are $100 cheaper than the dozen.

That really all depends on where you shop. Pricewatch has very very similar prices for similar performing CPUs. They have 10-20 dollar differences that go either way.

[zootm]

well, i bought an athlon 64 because i'm a slave to marketing...

[whiteflip]

I want to get Dual Opertons with 8gb of ram and a 1.2terrabytes hard disk space but I aint rich. If I was rich than I would but I'll probably get a cheap Atholon XP with 1gb ram and 120gb hard drive.

[Starbucks]

I don't know much about the Pentium M vs whatever AMD has for laptops now-a-days, but my very limited data says that Intel is winning there. I could be wrong.

I'm assuming that the Athlon 64 Mobile will replace the Athlon XP-M soon. The target consumption for 64-M is 60 watts@2GHz. Currently the athlon 64 maxes out@89 watts (desktop version) and the Pentium-M consumes 14 watts@1GHz and 24 watts@1.7GHz. Last I checked, the Pentium-M is the second fastest chip Performance/Clock wise than all other processors in the world, with Itanium being first place in Performance/Clock. And since Centrino's introduction (year 2000?) Centrino based books own more than 50% of all laptop market share. That's pretty damn successful.

I can't wait to see the next major Intel chip. It definately will be based on the Pentium-M. Considering it has the second-highest IPC and very low power consumption, it should be an interestingly fast and efficient chip.

[whiteflip]

Unlike the P4 garbage they keep pushing at desktop users. The reason they own the laptop market is through slick marketing, manufacturing dealings, and a great product for its market.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Did I say anything about the processors' speeds? No. I simply said that choosing WHICH BRAND is a personal preference.

AMD pushes more work per clock cycle. Ok.
Intel pushes more clock cycles.
Six in one hand, half a dozen in the other.

All the computers I've seen around here that are comparatively equipped that are offered with AMD or Intel processors cost roughly the same. So pretty much, it makes no difference whatsoever which processor you decide to buy. IT'S A MATTER OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

NO, IT'S NOT.

Yes, AMD pushes more work per clock cycle, and Intel pushes more clock cycles. *BUT*, for the same price, a significantly faster AMD processor can be had, and there are no Intel processors for which a faster AMD version doesn't exist, with the exception of very specialized computer use (rendering scenes in Maya, maybe). That makes AMD *better*.

http://www.compusa.com/products/prod...240&pfp=BROWSE

http://www.compusa.com/products/prod...520&pfp=BROWSE

The above two PCs are nearly identical. Their diffrences are:

AMD 3200+ vs Intel 3 GHz
GeForce4 MX 440 vs GeForce4 FX 5200
V.90 modem vs V.92 modem

Unless a minor modem difference plus a video card that can be had for well under $100 accounts for a $200 price difference...?

[mark]

thats a serious difference in graphics. IIRC, the Geforce4 MX didnt have full DX9 support, and is a helluvalot more underpowered

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

NO, IT'S NOT.

Yes, AMD pushes more work per clock cycle, and Intel pushes more clock cycles. *BUT*, for the same price, a significantly faster AMD processor can be had, and there are no Intel processors for which a faster AMD version doesn't exist, with the exception of very specialized computer use (rendering scenes in Maya, maybe). That makes AMD *better*.

Did you even bother reading my post at all? I said that all the comparatively equipped computers that offer both AMD and Intel processors (around my area) cost about the same. If they have large price differences where you are, then sorry for you. But don't go pushing shit around as fact when it's not the same for everyone else.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Did you even bother reading my post at all? I said that all the comparatively equipped computers that offer both AMD and Intel processors (around my area) cost about the same. If they have large price differences where you are, then sorry for you. But don't go pushing shit around as fact when it's not the same for everyone else.

From: Hell... aka: South Mississippi

Did you move? Or did you not realize HP/CompUSA are both national companies?

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

We don't have a CompUSA here. There are other places that sell computers... not just fucking CompUSA. And no, I didn't move. I've lived down here for over 19 years now.

And what the hell does HP and CompUSA being national companies have to do with pricing? I can go do Sams Club or Circuit City and buy HPs, Compaqs, Emachines, Vaios, etc with AMD or Intel processors in them for widely varying prices if they're equipped differently. But for the most part, all the different stores around here that sell computers tend to sell them for about the same price if the computers are similarly equipped... with no concern toward which brand CPU the computer has in it.

Now, I'm through with this. I see no point in trying to tell you that you're not always right, because you're going to think that no matter what. So give it a rest and go polish your AMD...

[EfaustuS9]

I'll Polish my PIII thank you, @ least untill I can afford a AMD64 notebook.

as for the whole regonal price dispute; if you ever decide to build your own sytem use an AMD chip then you WILL save some green. otherwise go your local bestbuy apply the anal cream and enjoy your shoping experience .

[xzxzzx]

sgt: Ok, fine, the companies around there like to mark up AMDs a huge amount, apperantly. Forget about having a computer shipped to you, just go to Bob's shack o' computers, and be happy with your overpriced stores.

[edit]I can't figure out how it matters what the stores sell around you. Just because your area stores like to mark AMD-based systems up doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

Your original post said:

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
It all boils down to personal preference. AMD is no better than Intel.

I've demonstrated several times that AMD processors and systems are cheaper and/or faster than Intel.

By the way, very clever way of showing how wrong I am by saying I won't admit to it. Ever heard of "hypocrisy"?[/edit]

[mark]

what is 64bit like at doing 32bit things anyway?

A while back i heard that WinXP64 bit edition only supported intel...

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Nobby Nobbs
what is 64bit like at doing 32bit things anyway?

A while back i heard that WinXP64 bit edition only supported intel...

AMD 64-bit processors can run x86 (32 bit) programs and O/Ses. This is something Intel was saying they weren't going to do - but now they're falling in line behind AMD.
By the way, the latest AMD 64 bit processors are the fastest around at running 32 bit programs, with some exceptions of things optimized for P4s, or that P4s happen to be good at.

[k_rock923]

did you know that when AMD started out, it was designed to supplement Intel so that there wasn't only one company supplying processors. Eventually they got into some friendly competition each seeing how much speed they could get out of their different approaches to manufacturing.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Forget about having a computer shipped to you, just go to Bob's shack o' computers, and be happy with your overpriced stores.

Not everyone is elite and can have computers shipped to their front door.

I can't figure out how it matters what the stores sell around you. Just because your area stores like to mark AMD-based systems up doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

Do you honestly think that the stores in my area are the only places in the rest of the entire world that do that? Prove it to me, and I'll say I'm wrong.

[zootm]

Originally posted by Nobby Nobbs
what is 64bit like at doing 32bit things anyway?

i can say from experience that it runs them HellaGood

(i have an A64 3200+)

[EfaustuS9]

Originally posted by Nobby Nobbs
what is 64bit like at doing 32bit things anyway?

A while back i heard that WinXP64 bit edition only supported intel...

In fact WinXp 64-bit edition will only support AMD x86-64 extensions. Thus intel has been forced to integrate an AMD innovation in to their next chip.

The 64-bit portion of the AMD chip can not be utilized as of yet (unless you use Linux or have a beta vers of XP-64) so the benchmarking you observe is all based on the chips 32bit capabilities. A bonus of buying the 64-bit chips is that you are buying into the future, so a year or two down the line when developers start utilizing the 64-bit extensions in the current AMDs and the next Intels you wont have to go out and purchase a new chip.

[k_rock923]

back to the original topic of this thread, i have a copy of 98 lying around and a new rig that just needs an OS. is it worth waiting to get XP or is 98 sufficient?

[EfaustuS9]

I say Win98SE more then suffices. Much of this has already been debated, but I chose win98 because it eats less ram and less clock cycles, is compatible with most software new and old, and finally is not subject to as many security holes as its newer bloated brother.

[whiteflip]

Is there a 64 bit Windows 98SE?