AMD vs. Pentium and Other Stuff

[Anonymous]

Has anyone had experience in comparing the speed of these processors? I
am looking in the mid-to-upper 1 Ghz range, unless there is still a good
increase if I go to 2.0 or 2.2 Ghz. It looks like AMD & Pentium are
about the same price at about the 1.5 Ghz level, but the AMD is a bit
less expensive up around 2 Ghz & above. Can anyone help me out?

Also, for a graphics card what would you suggest? (Biggest bang for the
buck)
The default is nVidia Vanta TNT2 AGP w/ 32 MB RAM
Other options are:
nVidia Geforce2 MX400 AGP 64MB
nVidia Geforce4 MX400 AGP 64MB
nVidia Geforce3 T1200 AGP 64MB
Pinnacle Studio DV Firewire
Do any of these support dual monitor use? I am not using dual now, but
might look into it in the future.

The systems we are looking at come with 128 MB PC2100 DDR RAM. We will
definitely upgrade to at least 512 MB, but how does this type of RAM
compare with other types?

Our new machines will be put together locally by a company we have used
before and are happy with, but should we try to hold out for different
hardware than what they're offering?

Thanks in advance,

-- Anthony

[Anonymous]

One more thing. The Pentium systems come with the ASUS P4B266 Socket
478 motherboard and the AMD uses the Soyo Dragon+ motherboard w/ 266 MHz
FSB. Does anyone have any comments concerning these? The really great
thing is that they are both equipped with USB 2.0, which is even faster
than FireWire. WooHooo!

Thanks Again

[onefish]

As far as Video cards nVidia does support dual
monitors although in windows2000 it just does a
expanded desktop. If you are planning to go with
windows200 then I would go with a Matrox card.
Apparently they have drivers written for their cards
that work with 2000. If you are going with Win98 or XP
then the choice is yours.

[Anonymous]

"Anthony Mason" wrote in message
news:3CA369AD.50307@netscape.net...
> Has anyone had experience in comparing the speed of these processors? I
> am looking in the mid-to-upper 1 Ghz range, unless there is still a good
> increase if I go to 2.0 or 2.2 Ghz. It looks like AMD & Pentium are
> about the same price at about the 1.5 Ghz level, but the AMD is a bit
> less expensive up around 2 Ghz & above. Can anyone help me out?

Cadalyst mag has done some great testing of Intel vs. AMD cad systems
...http://www.cadalyst.com/ .This would be a starting point for reference.
Some will say that there are some compatibility issues with AMD systems but
I have owned one for years and it is still going strong (Athlon 650 MHz.).
Then there is the heat issue with the high end AMD chips (I have yet to see
a heat sink fall off but that is me) so take that into consideration as
well. If you are on a budget and have a good inhouse PC guy then get the AMD
based systems (just in case that you do have some issues) but if money is
not a big deal then get a DDR based P4 system.

>
> Also, for a graphics card what would you suggest? (Biggest bang for the
> buck)
> The default is nVidia Vanta TNT2 AGP w/ 32 MB RAM
> Other options are:
> nVidia Geforce2 MX400 AGP 64MB
> nVidia Geforce4 MX400 AGP 64MB
> nVidia Geforce3 T1200 AGP 64MB
> Pinnacle Studio DV Firewire
> Do any of these support dual monitor use? I am not using dual now, but
> might look into it in the future.

Do not go below a Geforce 2 card. The cards below this are budget at best
and will work for cad but are not the best and the Geforce 2 is not that
much more. In my experience the best dual card is from Matrox (I have used
the G400 and now the G450). But nVidia does have dual head versions.

>
> The systems we are looking at come with 128 MB PC2100 DDR RAM. We will
> definitely upgrade to at least 512 MB, but how does this type of RAM
> compare with other types?

Well it seems that now the P4 will now have DDR boards so it seems that DDR
is the way to go. Do not get an SDRAM system. Get the most ram you can
afford PERIOD! I would really look at a gig of ram, really.

>
> Our new machines will be put together locally by a company we have used
> before and are happy with, but should we try to hold out for different
> hardware than what they're offering?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> -- Anthony
>

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

AMD is the way to go if you want fast for cheap however, I just built one
and I run into overheating problems when the room gets a little hot.
I don't think it's the processor. I think it's either the Hard drive (IBM)
or the ram. I haven't figured it out yet.

For reliability go with Intel. The money would probably balance out later
with issues like loss of work from down time.

As for the Video Card. I have a Asus GeForce 3 T5 and love it; no problems
there.

Kevin


"Anthony Mason" wrote in message
news:3CA369AD.50307@netscape.net...
> Has anyone had experience in comparing the speed of these processors? I
> am looking in the mid-to-upper 1 Ghz range, unless there is still a good
> increase if I go to 2.0 or 2.2 Ghz. It looks like AMD & Pentium are
> about the same price at about the 1.5 Ghz level, but the AMD is a bit
> less expensive up around 2 Ghz & above. Can anyone help me out?
>
> Also, for a graphics card what would you suggest? (Biggest bang for the
> buck)
> The default is nVidia Vanta TNT2 AGP w/ 32 MB RAM
> Other options are:
> nVidia Geforce2 MX400 AGP 64MB
> nVidia Geforce4 MX400 AGP 64MB
> nVidia Geforce3 T1200 AGP 64MB
> Pinnacle Studio DV Firewire
> Do any of these support dual monitor use? I am not using dual now, but
> might look into it in the future.
>
> The systems we are looking at come with 128 MB PC2100 DDR RAM. We will
> definitely upgrade to at least 512 MB, but how does this type of RAM
> compare with other types?
>
> Our new machines will be put together locally by a company we have used
> before and are happy with, but should we try to hold out for different
> hardware than what they're offering?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> -- Anthony
>

[Anonymous]

At a previous employer we had a mix of AMD and Intel. We had rendering
problems in Microstation that caused the OS to crash. It tooks some time
for us to realize that this was only happening on the AMD machines.
Bentley's (Microstation) response: "Only fully compatible Intel chips are
supported." I interpret that to mean only Intel chips are supported.
Anyway that is the only issue I have had with AMD chips.

Unless AMD can provide a SIGNIFICANT advantage in speed or price, I will
stick with Intel.

Butch

"Anthony Mason" wrote in message
news:3CA369AD.50307@netscape.net...
> Has anyone had experience in comparing the speed of these processors? I
> am looking in the mid-to-upper 1 Ghz range, unless there is still a good
> increase if I go to 2.0 or 2.2 Ghz. It looks like AMD & Pentium are
> about the same price at about the 1.5 Ghz level, but the AMD is a bit
> less expensive up around 2 Ghz & above. Can anyone help me out?
>
> Also, for a graphics card what would you suggest? (Biggest bang for the
> buck)
> The default is nVidia Vanta TNT2 AGP w/ 32 MB RAM
> Other options are:
> nVidia Geforce2 MX400 AGP 64MB
> nVidia Geforce4 MX400 AGP 64MB
> nVidia Geforce3 T1200 AGP 64MB
> Pinnacle Studio DV Firewire
> Do any of these support dual monitor use? I am not using dual now, but
> might look into it in the future.
>
> The systems we are looking at come with 128 MB PC2100 DDR RAM. We will
> definitely upgrade to at least 512 MB, but how does this type of RAM
> compare with other types?
>
> Our new machines will be put together locally by a company we have used
> before and are happy with, but should we try to hold out for different
> hardware than what they're offering?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> -- Anthony
>

[Anonymous]

It already does.

brian-

"Edmund "Butch" Lively" <***remove this***butch.lively@phhi.net> wrote in
message news:E7D9CFF5FBBD16657107EE1EABA99346@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
>
> Unless AMD can provide a SIGNIFICANT advantage in speed or price, I will
> stick with Intel.
>
> Butch
>
> "Anthony Mason" wrote in message
> news:3CA369AD.50307@netscape.net...
> > Has anyone had experience in comparing the speed of these processors? I
> > am looking in the mid-to-upper 1 Ghz range, unless there is still a good
> > increase if I go to 2.0 or 2.2 Ghz. It looks like AMD & Pentium are
> > about the same price at about the 1.5 Ghz level, but the AMD is a bit
> > less expensive up around 2 Ghz & above. Can anyone help me out?
> >
> > Also, for a graphics card what would you suggest? (Biggest bang for the
> > buck)
> > The default is nVidia Vanta TNT2 AGP w/ 32 MB RAM
> > Other options are:
> > nVidia Geforce2 MX400 AGP 64MB
> > nVidia Geforce4 MX400 AGP 64MB
> > nVidia Geforce3 T1200 AGP 64MB
> > Pinnacle Studio DV Firewire
> > Do any of these support dual monitor use? I am not using dual now, but
> > might look into it in the future.
> >
> > The systems we are looking at come with 128 MB PC2100 DDR RAM. We will
> > definitely upgrade to at least 512 MB, but how does this type of RAM
> > compare with other types?
> >
> > Our new machines will be put together locally by a company we have used
> > before and are happy with, but should we try to hold out for different
> > hardware than what they're offering?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > -- Anthony
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Having just got prices for a couple of new stations here we tried pricing
Intel vs AMD systems.
Price was NOT significantly different (talking tens of dollars Aust.)
Unless there are significant performance gains that I'm not aware of, I
can't agree with you
cheers
Steve

"Brian Debelius" wrote in message
news:DB8A25EA44F392DC8BA9E034C1EBA27A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
| It already does.
|
| brian-
|
| "Edmund "Butch" Lively" <***remove this***butch.lively@phhi.net> wrote in
| message news:E7D9CFF5FBBD16657107EE1EABA99346@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
| >
| > Unless AMD can provide a SIGNIFICANT advantage in speed or price, I will
| > stick with Intel.
| >
| > Butch

[Anonymous]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:21:41 -0800, "Scribble" wrote:

>Unless there are significant performance gains that I'm not aware of, I
>can't agree with you

On a strictly Megahertz level, AMD Athlon processors outperform Pentium 4
processors. When you take into account the different memory subsystems
available, you'll see the P4+RDRAM solutions be beaten by Athlon+DDRAM systems,
of the same MHz level.

You only see P4 systems take a very slight lead when the P4 MHz is higher
compared to the AMD chip, AND when paired with more expensive and doomed-for
market-failure RDRAM memory.

The problem is the "speed rating" that AMD has incorporated tries to equate
their chips with the closest performer in the Intel camp, so an Athlon 2000
processor actually runs at 1.67GHz. It performs about the same as the P4
"Northwood" 2.2GHz. However, the Northwood uses the more advanced 0.13 micron
fabrication process, whereas the AMD uses the older 0.18 micron process. So the
AMD is clearly the more efficient processor, even using the older fabrication
process.

When AMD switches over to 0.13u, their CPUs will be smaller and run cooler than
current models, and will probably compare even more favorably against the Intel
lineup.

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2002q1/northwood-vs-2000/index.x?pg=1

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com

[Anonymous]

Where did you get your pricing? I just checked motherboard combos at
Pricewatch and the P4 2.2 were double the price of the XP 2000

--

Rick Moore
Barnes Gromatzky Kosarek Architects
www.bgkarchitects.com

> Having just got prices for a couple of new stations here we tried pricing
> Intel vs AMD systems.
> Price was NOT significantly different (talking tens of dollars Aust.)
> Unless there are significant performance gains that I'm not aware of, I
> can't agree with you
> cheers
> Steve
>
> "Brian Debelius" wrote in message
> news:DB8A25EA44F392DC8BA9E034C1EBA27A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> | It already does.
> |
> | brian-
> |
> | "Edmund "Butch" Lively" <***remove this***butch.lively@phhi.net> wrote
in
> | message news:E7D9CFF5FBBD16657107EE1EABA99346@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> | >
> | > Unless AMD can provide a SIGNIFICANT advantage in speed or price, I
will
> | > stick with Intel.
> | >
> | > Butch
>
>
>

[Anonymous]

The price of components is significantly different then the total system
price. If you compare equal systems the price difference is very little.
Why,... Intel has the large market share and produced 10 times what AMD
does, this is know as volume pricing. Companies like DELL pay 1/5th the
price we do for Intel components and can reduce their overall price a lot!

Head to head both systems are nice, if you have the support and not under a
gun all the time to produce the AMD is a great deal but the INtel is the
more stable platform!

IMO

Shawn

"Rick Moore" wrote in message
news:DF3E4ED21390B8436B6117886CA8B09A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Where did you get your pricing? I just checked motherboard combos at
> Pricewatch and the P4 2.2 were double the price of the XP 2000
>
> --
>
> Rick Moore
> Barnes Gromatzky Kosarek Architects
> www.bgkarchitects.com
>
> > Having just got prices for a couple of new stations here we tried
pricing
> > Intel vs AMD systems.
> > Price was NOT significantly different (talking tens of dollars Aust.)
> > Unless there are significant performance gains that I'm not aware of, I
> > can't agree with you
> > cheers
> > Steve
> >
> > "Brian Debelius" wrote in message
> > news:DB8A25EA44F392DC8BA9E034C1EBA27A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > | It already does.
> > |
> > | brian-
> > |
> > | "Edmund "Butch" Lively" <***remove this***butch.lively@phhi.net> wrote
> in
> > | message news:E7D9CFF5FBBD16657107EE1EABA99346@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > | >
> > | > Unless AMD can provide a SIGNIFICANT advantage in speed or price, I
> will
> > | > stick with Intel.
> > | >
> > | > Butch
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Half of the computers in my old company were AMD, and all of those were
useless for rendering in Microstation. That is hardly worth it. I
guess from a proffesional standpoint, I wouldn't consider anything not
supported by the manufacturer of the software I planned to run on it. And
then, I would still have to see a SIGNIFICANT advantage before I would
consider an AMD. A couple of hundred dollars extra for an Intel that has
full support and compatibility is well worth the price.

Butch

"Brian Debelius" wrote in message
news:DB8A25EA44F392DC8BA9E034C1EBA27A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> It already does.
>
> brian-
>
> "Edmund "Butch" Lively" <***remove this***butch.lively@phhi.net> wrote in
> message news:E7D9CFF5FBBD16657107EE1EABA99346@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> >
> > Unless AMD can provide a SIGNIFICANT advantage in speed or price, I will
> > stick with Intel.
> >
> > Butch
> >
> > "Anthony Mason" wrote in message
> > news:3CA369AD.50307@netscape.net...
> > > Has anyone had experience in comparing the speed of these processors?
I
> > > am looking in the mid-to-upper 1 Ghz range, unless there is still a
good
> > > increase if I go to 2.0 or 2.2 Ghz. It looks like AMD & Pentium are
> > > about the same price at about the 1.5 Ghz level, but the AMD is a bit
> > > less expensive up around 2 Ghz & above. Can anyone help me out?
> > >
> > > Also, for a graphics card what would you suggest? (Biggest bang for
the
> > > buck)
> > > The default is nVidia Vanta TNT2 AGP w/ 32 MB RAM
> > > Other options are:
> > > nVidia Geforce2 MX400 AGP 64MB
> > > nVidia Geforce4 MX400 AGP 64MB
> > > nVidia Geforce3 T1200 AGP 64MB
> > > Pinnacle Studio DV Firewire
> > > Do any of these support dual monitor use? I am not using dual now,
but
> > > might look into it in the future.
> > >
> > > The systems we are looking at come with 128 MB PC2100 DDR RAM. We
will
> > > definitely upgrade to at least 512 MB, but how does this type of RAM
> > > compare with other types?
> > >
> > > Our new machines will be put together locally by a company we have
used
> > > before and are happy with, but should we try to hold out for different
> > > hardware than what they're offering?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > >
> > > -- Anthony
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Dell doesn't offer AMD (as I'm sure you are aware), I just checked someone
who does offer both (Xi) and the XP 2000 system was $233 cheaper than the P4
2.2. Admittedly, Dell gets a much larger break on Intel's latest chips than
Xi so a similarly configured Dell P4 2.2 and an Xi XP 2000 are about the
same price. This is why we get Dells at my office for new machines but for
upgrades you can't beat AMD. As for stability, I don't think the processor
has as much to do with this than the OS or hardware drivers. (I've been
running WinXP at home since last July and I don't know what the XP BSOD even
looks like)

--

Rick Moore
Barnes Gromatzky Kosarek Architects
www.bgkarchitects.com

> The price of components is significantly different then the total system
> price. If you compare equal systems the price difference is very little.
> Why,... Intel has the large market share and produced 10 times what AMD
> does, this is know as volume pricing. Companies like DELL pay 1/5th the
> price we do for Intel components and can reduce their overall price a lot!
>
> Head to head both systems are nice, if you have the support and not under
a
> gun all the time to produce the AMD is a great deal but the INtel is the
> more stable platform!
>
> IMO
>
> Shawn

[Anonymous]

They should not say it works on AMD then.. Shame on them.

http://www2.bentley.com/products/default.cfm?objectid=9B558B72-BF76-4B5A-A3E
B9771FE95FC77&method=display&p_objectid=97F351F5-9C35-4E5E-89C280A93F86C928

(watch wrap)
Nate




"Edmund "Butch" Lively" <***remove this***butch.lively@phhi.net> wrote in
message news:E7D9CFF5FBBD16657107EE1EABA99346@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> At a previous employer we had a mix of AMD and Intel. We had rendering
> problems in Microstation that caused the OS to crash. It tooks some time
> for us to realize that this was only happening on the AMD machines.
> Bentley's (Microstation) response: "Only fully compatible Intel chips are
> supported." I interpret that to mean only Intel chips are supported.
> Anyway that is the only issue I have had with AMD chips.
>
> Unless AMD can provide a SIGNIFICANT advantage in speed or price, I will
> stick with Intel.
>
> Butch
>
> "Anthony Mason" wrote in message
> news:3CA369AD.50307@netscape.net...
> > Has anyone had experience in comparing the speed of these processors? I
> > am looking in the mid-to-upper 1 Ghz range, unless there is still a good
> > increase if I go to 2.0 or 2.2 Ghz. It looks like AMD & Pentium are
> > about the same price at about the 1.5 Ghz level, but the AMD is a bit
> > less expensive up around 2 Ghz & above. Can anyone help me out?
> >
> > Also, for a graphics card what would you suggest? (Biggest bang for the
> > buck)
> > The default is nVidia Vanta TNT2 AGP w/ 32 MB RAM
> > Other options are:
> > nVidia Geforce2 MX400 AGP 64MB
> > nVidia Geforce4 MX400 AGP 64MB
> > nVidia Geforce3 T1200 AGP 64MB
> > Pinnacle Studio DV Firewire
> > Do any of these support dual monitor use? I am not using dual now, but
> > might look into it in the future.
> >
> > The systems we are looking at come with 128 MB PC2100 DDR RAM. We will
> > definitely upgrade to at least 512 MB, but how does this type of RAM
> > compare with other types?
> >
> > Our new machines will be put together locally by a company we have used
> > before and are happy with, but should we try to hold out for different
> > hardware than what they're offering?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > -- Anthony
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

"Unless AMD can provide a SIGNIFICANT advantage in speed or price, I will
stick with Intel."

AMD chips are not only cheaper, but they are faster. An AMD 800xp Beat out
the Pentium III 2.1ghz chip in tests done by PCWorld. Even the new Pentium
2.4ghz can't hold a candle to AMDs 2000xp. All this and AMD chips are
signifigantly cheaper than Intel.

We only use AMD here at the office (and at home) and love every minute of
it.

-Nathan

"Nate" wrote in message
news:E9FD0F663289C0E7A0424190B5DD9392@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> They should not say it works on AMD then.. Shame on them.
>
>
http://www2.bentley.com/products/default.cfm?objectid=9B558B72-BF76-4B5A-A3E
>
B9771FE95FC77&method=display&p_objectid=97F351F5-9C35-4E5E-89C280A93F86C928
>
> (watch wrap)
> Nate
>
>
>
>
> "Edmund "Butch" Lively" <***remove this***butch.lively@phhi.net> wrote in
> message news:E7D9CFF5FBBD16657107EE1EABA99346@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > At a previous employer we had a mix of AMD and Intel. We had rendering
> > problems in Microstation that caused the OS to crash. It tooks some
time
> > for us to realize that this was only happening on the AMD machines.
> > Bentley's (Microstation) response: "Only fully compatible Intel chips
are
> > supported." I interpret that to mean only Intel chips are supported.
> > Anyway that is the only issue I have had with AMD chips.
> >
> > Unless AMD can provide a SIGNIFICANT advantage in speed or price, I will
> > stick with Intel.
> >
> > Butch
> >
> > "Anthony Mason" wrote in message
> > news:3CA369AD.50307@netscape.net...
> > > Has anyone had experience in comparing the speed of these processors?
I
> > > am looking in the mid-to-upper 1 Ghz range, unless there is still a
good
> > > increase if I go to 2.0 or 2.2 Ghz. It looks like AMD & Pentium are
> > > about the same price at about the 1.5 Ghz level, but the AMD is a bit
> > > less expensive up around 2 Ghz & above. Can anyone help me out?
> > >
> > > Also, for a graphics card what would you suggest? (Biggest bang for
the
> > > buck)
> > > The default is nVidia Vanta TNT2 AGP w/ 32 MB RAM
> > > Other options are:
> > > nVidia Geforce2 MX400 AGP 64MB
> > > nVidia Geforce4 MX400 AGP 64MB
> > > nVidia Geforce3 T1200 AGP 64MB
> > > Pinnacle Studio DV Firewire
> > > Do any of these support dual monitor use? I am not using dual now,
but
> > > might look into it in the future.
> > >
> > > The systems we are looking at come with 128 MB PC2100 DDR RAM. We
will
> > > definitely upgrade to at least 512 MB, but how does this type of RAM
> > > compare with other types?
> > >
> > > Our new machines will be put together locally by a company we have
used
> > > before and are happy with, but should we try to hold out for different
> > > hardware than what they're offering?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > >
> > > -- Anthony
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Wonder where you got that info? The 2.4ghz is the fastest pc cpu, even AMD
says so. Also, with the Intel Performance Pack installed it's simply
blistering. Also, AMD's do not shut off when they get to hot, they burn.
Intel cpu's will shut off first. Can you use the Elsa's with AMD's yet?
The mhz(ghz) myth is just that, a myth. A dual G4 processes so much more
info faster then either any AMD or INTEL.
"Nathan" wrote in message
news:3EB6D6621687D6D1FEFFDA19945518A6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> "Unless AMD can provide a SIGNIFICANT advantage in speed or price, I will
> stick with Intel."
>
> AMD chips are not only cheaper, but they are faster. An AMD 800xp Beat
out
> the Pentium III 2.1ghz chip in tests done by PCWorld. Even the new
Pentium
> 2.4ghz can't hold a candle to AMDs 2000xp. All this and AMD chips are
> signifigantly cheaper than Intel.
>
> We only use AMD here at the office (and at home) and love every minute of
> it.
>
> -Nathan
>
> "Nate" wrote in message
> news:E9FD0F663289C0E7A0424190B5DD9392@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > They should not say it works on AMD then.. Shame on them.
> >
> >
>
http://www2.bentley.com/products/default.cfm?objectid=9B558B72-BF76-4B5A-A3E
> >
>
B9771FE95FC77&method=display&p_objectid=97F351F5-9C35-4E5E-89C280A93F86C928
> >
> > (watch wrap)
> > Nate
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Edmund "Butch" Lively" <***remove this***butch.lively@phhi.net> wrote
in
> > message news:E7D9CFF5FBBD16657107EE1EABA99346@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > At a previous employer we had a mix of AMD and Intel. We had
rendering
> > > problems in Microstation that caused the OS to crash. It tooks some
> time
> > > for us to realize that this was only happening on the AMD machines.
> > > Bentley's (Microstation) response: "Only fully compatible Intel chips
> are
> > > supported." I interpret that to mean only Intel chips are supported.
> > > Anyway that is the only issue I have had with AMD chips.
> > >
> > > Unless AMD can provide a SIGNIFICANT advantage in speed or price, I
will
> > > stick with Intel.
> > >
> > > Butch
> > >
> > > "Anthony Mason" wrote in message
> > > news:3CA369AD.50307@netscape.net...
> > > > Has anyone had experience in comparing the speed of these
processors?
> I
> > > > am looking in the mid-to-upper 1 Ghz range, unless there is still a
> good
> > > > increase if I go to 2.0 or 2.2 Ghz. It looks like AMD & Pentium are
> > > > about the same price at about the 1.5 Ghz level, but the AMD is a
bit
> > > > less expensive up around 2 Ghz & above. Can anyone help me out?
> > > >
> > > > Also, for a graphics card what would you suggest? (Biggest bang for
> the
> > > > buck)
> > > > The default is nVidia Vanta TNT2 AGP w/ 32 MB RAM
> > > > Other options are:
> > > > nVidia Geforce2 MX400 AGP 64MB
> > > > nVidia Geforce4 MX400 AGP 64MB
> > > > nVidia Geforce3 T1200 AGP 64MB
> > > > Pinnacle Studio DV Firewire
> > > > Do any of these support dual monitor use? I am not using dual now,
> but
> > > > might look into it in the future.
> > > >
> > > > The systems we are looking at come with 128 MB PC2100 DDR RAM. We
> will
> > > > definitely upgrade to at least 512 MB, but how does this type of RAM
> > > > compare with other types?
> > > >
> > > > Our new machines will be put together locally by a company we have
> used
> > > > before and are happy with, but should we try to hold out for
different
> > > > hardware than what they're offering?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > >
> > > > -- Anthony
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 10:31:34 -0700, "Randy" wrote:

>Wonder where you got that info? The 2.4ghz is the fastest pc cpu, even AMD
>says so.

Comparing Athlon CPU and P4 CPU performance is tricky - it only gets competitive
when P4's reach ~2.4 GHz compared to the AMD XP 2000+. Until you get up well
past 2Ghz, AMD Athlons keep the lead. However Intel's latest 2.53GHz part IS
consistently faster than AMD fastest chip - but then it has about a 700MHz
advantage.

And the P4's strong point is memory bandwidth, when paired with more expensive
RDRAM. Although the DDRAM crowd is catching up.

Intel's newest roadmap for it's various P4 chipsets shows some serious
performance gains against those of AMD, VIA and SIS, using DDRAM to boot. It's
gonna get really fun pretty soon.

>Also, with the Intel Performance Pack installed it's simply
>blistering. Also, AMD's do not shut off when they get to hot, they burn.

A problem, yes, but one that shall in time be corrected.

> Can you use the Elsa's with AMD's yet?

Certainly. I've seen Gloria II's run on XP systems just fine.

>The mhz(ghz) myth is just that, a myth. A dual G4 processes so much more
>info faster then either any AMD or INTEL.

Okay, now I KNOW you're on drugs. 🙂

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com

[Anonymous]

HMMMM, 128 BITS AND 1MB DDR L3 CACHE VS. A 32 BIT CPU. AND THAT'S ONLY ONE
PIPE THAT IS MUCH, MUCH LARGER.
"Matt Stachoni" wrote in message
news:n11tfusum0l42h0lknnriq0acjerm9pcap@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 10:31:34 -0700, "Randy" wrote:
>
> >Wonder where you got that info? The 2.4ghz is the fastest pc cpu, even
AMD
> >says so.
>
> Comparing Athlon CPU and P4 CPU performance is tricky - it only gets
competitive
> when P4's reach ~2.4 GHz compared to the AMD XP 2000+. Until you get up
well
> past 2Ghz, AMD Athlons keep the lead. However Intel's latest 2.53GHz part
IS
> consistently faster than AMD fastest chip - but then it has about a 700MHz
> advantage.
>
> And the P4's strong point is memory bandwidth, when paired with more
expensive
> RDRAM. Although the DDRAM crowd is catching up.
>
> Intel's newest roadmap for it's various P4 chipsets shows some serious
> performance gains against those of AMD, VIA and SIS, using DDRAM to boot.
It's
> gonna get really fun pretty soon.
>
> >Also, with the Intel Performance Pack installed it's simply
> >blistering. Also, AMD's do not shut off when they get to hot, they burn.
>
> A problem, yes, but one that shall in time be corrected.
>
> > Can you use the Elsa's with AMD's yet?
>
> Certainly. I've seen Gloria II's run on XP systems just fine.
>
> >The mhz(ghz) myth is just that, a myth. A dual G4 processes so much more
> >info faster then either any AMD or INTEL.
>
> Okay, now I KNOW you're on drugs. 🙂
>
> Matt
> mstachoni@comcast.net
> mstachoni@beyerdesign.com

[Anonymous]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 06:28:12 -0700, "Randy" wrote:

>HMMMM, 128 BITS AND 1MB DDR L3 CACHE VS. A 32 BIT CPU. AND THAT'S ONLY ONE
>PIPE THAT IS MUCH, MUCH LARGER.

Okay. If you _really_ think that translates into superior real-world
performance, back it up with numbers.

Even in traditional "Mac" apps like Photoshop, the AMD and P4 systems have
consistently blown the G4 out of the water. Even against Dual G4 systems.

Oh, Facts, you say? Try these:
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@beyerdesign.com