best processor?

[bhome83]

Ive heard that the best processor out there right now is the Tbird 1.4ghz. I know this is all a matter of opinion but wouldn't a pentium 4 2.0ghz or higher be even better? Does thunderbird make better processors? i really want to build a computer but not sure what would be better to get a tbird or a pentium? thanks for the help.

[Floppyman]

Hi,

Before I turn this into an AMD vs. Intel debate, I'm going to ask a question: What will you mainly be using the computer for? Perhaps based on that information it would be wise to go with one processor over the other. Remember though, with today's high speed chips, mhz (or ghz for that matter) isn't everything. HTH

[Nelreem]

this will probably make some intel fans mad, but... the new Athlon XP 1900+ (1.6 GHz) is faster than the Pentium 4 2.0 GHz in almost every benchmark i have seen. AMD makes the T-Bird line of processors, and the highest is 1.4. I have a 1.33 that is fast enough for me, but it is OCed to 1.425. Either will be fast enough. It also depends on what you plan to do with your computer... gaming or office work(word, excel, internet)

[Nelreem]

floppyman, your too quick for me. i dont want another war thread too. btw, the benchmarks i saw were at tomshardware.com

[bhome83]

i want to get a really good computer so i would need a really good processor. i use the computer for basically everything. games, internet, movies etc. I can't really play games right now on my crappy computer because it only has 8mb video card on a 400mghz machine. just wondering what would be the best processor for this? right now im not thinking about money. i figure ill save a ton of money anyway by building it myself. is there a big difference between a tbird and intel? are there any other processors that compete with these two? what would u recommend? any more help would be appreciated. thanks.

[Nelreem]

i built a pretty good system for under 600 bucks. I have a 1.33 AMD Athlon t-bird @1.425, 64MB value video card, SBlive 5.1 sound card(but i have had problems), 30GB HD. If you have a large budget, it is really up to preference. A pentium 4 2.0 and the athlon XP 1900 are basically the same in speed, although the intel chip is more stable, and usually less problems. if your not going to overclock, get the pentium(im gonna regret saying this). It is a good chip with less bugs. when i first built my system, it crashed alot. now, it works fine

[Cricket]

Hi bhome83,

Here are my thoughts on this matter: Both the Intel P4 and AMD Athlon XP are "good" processors. The important thing when building a new computer is making sure you pick the right components to go along with the CPU...you want to avoid incompatibilities that can result in an unstable system before you start your build.

Which ever CPU you decide on, make sure you match it to a high quality, name brand motherboard that has a proven track record.

The same goes for all the other components...get good quality RAM, a good case with an approved high quality power supply, a good video card, sound card, hard drive, etc...

Careful planning before you buy your parts and put them together will go a long way toward whether you end up with an "okay" system that you don't mind using, or a "great" system that you love to use.

A good computer is the sum of it's parts. Consider the whole picture when you plan your build.

Cricket

[Colonel Sanders]

First thing I should noteif you haven't noticed already is that T-bird isn't a brand name, it's a model by AMD("AMD Athlon Thunderbird"). It, like a lot of other AMD CPUs is a socket A design. There is also a Duron and Athlon XP line of processors. in my opinion, the Athlon XP 1800 would be the best buy since it is cheap, the motherboard for it is cheap, and it preforms great. At equal speeds, an XP will outpreform a T-bird.

However if your an Intell fan, than the P4 in my opinion isn't such a hot deal right now. AMD is preforming as good if not better with less MHz and lower prices. The tricky thing about buying a P4 is the TWO versions avaliable, the old(socket 423) and new (socket 478?). I believe the 2GHz is the last for the old socket. The new is supposed to preform a lot better, be the actual finalized design.

It is hard to say that that 2GHz P4 is actually better than the XP1600 because of the large differences between the CPU, so don't go by MHz alone.

What is the 400MHz and what are your plans for it? I might be interested in buying it form you(mobo and CPU only, maybe HDD). Are you planning to get a pre-built or make your own? I highly recomend the build your own option.

Logan

[altivec]

if you'd ask me, i'll go for amd. no questions asked. it's pros out-weights it's cons, it's affordable, just as reliable as the pentiums but amd's are faster.

[bhome83]

i want to make my own but don't have any experience building computers. right now im not planning on selling my computer. deciding on the components to put into my computer would probably be the hardest thing. i want the computer to not crash. 400mghz was top of the line a few years ago when i bought it. hate technology. everything gets outdated in a year or so now. got one more question. should i decide on the cpu first? or should i decide on a motherboard first? thanks for the help.

[Electron]

As bhome83 is going to use this for gaming (amongst other things) and without turning this into the AMD vs. Intel war, what experiences do people have with games.

I built myself and my son an AMD K6-2 450MHZ machine each back when that was a high end chip and had no end of problems with freezing and lock-ups with games.
But since upgrading mine to a PIII 600mhz it is rock solid and plays any game i throw at it. While his still has the same problems. Even with games that only need low specs. He will often get a game, load it on his and after a few minutes it will lock up. After a while i find that he has uninstalled it and loaded it on mine, which then plays fine for hours.

Are games more stable on the Tbird or XP, i am considering building a new machine for myself and giving this one to my son. Vowing never to go back to AMD i have been waiting for the new chipset boards for the Pentium IV, but i am tempted to go with the XP.

Any views appreciated.

[Nelreem]

if you get a socket A mobo, you will *probably* be getting an AMD t-bird/xp. just be sure that its not for a k6-II or something. intel, however changes formats all too frequently.

[dead_eye]

I think the XP is a minor core update, an evolutionary step so there shouldn't be any stability dicrepencies. The older AMD chips were unstable. XP 1600+ and t-bird 1.4 are the best deals right now in terms of mhz per dollar as far as amd proc go. I haven't kept up with intel proc.

[Cricket]

Hi again,

Before you jump into building your own PC, please take the time to read the "Build Your Own PC" section found on this website. You'll want to prepare yourself before you start: http://www.pcmech.com/byopc/index.htm

As for which you should choose first...CPU or motherboard...you'll have to decide on the CPU first and then match it to a really good motherboard. Everything else will work with either set up (hard drive, video card, sound card, CD-ROM, CD-RW, floppy).

Cricket

[Demosthenes]

The XP is a minor core update, but not from the Thunderbird core. It is from the Palomino, the Athlon MP. This thread sparked another question from me. The concept of "stability" has been thrown about since the start. Are the processors the real issue in stability or is it the other hardware? Old AMD processors were a value line processor, not performance, so it makes sense that components made for them were of value line also. I have always figured a processor is a processor. You put the same numbers into two processors with the same command and you will get the same number out (except with the old Intel floating point rounding error. Yeah, you wanna talk about rock solid performance, then?) So, is it really the processors themselves that are "unstable"? I really do not know. What are peoples views on this?

Respectfully,

Demosthenes

[bhome83]

does this seem like a good deal for a computer with these specs. i found it on ebay but to me it seems too good to be true, or else there is something missing that im not catching.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=1294460489

[Nelreem]

pretty good, but it is an MX200 video card. the only thing i found strange was that you had to install the ram in pairs. that didnt make sense to me, i have never heard of that.

[whr2206]

hmmm another debate...or war about to go down... I say screw the benchmarks, and go wiht what you have tried and like.... amd cores arent as good in my opinion.....they are cheaper....and the xp's are just as good as p4's.... I dont really care ha the benchmarks say....I for a new builder I'd suggest Itel. the reason why is, you have much more room for error. if you install the h/f..and it jsut pops off while running your computer, than you are screwed kiss you tbird good bye...on the other hand, if that happens to your intel, you cna jsut shut it down, and MOST of the tiem, no harm done to teh board or cpu... plus...with an intel chipset on top of an intel cpu, is the most stable thing people have told me in this forum. Not sure about how the xp handles heat though, so i cant say. IN my opinion...you can save a few bucks, buy an amd...the same speed, or slightly better (but you can notice anyways...1 ghz and up is fast anyways) and run the risk of error, you being a newbie...or you cna spend a couple mroe bucks, buy an intel, and be a little more on the safe side...

[Nelreem]

also, not a name-brand board, doesnt mention chipset. find that out before you buy.

[Colonel Sanders]

I think the stabilitty is not too big an issue.

Electron, my experiences have ben the opposite of your post, not because I was on an ancinet PC with a P2 333. However, I think what harmed it the most were the files on the HDD. I recently "killed" Win98 on my PC(see "mouse problems") over nothing, and I'm running a 1.2GHz T-bird which had crashed once before in 3 months, and I believe that was low memory related. So now I'm stuck in Win2K and I'm considering re-formating my HDDto get rid of Win98.

Anyways, back to CPU choice. I would have to agree with whoever said about the CPU being reliabe or the system. I haven't seen many cases of "my AMD CPU killed my PC" or "my Intell CPU saved my PC"(which so many seem to believe). Why is AMD lower priced? Because they want to take over Intell by convincing pre-builders to stray away from Intell but the public keeps screaming for Intell. I actually met someone who had no clue what an AMD was, and he is, among other things, the CAD teacher at the school(good thing he isn't the "PC tech" teacher). BTW, he owns a ~Compaq~ *shiver*.

So, in an attempt to end this war I now believe PC problems are related to that little myster box, your HDD.

The PC on eBay looks like a good deal, that video card aint the best but it is pretty good.

Logan

[Cricket]

Hi bhome83,

Although it looks like a really good deal...remember: "You get what you pay for".
That system will probably be built with a no-name case with a no-name power supply (read: cheap). The motherboard will not be top quality. And it looks like a number of other components are no-name items too. Plus, it comes without the operating system installed.

You should steer clear of this type of deal if you want a PC that won't give you too much trouble.

Cricket

[bhome83]

ok thanks for the help. i figured that when a price is too good to be true there is always a catch. thanks. i think i just look into building my own.

[HAL9000]

They are both good processors, but come on, which is fast? Take a drag race, one car goes the quarter in 10 seconds at 130Mph, the next one rockets out of the hole to a top speed of 120Mph, but since it gets to it's top speed almost instantly, finishes in 8 seconds. Technically the first one is "faster", but the second one gets to the finish line first. Face it, at 1.5Ghz+, they are all frickin' fast.

[old dog]

Just a few thoughts. If you are not dependent on the system you are planning to build, ie must have for business or school, Build your own. The knowledge you will gain is invaluable. If you are not heavy into Gaming, processor speed is not an issue, save a little on the cpu and spend it on the video card. Dont wast your money on items that will be "good enough", you will regret it. you dont have to use the latest and greatest to get great results just use quality parts. One last thing, You can't do it just once. The desire to build another one is overwhelming. The people on this board are good, really good, and they dont mind helping you. Even an old dog like me has learned from them.

[Shikwa]

Benchmarks are all very nice and illustrative (however synthetic they may be) but from my point of view they usually measure performance discrepancies beyond human detection. Personally I can’t tell the difference between 200 frames per second (FPS) and 100 FPS let alone 180 FPS. If you can’t feel the difference what good is it.. other than for bragging rights? Well.. there is one important reason I can think of- "future resistance"... One rule I go by when buying PC hardware is to buy as much (speed, space etc.) as my budget will allow within reasonable price ranges. Buying an 800mhz processor today might be more than adequate to run all one’s current applications, games etc .. but within the near future it will definitely begin slowing things down- unless you’re not into upgrading your software/peripherals (I’m sure there are still some satisfied 486 users out there with 14.4Kbps modems running Windows 3.11 ). Going for a processor that is faster than you will ever need in the near future is not a bad idea but buying top-of-the-line for premium bucks will only improve your social status- for a short while . A couple of years ago a 50mhz speed difference between the fastest processors and those right behind them would have cost some 25-35% extra, if not more .. yet by today’s standards they’re both just plain slow.
OK.. speed is important but so is stability. I’m not recommending one processor brand or the other here... all I’m doing here is echoing what others have mentioned above: go for a tried motherboard/chipset/processor setup... there’s a lot of end-user beta testing going on out there.. I just like to stay out of it. Isn’t it strange that the so-called "latest" technology is not only the most expensive but often also the least reliable?!
While choosing a fast reliable processor is essential other system components are just as important, as others have pointed out too. Since the hard disk is by far the slowest component in a PC a fast reliable one is just as important as a fast stable processor. Where gaming is concerned a decent graphics card and good monitor always make a hell of a difference. I’m puzzled buy the fact that some people will opt to pay $200+ for a graphics card upgrade yet are satisfied with their 5 year old 15” monitor? .. blame it on the benchmarks???

[lpc300]

Hi bhome83,

Just a couple of thoughts. Interesting, with a thread title like 'best processor', this really didn't turn into a 'AMD vs. Intel' war. Keeping with that, and though I am an AMD fan, I would agree that for what you seem to planning on using your system for, either processor would be plenty fast. Both, also, are high quality and would do you well. Important things to remember are to match your components to your processor. Also, for some performance tweaks that will, certainly, make a difference beyond the processor, get enough RAM, and get a high quality video card. At the processor speeds you're talking about, good memory and vid card choices will make more of a difference than chosing between an AMD XP or a P4

[Xayd]

Originally posted by Demosthenes This thread sparked another question from me. The concept of "stability" has been thrown about since the start. Are the processors the real issue in stability or is it the other hardware? Respectfully, Demosthenes

No, folks just don't like Via chipsets. AMD doesn't put much effort into the mobo chipsets, only the processors. Yeah, they've released a few, but they're just chipsets to "tide people over" until Via replaces it.

When I built my current machine a year and a half or so ago, AMD was the clear choice because the Intel alternative was a lot more expensive. I could get a Duron 650 that'd OC to 1000 for about 60 bucks, and the equivalent Celeron/BX combo would've cost me well over $300 instead of just under $200, and speeds in excess of a gigahertz with Intel were questionable at the time. I haven't gone DDR yet so can't comment much on those mobos/chipsets, but the KT133A board I have has been great (Abit KT7A). My uptime on this machine with Win2k is generally about 10 days at a time, and that's gaming every day, irc client open 24/7, overclocked past 140mhz bus, etc.

[glc]

I don't see a bit of difference between "stability" of an AMD vs. Intel processor. The issue is the motherboard chipset. For pure stability you still can't beat Intel processors on an Intel chipset. Put an Intel processor on a Via (or any other 3rd party) chipset and you have the same stability (or lack thereof) as an AMD processor on a Via chipset. Speed is another issue, and as Hal says, anything over 1.5 gigs is just gravy anyway. Too bad Intel doesn't make AMD-compatible chipsets, but that would be cutting their own throats.

[PardeGT]

The issue is the motherboard chipset. For pure stability you still can't beat Intel processors on an Intel chipset. Put an Intel processor on a Via (or any other 3rd party) chipset and you have the same stability (or lack thereof) as an AMD processor on a Via chipset....Too bad Intel doesn't make AMD-compatible chipsets, but that would be cutting their own throats. Glc

Interesting point and I agree. A good example would be to look at the nForce chipset - in the early stages it looks to do for AMD cpus/sytems what intel chipsets does for intel cpus/systems.

If you go with a P4 wait till boards come out supporting ddr. As the ones now use rambus which is way to expensive and is not going to last in the market or sdram which doesn't benefit the capabilities of the P4.

I do recommend you build it as it will be a great learning experience and you will follow many (including myself) who have come to this forum and started from where you are now. Do a lot of looking around on this site and read many of the other posts that are similar and you will gain a lot of info to base your conclusion on. Stay within your means. You can build the top of the line and spend mucho $ and in a year kick yourself because there is something out that is now twice as fast. Or you can do a build that is just a step below - has proven components and is very fast. You will save yourself some money and you won't really notice a difference in speed. The money you saved can be used to upgrade later or whatever.

Don't be afraid to ask questions!

[Cricket]

I'm going to chime in here (and maybe ruffle a few feathers) but my feeling is that the stability (or instability) of any given system can be partly attributed to the human element.

When a system is being assembled, there are all kinds of variables involved. How knowledgeable the builder is, how much actual hands-on experience he has, how much effort he actually puts into the build, how careful he is at every step can make a big difference in how the system ends up. Yes, the quality of all the parts is very important...but even the best parts when assembled hap-hazardly by an uncaring builder can result in a fussy or unstable system.

Also, a good system in the hands of inexperienced or uncaring user can become a mess in short amount of time. Once a system leaves the builder, it's up to the owner to learn how to keep his system running smooth. If he chooses not to, the system will become unstable very quickly because of bad computing practices or habits.

Yes, there are issues when using certain parts in combination with other suspect parts, but many times there is a fix available (or being worked on) and it's up to the owner of the system to stay on top of it. If he doesn't, it's not the fault of the builder or the parts.

I'm sure the members here all work hard at keeping their systems in tip-top shape, and many times I'll see comments made of how their systems never crash (either AMD or Intel). When you read a thread where a person is asking for help with a problem, I've noticed it's mostly people who are just starting out and are attemping to build their first system. Sure they are upset or frustrated and are venting about how much trouble their system (AMD or Intel)is giving them, but that doesn't mean the parts are at fault. It's mostly a lack of knowledge and experience (which they will gain by working hard at solving the problem) that is causing them to have a difficult time. Once the problem is solved and the system is up and running, they will have gained some valuable knowledge and experience that they can use on their next build.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is don't always blame the parts (unless you're using cheap, no-name generic stuff).

Cricket