Another XP

[Nuclear Krusader]

Has anybody here tried the last CPU from AMD, Athlon XP? (Everything seems to be XP nowadays...)

Is it that good? Or should I get a Thunderbird instead? I guess TBs prices will lower now that the new CPU is out.

[Prew]

Originally posted by Nuclear Krusader Is it that good? Or should I get a Thunderbird instead? I guess TBs prices will lower now that the new CPU is out.

You'd think, but this doesn't appear to be the case. See: http://firingsquad.gamers.com/guides...6/default.asp.

The XP's are dropping in price and some of the Tbirds are increasing. The XP16000 (1.4GHz) is now less expensive than the 1.4GHz Tbird.

The prices listed on http://www.windrivers.com/ show the same thing.

[Terrorbyte]

since I have an XP-1600, I can't complain.
the XP is the latest and fastest from AMD but there is a AMD-1900+ out now so if its the fastest your after , thats it, unless you are using a dual cpu setup.
To answer your question, YES they are pretty good.
My P3-1gh does not even get turned on these days, and I was going to look into if my Aopen AK77 pro M/B will take the new 1900 chip, if it will, I will be getting it asap.
To put this into perspective Vs an intel chip;
Say 1.9 AMD Vs 1.9 Intel
AMD is lots cheaper and;
15%+ faster on overall application performance
19%+ faster in general office application performance
13%+ faster in Digital Media Performance
14%+ faster in 3D Gaming and framerate Performance

So ? which one will you buy ??

Well I live in Australia, and they are Lots cheaper !!!! by at least one third +.

Canada eh, say no more.

[HAL9000]

Originally posted by Terrorbyte Say 1.9 AMD Vs 1.9 Intel AMD is lots cheaper and; 15%+ faster on overall application performance 19%+ faster in general office application performance 13%+ faster in Digital Media Performance 14%+ faster in 3D Gaming and framerate Performance

Lot's cheaper... yup... about $10.

Faster, there are plenty of contradictory benchmarks and the numbers given cannot be written in stone. By the way, my experiment at work with the 1600+ and the 1.6, I'm up to 45 people I have had try and tell me which machine is which, 11 so far are correct, 25 of which were pro AMD. That leaves 14 that believe that the AMD is so much faster that couldn't pick it out. Why would you believe the benchmarks?

Statistically, if the 45 guessed, the average is still too low isn't it?

[Terrorbyte]

well for the prices current as per NOW, AMD 1600 is $312 AUD and the P-4 1600 is $430.
Like I said, Lots Cheaper.

[mc2phat]

The AMD Palomino XP 1600 is a 1.4 ghz processor. Comparing pure megahertz (1600) you'd need to compare a Pentium 4 1.4 gig to the AMD XP 1600; in that case the price edge is nil, or five dollars difference either way. The P4 1400 is going down in price as it is the 423-pin and the new P4 platform is 478-pin.

[HAL9000]

OK, I don't think you're looking very hard. From my supplier (latest pricing from them posted today), I can get;

XP 1800+ with heat sink and fan
ASUS A7M266 (AMD chipset)
Enlight case with 300w AMD/P4 approved power supply
256Mb DDR RAM

Total: $945.00CDN

Intel P4 1.8Ghz Socket478 with heat sink and fan
ASUS P4T-E (Intel chipset)
Enlight case with 300w AMD/P4 approved power supply
256Mb RAMBUS RAM yes, the expensive ram, not the cheap SDRAM!

Total: $995.00CDN

Both systems have the identical % markup added. Don't believe me, send me the money order and applicable shipping and I will deliver.

Fifty bucks difference.... CANADIAN funds yet! Worked it out, that's about $60AUD difference, and given that RDRAM is more, your P4 price is WAY too high.
In USD. it's down to about $30USD difference.

BTW, if anyone wants to add that they can get the stuff cheaper than either, tis not a concern, we make our markup to stay in business and to be a live person to our customers, we're not a mail order house.

[Terrorbyte]

And on the public side, I have just upgraded my 1600 to the XP1900+, why ? because I feel its a good thing (and I got a very good deal) and it's about the fastest on the block, at least this week anyway, next week I may buy something faster, perhaps an Intel chip? just because I can.
And for the thread starters question, toss a coin to solve the debate if your stuck on what to buy, that may be a fair way to resolve the matter.
Remembering that the cpu has to be matched to the right motherboard whether it is AMD or Intel for the best results, and thats my humble opinion.

maybe a dual XP 1900 system, now that would really scream.

[Nuclear Krusader]

A dual Palomino system?

Would ALL my games run really that fast?

Or they need to be optimized to take advantage of the dual CPU?

[HAL9000]

You need an OS and applications/games that will take advantange of a dual system. For the average person and/or gamer, it's not worth it.

[Terrorbyte]

Now then, it is as obvious as a hammer to your Intel cpu that something like that is not for the average user, thats easy to see, who said I was average anyway, I quite like the idea, and dont mind having a go at it.
As for game speed, I cant see them actually going faster, they may work as the software writers had visioned them, but there are no games around that would slow that sort of system up, not yet anyway.

[HAL9000]

It was a generalized statement, not intended directly towards yourself, sorry if that is how you took it. The fact remains though, 99% of the games out there are not coded to take advantage of a dual CPU system. The only game that I am aware of (there might be others) that will work with a dual CPU is Quake III. Any game not coded for dually isn't going to run any faster than a single CPU setup.