Urza9814 Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 (edited) I'm a bit confused about the Athlon and Intel CPUs... Like, Why are the Athlon ones so much cheaper than Intel, and why is there a special AMD version of mandrake...and basically just what's the difference? Edited July 11, 2004 by Urza9814 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwiftDeath Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 Anthlon and Intel are just different companies that make proccessor. AMDs run faster but use more power and are more money for your performance. An AMD 64 is a new type of processor architecture that requires a different type of OS to be ran properly. Intel will probably make an equilvanlent to the AMD 64 soon. Hope that expalins it, SwiftDeath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarissi Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 The AMD version of Mandrake is for AMD64 (Athlon64, Opteron, etc). That said, Intel Loves High Prices (sort of like Microsoft Pricing). The interesting thing, is that AMD consistently outperforms Intel at Lower Clock speed than Intel, and, costs about half of what Intel charges. Example: AMD Athlon XP 3000+, 333 Mhz Front Side Bus Clock speed: 2.167 Ghz Performance Minimum: Intel Pentium 4, 3.0 Ghz, 800 Mhz Front Side Bus Current price for Retail unit via eBay: $149.99 + s & h (AMD CPU) That is what I paid for mine from a reputable company. Basically, AMD is high performance on a budget. Other than pricing, the primary differences are in the internal architecture of the cores. It is the same with the G4 and G5 PPC (higher performance at lower clock speed). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urza9814 Posted July 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 (edited) Ahhh...ok...i see... I'm planning on getting a new comp sometime...was going to for my birthday...but it's been pushed back to Christmas :P I have $100 now...estimate I'll need $275...I should be able to get it...lol Now back to pricewatch for an AMD estimate... One other question: Why does CGW always use an Intel if they cost more? Is there any reason, or is it just the same reason they use M$.... [edit:] YAY! Getting an Athlon Mobo and CPU will save me $5! :P But I'm getting an Athlon XP 2200 instead of an Intel Pentium 4 1.5GHz Edited July 11, 2004 by Urza9814 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arctic Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 One other question: Why does CGW always use an Intel if they cost more? Is there any reason, or is it just the same reason they use M$.... one of the many questions that go unanswered. siemens-fujistsu also uses intel... for no apparent reason. except m$ uses the typical "threat" of stopping the support... but who knows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeeDubb Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 (edited) Many people ahve long labored under the very false impression that clock speed has more than a vague connection to proformance. Here is the difference between AMD and Intel CPU's. AMD's are far cheaper for a similarly proforming intel CPU, not same clock speed, but same total processing power. An Athlon XP 3000+, despite the slower clock speed, is labled as the 3000+ because it can OUTRUN an Intel P4 3ghz. As an example, at newegg, the p42.8ghz starts at $129 but the AthlonXP 2800+, which proforms better, is only $121 This lower clock speed means they are not quite as expensive and also means they don't work quite as hard, consequently they last longer and are more stable and even require less cooling. Of course, I'm sure you're asking yourself, "Then why are they so popular?" And it's a good questions that I can answer. Once upon a time, Intel kicked the crap out of AMD, they made better processors, and the only reason AMD could even stay afloat was that AMD didn't spend a dime on advertizement and beat their prices a litle bit. But then AMD started making beter CPU's and Intel, in their infinite wisom, decided to rush the P4 out the door well before it was ready and since then, they have simply cranked up the clock speeds without addressing the fundamental flaws in design. How have they gotten away with it? Simple, they've taken a page from the book of Gates and crushed every single competitor except AMD, who they can't crush because of AMD's superior product and firm hold of their market share. Intel has also forced and manipulated all the major manufacturers into contracts prohibiting them from using any other CPU's, just as MS has done with Windows. And why, you might ask, do I feal I know what the heck I'm talking about and just what gives me the nerve to correct people? Well, a substantial portion of my anual income is from building custom PC's for private companies and I have built a lot of computers with AMD and Intel CPU's. I decided a year ago that I would no longer build computers with Intel CPU's or chipsets as they require replacement far more regularly. Edited July 12, 2004 by VeeDubb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjc Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Of course, I'm sure you're asking yourself, "Then why are they so popular?" And it's a good questions that I can answer. Once upon a time, Intel kicked the crap out of AMD, they made better processors, and the only reason AMD could even stay afloat was that AMD didn't spend a dime on advertizement and beat their prices a litle bit. But then AMD started making beter CPU's and Intel, in their infinite wisom, decided to rush the P4 out the door well before it was ready and since then, they have simply cranked up the clock speeds without addressing the fundamental flaws in design. I beg remind you of some events which saved AMD. AMD was on the verge of going under when Intel brought out the Pentium III chip which had a factory tracible ID code. (Intel claimed this was to ID authentic, not knock off chips) Great cries of "Big Brother is watching" and worries about who could access this information and what it could be used for scared/outraged a whole bunch of us who immediately jumped to the AMD Athlon series of chips (Slot A)...now the people had a choice...AMD or Intel... Yes, there are all the processing speed advantage claims...casual users, not pushing systems to the absolute limit will not notice differences in similarly rated Intel/AMD chip sets. (other than out of pocket difference). Why hav I stayed with AMD over Intel...partly because of the ID scare, partly because supporting a choice, partly because of price/performace and partly because I can have a choice if I so choose which performs as well or better than the other choice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urza9814 Posted July 12, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 (edited) So basically you're saying AMD's better...but intel's pretty much got a monopoly. Wow...Why does this sound familiar? :P SO...Athlon XP 2200+ is better than a Intel Pentium 4 1.5GHz...right? :P 2200 is the speed...2.2GHz, right? Or am I understanding that wrong... I got 3 games I wanna be able to play on this comp when I'm done (one I can't even play on my family's (brother's :P) newer comp because of the stupid graphics card) and need 1.8GHz for one of 'em...glad I looked into AMD...I wouldn't have even thought to look at that...and woulda got a 1.5GHz...all because the AMD 64 confused me...:P BTW - Athlon XP mobo and XP 2200+ CPU will work ok with Mandrake 9.2 and 10.0? No Driver or other problems? Edited July 12, 2004 by Urza9814 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeeDubb Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 "SO...Athlon XP 2200+ is better than a Intel Pentium 4 1.5GHz...right? :P" Yes, you're deffinately right. "2200 is the speed...2.2GHz, right? Or am I understanding that wrong..." You're sort of right. Those number that AMD uses are are comparison based numbers. a 3000+ is not 3ghz, but is just a litle faster in real life than a P4 3ghz. It's actual clock speed however, is much lower, like 2.17ghz or so. "I got 3 games I wanna be able to play on this comp when I'm done (one I can't even play on my family's (brother's :P) newer comp because of the stupid graphics card) and need 1.8GHz for one of 'em" That 1.8ghz requirement listed on the box is based on the p4 inall likelyhood, so an AthlonXP1800+ which runs at something like 1.5ghz should work just as well. However, let me give you some advice here, never waste money buying a CPU that is 'just fast enough' because in 6 months it will be too slow. You should should always buy the fastest hardware you can justify financialy. Of course, that will vary from person to person, but keep in mind, better ahrdware today means fewer upgrades tommorrow. "Athlon XP mobo and XP 2200+ CPU will work ok with Mandrake 9.2 and 10.0? No Driver or other problems?" Of course. As far as 99.99999% of all software is concerned the Athlon XP and P4 are the same chip. The difference is proformance, price and stability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urza9814 Posted July 12, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 never waste money buying a CPU that is 'just fast enough' because in 6 months it will be too slow. Yea, I know that from much experience...although I've got a few games in there that as far as CPU speed goes, this comp (5 years old) can almost run 'em! Halo's just 100MHz faster than this thing...I've never had a problem with CPU speed...always RAM or video card... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.