November 8th, 2004, 12:09 AM
AMD XP+ vs. Intel P4
Ever since AMD switched their chip rating to the XP+ design (i.e., amd 3000+) I've wondered if an amd chip rated as "3000+" could keep up with a P4 2.8gig? I thought there were three main factors that affected the speed of a processor; those being the FSB, multiplier, and cache? Most of the AMD's (from what I've seen) only use a FSB in the 200's or lower? Could the design of the AMD chip allow it to keep up with, say a 2.8gig 533FSB P4 even if the AMD had a lower clock speed and FSB (or did I just answer my own question)?
November 13th, 2004, 05:41 PM
First, that 200 or lower is the fsb speed, which you need to multiply by two to get the actual bus speed. (Those pentium numbers are "quad pumped", so divide by 4 to see the fsb speed, but the 533 or 800 is the number that matters).
As for the fsb, multiplier, cache thing: FSB and multiplier determine clock speed, but architecture differences make comparing the XP and P4 on speed wrong. The XP has a different pipeline, which allows it to get more performance per mhz, but not run as high a clock speed. Cache also increases performance, by allowing more data to be "close" to the cpu for faster use.
Now, performance comparison wise, there are a ton of comparisons of all manner of pentiums and xp's online. Use google. It depends on the application. XP's are comperable sometimes, fall behind other times. The big selling point is the price difference compared to the P4.
November 29th, 2004, 12:15 AM
Well, I've been reading reviews at tom's hardware guide for some time and I noticed that the quantispeeds of the XP's are comparable (sometimes edging out the Intel) in most aspects. The P4's seem to do well in mpeg and archival compression, while the AMD's seem to command the area of applications and games. Now with the latest 90 nanometer Athlon 64's out, they are mopping the floor with the Pentiums. Even the 130 nm Athlons are giving Intel a run for their money. I appoligize if this seems biased, but I consider AMD to be a superior product and they will continue to get my CPU dollars.
November 29th, 2004, 06:26 AM
AMD "ratings" > Intel speeds. I asked one of the smarter members at DevH about the reason why. He also goes into the WMV benchmark, where you run the HD video off of microsoft.com
Originally Posted by DMOS
November 30th, 2004, 09:01 PM
AMD VS P4 Which is superior?
I recently built a new pc fairly cheap and cost effective these are my specs below..
Gigabyte 7VT600 1394
AMD Athlon XP 2600+ Barton O'ced to 2.13ghz
1024MB of Corsair XMS RAM
256MB Nvidia FX5700le Graphics Card
160GB WD Sata HDD
120GB WD Sata HDD
LG 700B FLATRON CRT 17"
I know for a fact that my pc has much better results then my mates p4 2.6ghz... It manages applications alot better then p4.
I will always stick with AMD and im thinking bout upgrading to AMD64 FX55 next year... that cpu ownz any on the market today!