Topic: Athlons or Pentiums? (Read 5346 times)

TheBigBadBruno · « **on:** December 29, 2003, 04:44:05 PM »

Which do you prefer? Share your opinions!

There, I fixed it. Most of the time I would notice an error like that, but I was in a rush.

hackess · « **Reply #1 on:** December 29, 2003, 05:03:10 PM »

If I had any "oppinions," I'd share them.

Like Lacerda, I am a spelling/grammar freak.

KeenMaster · « **Reply #2 on:** December 29, 2003, 06:30:01 PM »

i decided that since i am a major player in your forum i oughta post here more, and as you have bought up a nice subject ill grace you with my vastly babbled, gramatically incorrect opinion.

i think its gota be athlons all the way for gamers and music players alike, but for the more scientific boi genius types then i mite suggest pentium, providing said genius has a wallet that can accomodate such a price tag

JohnnyFive · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2004, 03:01:55 AM »

Right.

Intel >> for people you build computers for or businesses, or for your server machine.

Athlon >> everything else.

Atleast, that's the way I see it. I mean, if you are building a machine for someone else, then they will most likely come to you if there are problems. It's their money, why don't you cut the possibility of hassle and just buy the more stable of the two?

For the your gaming machine, I don't see a reason to go Pentium. You'll be upgrading it soon anyway, and they are SO DAMN EXPENSIVE that it's just not worth it, unless you have the excessive cash to do so...

Telsan · « **Reply #4 on:** January 25, 2004, 06:16:59 AM »

I agree, Athlon and Pentium are always competing in power and speed. But the Athlon has a substantial price difference to pentium. Athlon is good for gamers and others. Pentiums are for the office.

Anonymous · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2004, 09:00:40 AM »

Personally, I go for AMD over Intel.

AMD's chips are a great deal cheaper than Intel's in most cases, as well as AMD's chips being pretty effeicent with their clock cycles, so a lower rated AMD chip can put up a pretty good fight with a higher rated Intel chip when it comes to bench marks. I think Intel uses the higher clock speeds to their advantage simply because they can trick a lot of the average computer users into buying them. They think the bigger the number, the better. The last time I checked, Intel is up to 3.4 Ghz with their latest P4. AMD is somewhere in the 2.2 GHZ range. Although, AMD has made a pretty big gain in the race, with the addition of the Althon 64 processors. Now everyone is sitting around waiting for Windows to catch up with them, unless they want to use Linux.

Right now I'm using two dual XP systems, and one dual Pentium system. I'll admit, the Pentium system is rock solid, I wouldn't doubt it being able to go a year without being restarted, but the poweer company will not let that happen. My other dual, a domain controller,which has two Athlon XP 1700s in it, is also very stable, and then you come to my main machine. Lately it has been pretty good, but it's had its moments of acting like a piece of shit.

TerrorDronze · « **Reply #6 on:** January 25, 2004, 02:32:18 PM »

i personally prefer pentiums to AMDs, althought, i will admit that the AMDs are cheaper. No contest there. But when you look at it, at home, i'm running a 7 year old HP that i picked up for free, and it still runs fine. Try saying that for an AMD system that old. I know, i know... "what does that matter, most people don't even keep their computers that long without upgrading or getting a new system altogether!"... but I'm the type that would put a few extra bucks forward now, so that i don't risk hardware fuck-ups in the future, when i don't know if i'll have the time/money/energy to upgrade it. Most people think that, these days, computers are disposable. to all you people out there.... please, send your compuers to me, so that i may cannibalize them into my system, and your parts that you value as nothing can go to good use in my POS system. I find that, in all my attempts to upgrade this piece-o-crap that i got for free (you get what you pay for, i guess), it is neigh impossible to find parts for upgrades... althought i'm going to be adopting a new computer soon.... and it's a lot newer than what i have now. Anyways, I ramble. Pentium for the periodically broke, AMD for all the rest of you money-grubbing "i have a real job that pays really well and can afford to upgrade my system with my salary" people.

Anonymous · « **Reply #7 on:** January 26, 2004, 07:45:54 AM »

I used to be against AMD. But they had a rough start. There processors didn't com[pare to Intel's a few years ago. Now, they have more experience and more money. They've caught up. I currently own an athlon CPU. It's my first one. I am very happy with it. For a home PC, I have no preferences between the two brands in terms of performance. Two CPUs with he same specs will function at the same level as far as I'm concerned. sure, the benchamrks will tell you other stories, but bench marks are like political promises. Irrelevant.

So from now on, since I hae no prefference on the brand, I'm always going to go with the cheaper option. So I guess AMD wins this round.

hackess · « **Reply #8 on:** January 26, 2004, 09:25:05 AM »

I've personally used nothing but Pentiums in my machines, but I think it's for the same reason that TD gave: Pentium for the periodically broke, AMD for upgrading more than once every two years. Actually, I think I've had my current CPU for almost three!

got redneck? · « **Reply #9 on:** January 31, 2004, 08:10:47 PM »

its a love hate thing
i love pentium
i hate amd

its settled

TheBigBadBruno · « **Reply #10 on:** February 01, 2004, 08:23:59 PM »

I say we kill the redneck.

Anyway, I would have to go with Athlons, but I currently own a P4 2.6...when I rebuild I'm going to throw in an AMD, not sure what to get though.

got redneck? · « **Reply #11 on:** February 01, 2004, 08:32:40 PM »

you can kill me but i bet when i get to the gate st peter will be usin a pentium computer to track the world.

HeavyJay · « **Reply #12 on:** February 02, 2004, 02:24:20 AM »

You won't be at any gate though, cause you'll be dead.

Popgamer · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2004, 09:17:25 PM »

Athlon all the way...the only thing that intel beats athlons with is video rendering (not games) and audio/video codecs. So Athlon can own in general performance too...and now Intel is pulling this p4 extreme stuff to compete with athlon 64. All they're doing is taking a Zeon processor, renaming it to the P4 Extreme, and charging 1 grand for it when a $400 athlon 64 STILL beats it in most ways.

JohnnyFive · « **Reply #14 on:** February 05, 2004, 04:48:23 AM »

Quote from: Popgamer

Athlon all the way...the only thing that intel beats athlons with is video rendering (not games) and audio/video codecs. So Athlon can own in general performance too...and now Intel is pulling this p4 extreme stuff to compete with athlon 64. All they're doing is taking a Zeon processor, renaming it to the P4 Extreme, and charging 1 grand for it when a $400 athlon 64 STILL beats it in most ways.

I totally disagree. Call up any major firm, and ask them if they are using Athlon's in their servers. Very rarely will you get that as an answer. All the major computer companies realize that Intel's are MUCH more stable when it comes to being able to withstand heat, being on for extended period of times, and general abuse. Have you seen the Tom's Hardware Test Video on heat? Very interesting.

I'm not saying the AMD's are crap processors, I run one myself. Just saying, if I had the cash, or was running a business, i'd go Intel, all the way.

biggyfred · « **Reply #15 on:** February 05, 2004, 05:23:33 AM »

Quote

I'm not saying the AMD's are crap processors, I run one myself. Just saying, if I had the cash, or was running a business, i'd go Intel, all the way.

I own a share of a computer store/internet cafe that runs 20 Athlon XP 2400+s and have never had a problem with any of them. The price/performance is fantastic. Just sayin.

xolik · « **Reply #16 on:** February 05, 2004, 05:42:49 PM »

I've been using an XP1800+ for about two years now and I've never had any problems with it. It runs a little hot, but I'm probably going to get a better heatsink\fan combo soon. As soon as I find a good one that glows, that is.

Anonymous · « **Reply #17 on:** February 05, 2004, 06:01:19 PM »

I would love to get my hands on an Athlon 64 FX-51. But That's like $700+ U.S.

Popgamer · « **Reply #18 on:** February 05, 2004, 10:12:26 PM »

Although no one really uses athlons in servers, opteron sure is gaining lots of support in the server market. moreso than itanium. and heat? athlon 64/opteron run much cooler than prescott/xeon/itanium

Popgamer · « **Reply #19 on:** February 05, 2004, 11:21:16 PM »

O and one more thing...my athlon xp 2500 has NEVER crashed on me

hackess · « **Reply #20 on:** February 06, 2004, 09:53:51 AM »

Quote from: Popgamer

O and one more thing...my athlon xp 2500 has NEVER crashed on me

Neither has my P4 1.7

Can't say the same for Winblows, though.

xolik · « **Reply #21 on:** February 06, 2004, 12:13:33 PM »

Quote from: Popgamer

Although no one really uses athlons in servers, opteron sure is gaining lots of support in the server market. moreso than itanium. and heat? athlon 64/opteron run much cooler than prescott/xeon/itanium

AMD was really pushing the Athlon 64 for use in servers at the seminar I went to not too long ago. It seems ok, but I don't think there will be a mad rush to go from Intel to AMD just yet.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Athlons or Pentiums? (Read 5346 times)

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous