Shawn S

If you saw my other posts you know I’m rebuilding the PC.
Right now I’m running an AMD Athlon “Thunderbird” 950Mhz CPU.
I’m looking to go to a Pentium 4 2.4 Ghz or similar.

I know AMD used to beat up on Intel in the price range, but they seem pretty close right now.
Of the ones I found the AMD is actually more expensive for LESS Ghz of speed.

In the 200-dollar range I’m finding these at newegg.com

AMD ATHLON XP 2400 /266 FSB PROCESSOR 2.0 GHz CPU - RETAIL $197.00
AMD ATHLON XP 2600 /333 FSB PROCESSOR 2.13 GHz CPU $297.00
Intel Pentium 4 / 2.4GHz Northwood 512K Socket 478 Processor 400MHz $194.00
Intel Pentium 4 / 2.53GHz Northwood 512K Socket 478 Processor 533MHz Processor Bus $231.00

Which would you suggest and WHY ???

Shawn S

JSuppi

Shawn,
I personally would go the Intel route here, the main reason being the Hyperthreading with the 3+ Ghz P4 Socket 478. Before it would have been hands down AMD, but unfortunately Heat is a big, big issue with the AMD's.

Unless AMD finds something to prevent their processors from running so hot, and do something to support Hyperthreading, there is no competition.

xenon7

Shawn,
you said you use Acad right? Do any 3D modeling or graphics?

We have 12 workstations here at the firm and have tried different
setups.

Intel P4 - 2.5GHZ or go with the dual XEON chipset (MB)
heat is always an issue in the case. Go with an extra case fan

icy CL

i agree, jsuppi, that hyperthreading is a great thing to have. but it only comes with the 3.06 intel processor and an OEM product (no heat sink and fan) cost more than $600. then you'll have to purchase parts that will take advantage of the hyperthreading technology. not sure how much motherboards are that accept P4 3.06. http://www.intel.com/homepage/land/h...ading_more.htm .

also...i mentioned in another forum that i purchased the amd 2400XP+ (2 ghz for $199)and am using an ASUS A7V8X motherboard. though it's nothing compared to the P4 3.06, it runs darn fast and the temp when i'm playing my games runs around 44degrees cel with the stock heatsink and fan. when i overclock it to 2.15ghz, temp goes up to 46-47. Note: i have 3 fans on the case aside from the power supply fans. 1 blowing air in, 2 blowing out. i don't have the money to buy the intel processors. i really think you get much more for your money with an amd processor. that's just my opinion, though.

Shawn S

Yes, I have AutoCAD 2002 loaded at home and do work on some 3D modeling there, but not enough to justify dual processors or leading edge CPU speeds.
The system I use at work isn’t even as fast as what I’m talking about building.
I think the Dell I’ve got here is only a P4-1.8 Ghz.

I’ve learned over the years that unless you have unlimited funds it’s never best to buy what’s the latest and greatest in the world of CPU’s.
I’ve spent 800-dollars for Pentium 1 MMX CPU’s in the past and watch them fall to 200-bucks in less then 4-months.
Now I usually buy a few notches down from the fasted thing selling and the depreciation doesn’t hit so bad.
Right now the P4 3.06 Ghz CPU is selling for over 650-bucks, but will probably be 250 by June when something faster is out.

I’m leaning towards getting a P4 and I may splurge and get a GIG of RAM since I need to buy new stuff anyway.

Shawn S

jimcol711

christ, im not even that old and i remember my first PC was a 386SX 33mhz processor with a 27mb hard drive!!!! didnt even have windows on it or anything, all DOS based..and im only 22!!! i bet you old timers remember shit way slower than that even, its pretty disgusting how much this shit changes and how fast it changes...when will it end?? how fast is fast enough???

Samer007

In summary:

AMD has proven to me faster than Intel and cheaper, but less stable.

Intel is quick for everyday use and very stable, but more expensive.



I do week long calculations with 5 computers I have at work, by trial and error, I found AMD to be alot faster than the same speed Intels, and even more accurate with calculation (floating point representations differ between the two). But they crash alot more often than the Intel, and actually had one go completely bad, but the Intels stood strong.
BTW, each PC has 2Gig of ram .

Samer007

xenon7

Autocad 2002 will thank you for all that DDR RAM!!

CLBean

Are there any 1 gig ram cards? The biggest I've seen are 512MB.

Slowest computer I've used was a 286.

I'd go with whatever fits in your motherboard and is cheaper... Unless you're on the cutting edge with what you do with the computer... I don't think you'll notice a difference. I ordered the AMD 2400 from Newegg... should be here any day now

I should really be spending this money on the car or on my gf's engagement ring, but I need my toys!

SiGGy

Main advantage of dual processor is you can purchase two slower procesors and achieve the same speed as the fastest single CPU (or faster) for way less $$... And gain other advantages...

I was trying to keep you on the cheap side, why I also suggested athalon processors.

Sure buy intel if your going to make $$ off of it. But if your not, then don't waste the $$ IMO.

Mosy bad experiences with AMD are some bad motherboards or poor air circulation. I have had my athalons up and cranking for many months straight. Not one crash. And I beat the hell out of them. 99% CPU for weeks at a time.

SiGGy

example:
These prices are from pricewatch, and bare bottom deals.

$622 Pentium 4 3.06GHz

$346 - Athlon XP 2400 2x$173 ($173 per CPU)

If your looking for speed, it's the best bang for your buck. It's just lucky you can run XP procs on a dual board. If it was for a server i'd say use the MPs anyway. But for home use I don't know anyone who has had problems.

I highly suggest MSI mobos for AMD setups. Very stable.

Shawn S

Well, going WAAAAAAY back. My first computer back in the mid 80’s was an Atari 800XL with 64K (not Meg) of Ram that hooked up to a TV.
It had no internal drive so I had to pay extra for a 5 1/4” floppy drive.
That was kind of a toy for games so I won’t even really count it.

My first IBM compatible was purchased in 1992.
It was a 486DX 33Mhz. I passed on the 66Mhz because it was like 500 dollars more.
It had 8 Meg of Ram. Most PC’s only came with 2 or 4, but I needed to run AutoCAD 11 DOS so I had to go with 8.
It had no CD drive, no sound card, no modem just a 5 1/4” floppy and a 200 Meg Hard Drive.
Software was Windows 3.1 and DOS 5.0.
I paid 2,200-dollars for it with a 17” CTX monitor.

Shawn S

ChodTheWacko

Computers have long since been 'fast enough' for home users, imho.
I have a 'mere' Athlon 2000+ XP ($100, by the way). The only
thing I do that strains the cpu is photoshopping pics.

And what the hell are you going to do with 1 gig of memory?
You're better off getting 512 meg, and then blowing the money on a FAST hard disk, imho.

For your typical home user, there are few things that benefit from a hella fast cpu:
1) Burning movies (video compression is slooooow)
2) Photoshopping/converting digicam pics
3) You play games online and you have the reflexes of a crack
smoking monkey


- Frank

Zapata

INTEL!!!!!!!!!

Shawn S

I’ll look into that angle Siggy.
I haven’t gotten the credit card out just yet.

Shawn S

Shawn S

I’m set there already.
I just picked up a Western Digital 80-Gig 7200 RPM drive.
It’s the “Special Edition” one with an 8-Meg cache.

I guess SCSI would be a bit faster, but those are so much more $$$$$.
I got the 80-Gig at Circuit City for 79-bucks.

I'll install my existing 43-Gig as a backup once I'm up and running.

IntegraVT

iTrader: (1)

If you're looking for the most performance bang per buck... AMD.

Whatever money you save on the CPU, reinvest in RAM.

icy CL

i agree. cosair ram is the BOMB!!!

tw1112

I'm done with scsi...IMO it makes the boot time slower and right now with the high transfer rates of eide, you really won't notice that big of a difference for everyday users.

I am going to build a computer again soon and I think I am going the intel route. I am going to try and make the computer as quiet as possible...my AMD setup right now is driving me nuts!

JSuppi

Damn I can't believe how old I am!! (Shit i'm not even that OLD!!)

I remmember my first PC, it wasn't even a PC It was an Apple 2GS, and everyone that had HD's on their first PC stop whining!! I didn't have one It only came with a 800k external 3 1/2, and the kicker was the introduction to my online experience was with an Apple 1200 bps modem..

Damn we've come along way

Anyways I never suggested to get the 3+ Ghz P4 Socket 478 (Hell it would be nice though), I believe most socket 478 machines will have support for the Hyperthreaded P4's (and definetly if you get the 533 Mhz FSB motherboard I can almost gurantee you will have support for the processor).

As for sticks of memory, I have personally seens 1 gig DIMM's (but those are outrageously expensive).

Instead of investing in HD technology right now, I would wait & hop on the Serial ATA bandwagon. That stuff is going to be outrageous, and the cable if I understand correctly is going to be much more manageable than the current IDE/SCSI cable mess you have in the systems now.

sidemarker

i only know 1 thing about intel vs amd

intel spends 8 billion dollars a year in research and development so i am going with

INTEL

sidemarker

purplehaze

If ur really into gaming...AMD hands down is the winner there.
Also t note..AMD's 2.2 ghz chip for example performs as fast as the intel 2.8ghz chip according to half a dozen mags.
Intel is successful mainly cuz of thier marketting strategy.PERIOD.