Author Topic: Athlon CPU woes.  (Read 3113 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Redfang

  • 28
Quote
Originally posted by Razor
I saw an Athlon 1800 in the computer magazine as a part of one high end PC. I also got an offer for P4 1,8 GHz. Which one should I take?

It depends... if it's a regular P4 (Willamette), you should definitely take the Athlon. If it's a P4 with Northwood core, then it's a harder decision...

Quote
Originally posted by CP5670
So how would one go about getting the actual clock speed of an AthlonXP from the name? Do you just subtract 200?

 
Clockspeed*1.5-500. And in processors with speeds of 2400+ and faster, it is Clockspeed*1.5-600. If you have the PR, you can count the megahertz with (PR+500)/1.5, or in speeds of above 2400+, it is (PR+600)/1.5.
 
Quote
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
Actually the performance ratings are referenced to the AMD Thunderbird core not the P4. Therefore, a 1600+ Athlon XP will perform just as well as a 1600Mhz Thunderbird. Of course, having people believe that they're referenced to the P4 doesn't exactly hurt AMD which is why they've never done anything.
They're officially referenced to TB, but in reality it's actually P4. 1500+ isn't as fast as 1.5GHz TB is, except that it might be in some few tests. If even at those.
 
That's why they changed the PR, it just didn't match P4 speeds anymore. And not all know that it's not just the MHz that matter.

 

Offline JC Denton

  • Node For Me
  • 27
Price is the major playing factor between P4 and Athlon XP procs.  For example, a top of the line P4 runs at a price above $600 (that was for the 2.8 when it hit the market), while the latest-model AthlonXP (the Thoroughbred, I think) started off at around $300 or less.

Performance wise, just go scrounging around a techie website (like Tom's Hardware or SharkyExtreme) and find benchmark data.  It pretty much speaks for itself.

Me, I'm starting to be a bit more partial to AMD because they're far less expensive and provide nearly the same performance as their P4 equivalents.  Plus they can be overclocked if need be (due to an unlocked clock multiplier, which Intel doesn't have except on engineering samples that never reach the general public).

Oh, and as for memory, I'd say that 256 mb is the bare minimum, and I highly recommend 512 or more.  And of course, get DDR if the board supports it.  PC2100 is the slowest I'd get, 2700 is more expensive, but probably worth the extra cost.  And to save a few bucks (or pounds, euros, franks, marks, etc., depending on nationality), get a 512mb stick instead of 2 256mb sticks.  That's a savings of between $20 and $50, depending on brand.  Brands I suggest are Apacer, Crucial, and Micron.  Generic brands you've never heard of (and a few name-brands with bad track records *cough*PNY*cough*) probably should be avoided.

And up that power supply to 300 or 350 watts first chance you get.  Newer processors and mobos, and all those other cards you'll inevitably get, are very power hungry.

And get some case fans to help keep the internals from overheating.  In fact, get a chipset cooler for the mobo, and get a processor fan that is rated higher than the processor speed.   This'll help ensure that that shiny new piece of plastic won't melt itself after a year of hard use.

Er....sheesh, where'd all that come from?  ;)
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will -- and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain."  - Gene Roddenberry

"Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Offline vyper

  • 210
  • The Sexy Scotsman
Quote
Originally posted by JC Denton
Price is the major playing factor ........ a year of hard use.

Er....sheesh, where'd all that come from?  ;)



Dude I just saved all that for when I do my upgrade at xmas...;)
"But you live, you learn.  Unless you die.  Then you're ****ed." - aldo14

 

Offline Petrarch of the VBB

  • Koala-monkey
  • 211
Anyway, I've set it to the right speed in the BIOS, and aside from about an extra 5degrees C in heat, it's fine. However, sandra 2002 says that now the FSB is set to 133, the chipset (sis730) is not happy.

 

Offline Admiral LSD

  • 27
  • Shorter of breath and one day closer to death
    • http://adphq.dyndns.org
It says that same thing about an i850E driving a 533FSB Northwood Pentium 4. It should be OK.
00:19  * Snail cockslaps BotenAnna
00:19 -!- Snail was kicked from #hard-light by BotenAnna [Don't touch me there! RAPE!!!]

15:36 <@Stealth_T1g4h> MASSIVE PENIS IN YOUR ASS Linux

I normally enjoy your pornographic website... - Stealth
Get Internet Explorer!

 

Offline Petrarch of the VBB

  • Koala-monkey
  • 211
Goooooood.

Why do they make programs whose sole purpose is to complain about your machine?

 

Offline Redfang

  • 28
Quote
Originally posted by JC Denton
Me, I'm starting to be a bit more partial to AMD because they're far less expensive and provide nearly the same performance as their P4 equivalents.  Plus they can be overclocked if need be (due to an unlocked clock multiplier, which Intel doesn't have except on engineering samples that never reach the general public).
The new Northwood P4's are much better for OC'ing. You can increase FSB easily, and having 2000MHz with 200FSB is a lot faster than having 2000MHz with 100FSB. Northwoods run cool, Athlons usually pretty hot. You can overclock the new Thoroughbreds pretty good, but Thunderbirds and the XP's with Palomino core weren't that good. And they have locked clock multiplier, which is however possible to unlock, unlike P4.