AMD Athlon vs. Intel Pentium Please Help

[kjc910]

I am currently enrolled in a tech program and need to write a research paper. If you have an opinion please respond. Question: Which do you prefer Athlon or Pentium III and why? I would appreciate any help or advice.

KJC

[HAL9000]

Bringing on yet another heated discussion. For me, it's Intel. I've built in excess of 5000 computers, all with Intel chips on Intel chipset boards. Never a problem. If I were to build an AMD, I would want it the same way, AMD on an AMD chipset board. I don't believe in this VIA chipset garbage and their 4 in 1 driver that gets updated on a monthly basis. My current stand is Intel for 1Ghz and below as pricing is not any different anymore (there used to be a significant margin). Over 1Ghz, I would go AMD as the P4 chip hasn't matured enough, you're stuck with expensive RDRAM, and there is an upcoming package change that will kill your upgrade path by choosing P4 now.

[Xayd]

I've built/rebuilt in excess of 20 computers (:P), and I've always used AMD. Every time I've gotten around to buying hardware, AMD was much more inexpensive than Intel, and recently on top of being cheaper the Athlon/Duron line has outperformed the P3/Celeron line for gaming purposes as well.

Bang for the buck has always been the deciding factor for me.

Xayd

[LawyerRon]

My two cents:

The cpu brand is not the most important choice. The motherboard and chipset are the most critical decisions.

AMD and Intel both will render acceptible results provided you use quality components.

I think all would agree to stay away from the P4 for now. It's not a good value.

Under 1Ghz, I still prefer Intel. I believe Intel platforms are easier to build (though slightly) and enjoy universal compatibility with zero compatibility issues provided you also choose an quality Intel chipset board. Intel cpu's also run much cooler.

Over 1Ghz, I'm with HAL; Go AMD. Much more bang for the buck. Be advised that most "computer geeks", including the ones on this forum, are building AMD systems and they work great. AMD has done a fine job with their latest processors.

If you're into heavy gaming, it seems the AMD systems are the systems of choice. The key to building a rock solid system, whether AMD or Intel is to use quality components.

[RJ]

I also like Intel for up to 1 GHz. Intel CPUs are very fast and ROCK SOLID. Also they do not have the heat problem AMD cpu have.
But I also agree that the chipset is very important. I currently have a 800 MHz PIII on an Abit BE6-II mainboard. That has BX chipset, the most stable one.

Over 1 GHz Intel only has the P4, and because it is not the final version and there will be major changes with the P4 soon I also do not recommend it yet.

RJ

[audiyoda]

I'll agree chipset and motherboard are very important. But I'll disagree a little on processors. I just don't like all the options there are for the Intel chips -- the BX chipset is of course the most stable but there are something like a half dozen other chipsets just by Intel. Throw VIA and a few others in there and there are too many options.

For the AMD, you've got 1 VIA and 1 AMD chipset (except for the new DDR chipsets where you've got the ALI chipset). Although VIA is constantly updating their '4in1' drivers, both chipsets seem to perform comparably. But most people still think the AMD chipset is a little more stable.

In terms of horsepower, AMD blows away Intel below 1Gig and hangs with any P4 over 1Gig. So bang for the buck, AMD is the hands down winner. Gamers will tell you the increased bus throughput of the AMD is their prefered choice. Many Audio and Video editors (like myself) won't go near a Intel chip because the AMD chip seems to render faster and allows for more multitasking (ask any Adobe After Effects 4.1Production Pack user).

-Craig

[HAL9000]

Originally posted by audiyoda In terms of horsepower, AMD blows away Intel below 1Gig and hangs with any P4 over 1Gig.

If this is true, why is it the first Athlon 900 that I assembled for a guy didn't seem incredibly faster than my 800 system. If I'm not noticing a huge difference there, what do the synthetic benchmarks really mean. I'm not trying to say an 800 Intel beats out a 900 AMD, but to say AMD "blows away" Intel is a bit of a harsh, biased statement. Anything that I have seen in synthetic benchmarks show AMD wins a few, Intel wins a few. I have only been to two sites that showed the AMD winning in every benchmark, but a bit of investigation into the testing and the site itself shows a very biased process.

Before I hear the AMD vs P4 rebuttal, remember, I have agreed that the P4 has not matured enough yet and over 1Ghz, AMD is definitely the way to go.