1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

CPUs

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by ugar69, 2002/01/25.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 2002/01/25
    ugar69

    ugar69 Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/01/25
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello all,

    I'm considering a new PC and I'm not sure what CPU to go with, Pentium 4 or an Athlon chip. Can someone explain the differences between the various Athlons, ie Duron, XP, Thunderbird? Thanks for any comments.
     
  2. 2002/01/25
    Cliffh

    Cliffh Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/07
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just read an article in PC World mag last night comparing the new P4's against the AMD XP's. Seems like the XP running at 1600MHz out performed the P4 2.2GHz - and were about $300.00 less.

    Duron - AMD's answer to the Intel Celeron, low price, low performance.

    TBird - Last generation hi performance chip, equivilant to the P3 & P4 line.

    XP - The newest hi performace chip, bigger/better/faster than previous versions.

    How technical of an explanation do you want? You might check out here: http://www.amd.com/us-en/
     

  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2002/01/25
    Chiles4

    Chiles4 Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/09
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Athlons' edge over the P4 is mostly a result of the AMD chips having more Instructions Per Cycle than the Intel cpus. So, as it turns out, Intel's advantage in clock cycles (Mhz) doesn't make up for their lower IPC.

    I just saw a reference to an article that stated that the new Duron 1.3Ghz chip outperformed the Pentium 4 1.6Ghz cpu in several benches - wild stuff! :eek:
     
    Last edited: 2002/01/25
  5. 2002/01/25
    orndog

    orndog Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/07
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's why AMD started its new naming scheme. i.e. my XP1600+, while bettering an Intel 1.6, actually clocks at 1.4. They were winning in performance, but people were still buying ghz, so they renamed their line-up.
     
  6. 2002/01/25
    Tinknocker

    Tinknocker Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/19
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi ugar69,

    Just a couple of points if you decide to go AMD. First, if you're not an overclocker look for a motherboard with an AMD chipset (actually an AMD northbridge and a VIA southbridge) they have a better history of stability. Secondly, if you are into overclocking and feel you need a motherboard with the VIA chipset, choose one that ends with an "A" such as KT266A. Seems that VIA uses their customers to debug the initial release of a chipset and the subsequent release with the "A" designation is much more stable.

    Good Luck,
    Tin
     
  7. 2002/01/26
    ugar69

    ugar69 Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/01/25
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the replies and the info. After researching things, I think I'm going the AMD route. I may even build my own using a Shuttle AK31A Skt A VIA KT266A motherboard. The last box I built was using a Cyrix 686 P-150+, so you know it's been a while! Wish me luck!
     
  8. 2002/01/26
    Cliffh

    Cliffh Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/07
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good luck :)
     
  9. 2002/01/29
    cyberpunk

    cyberpunk Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/22
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good Luck

    Nice to see yet another person opting for "intel outside" :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.