Cacarulo: AMD or Pentium?

[Cacarulo]

This is another interesting question like my previous about distros.
I'm currently in the process of updating my old hardware but I'm stuck on this "simple" question

Should I buy an AMD ATHLON XP 3200+/3000+ or a Pentium IV 3.0 Ghz HT Prescott? I know there are better alternatives like AMD 64 bit but say my budget is limited to the former.
ATHLON is cheaper and according to most of the benchmarks I've seen it outperforms Pentium. But when I go to the stores the salesmen say that Pentium is faster. I don't believe them a 100% but I'm not that expert.
The main use is for running sims and mostly calculus.
What are the expert suggestions?

Thanks in advance.

Cacarulo

[bfbagain]

Pentium 4 with hyperthreading, ala Prescott is the ticket. Get the 800Mhz, 1M cache chip.

I like AMD, a lot. And there's some advantages to it besides price.....but

For your specific requirements, it's Intel all the way.

Check out the Asus mainboards, and oh, get the fastest CPU that your budget will allow, e.g., 3.2 which is approx $50 more than the 3.0

cheers
bfb

[Cacarulo]

> Pentium 4 with hyperthreading, ala Prescott
> is the ticket. Get the 800Mhz, 1M cache
> chip.

> I like AMD, a lot. And there's some
> advantages to it besides price.....but

> For your specific requirements, it's Intel
> all the way.

> Check out the Asus mainboards, and oh, get
> the fastest CPU that your budget will allow,
> e.g., 3.2 which is approx $50 more than the
> 3.0

Thanks for your comments but I'm still confused about which one is better. Norm says that for running sims AMD is better -which I tend to agree- but you say the opposite. These type of contradictions is what I also find on the web.
Agree that 3.2 is worth $50 more.

Sincerely,
Cac

[The Phantom]

In my professional experience the AMD would be faster for running simulations (and database/spreadsheet calculations), the Pentium faster at graphics.

However, one doesn't have to rely on experience, which can be subjective.

You could run benchmark programs and just let a computer program check a computer program. You may even have a benchmark program and not know it: Look in Norton Systemworks under Extra Features for "Performance Test." Also note you can download a free trial copy of HardInfo.

Anyway, for my 2 cents, I'd say the AMD was a better value, a better price, and -- because of a simpler but more brilliant architecture -- presents a faster CPU for all purposes except those involving heavy use of moving graphics.

> Thanks for your comments but I'm still
> confused about which one is better. Norm
> says that for running sims AMD is better
> -which I tend to agree- but you say the
> opposite. These type of contradictions is
> what I also find on the web.
> Agree that 3.2 is worth $50 more.

> Sincerely,
> Cac

[Cacarulo]

I've just bought Pentium but will consider AMD for a future PC. Thanks anyway.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

> In my professional experience the AMD would
> be faster for running simulations (and
> database/spreadsheet calculations), the
> Pentium faster at graphics.

> However, one doesn't have to rely on
> experience, which can be subjective.

> You could run benchmark programs and just
> let a computer program check a computer
> program. You may even have a benchmark
> program and not know it: Look in Norton
> Systemworks under Extra Features for
> "Performance Test." Also note you
> can download a free trial copy of HardInfo.

> Anyway, for my 2 cents, I'd say the AMD was
> a better value, a better price, and --
> because of a simpler but more brilliant
> architecture -- presents a faster CPU for
> all purposes except those involving heavy
> use of moving graphics.

[Norm Wattenberger]

I had three Dell Intel's and an off-brand AMD. The AMD melted exactly two weeks ago. I now have four Dell's. The AMD was only two years old. One of the Dells has been running 24 hours a day for five years (the BJStats server.) The melt-down has been extremely inconvenient. I just got back my old e-mails and orders files an hour ago and will be reconfiguring for another week.

Having said that, the AMD is much faster for sims. But, is doesn't have hyper-threading. HT is wonderful if you run long intensive compute bound jobs (like sims) and also wish to use the PC for other tasks at the same time.

On cost, Dell is amazingly cheap, particularly if you buy a refurbished unit. (Although that may be US only.) I just bought a 3.0 GHz Prescott with SATA drive, PCI Express video card and half a gig of DDR2 memory for $713. Free shipping no tax. Very well built with an enormous heat-sink, quiet fans and a chassis that opens like a sandwich for easy maintenance. No screws for the case or the cards. Lift a plastic retainer and all of the cards can be pulled out. On the minus side, no support for my old EIDE disk or tape drive.

Of course this is just one person's experience.

[Parker]

> I had three Dell Intel's and an off-brand
> AMD. The AMD melted exactly two weeks ago. I
> now have four Dell's. The AMD was only two
> years old. One of the Dells has been running
> 24 hours a day for five years (the BJStats
> server.) The melt-down has been extremely
> inconvenient. I just got back my old e-mails
> and orders files an hour ago and will be
> reconfiguring for another week.

You certainly have had some bad luck with computers. :-)

I'm not saying that this was the case in your situation, but CPU meltdowns are often caused by the cooling fan/heatsink being of inferior quality and/or being improperly installed. The first thing I do with any computer that someone brings me for service is pull the fan/heatsink, clean the top of the CPU and heatsink, and properly reinstall it with thermal grease. I do this on my own systems about once a year.

It's amazing how many CPU's I've found with no thermal grease or tape, or some dried-out old crud that was totally non-functional, or a heatsink that wasn't properly centered over the CPU.

It also amazes me that some people will pay several hundred dollars for a bleeding edge CPU, and then stick a $5 cooling fan on it.

> Having said that, the AMD is much faster for
> sims. But, is doesn't have hyper-threading.
> HT is wonderful if you run long intensive
> compute bound jobs (like sims) and also wish
> to use the PC for other tasks at the same
> time.

> On cost, Dell is amazingly cheap,
> particularly if you buy a refurbished unit.
> (Although that may be US only.) I just
> bought a 3.0 GHz Prescott with SATA drive,
> PCI Express video card and half a gig of
> DDR2 memory for $713. Free shipping no tax.
> Very well built with an enormous heat-sink,
> quiet fans and a chassis that opens like a
> sandwich for easy maintenance. No screws for
> the case or the cards. Lift a plastic
> retainer and all of the cards can be pulled
> out.

Now that I could get used to! :-)

Of course, the last pre-assembled computer that I bought was a Compaq DeskPro 486 DX2-66.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> I'm not saying that this was the case in
> your situation, but CPU meltdowns are often
> caused by the cooling fan/heatsink being of
> inferior quality and/or being improperly
> installed.

This definitely was the case. Small heatsink, cheap noisy fans and no cowling. The Dell heatsink is huge. Six thick copper rods conduct the heat to a couple dozen 10 sq. in. fins. Large fan inset from the back to reduce noise.

Of course everything is relative. I have a Krell amplifier that weighs 140 lbs.

[Cacarulo]

> I'm not saying that this was the case in
> your situation, but CPU meltdowns are often
> caused by the cooling fan/heatsink being of
> inferior quality and/or being improperly
> installed. The first thing I do with any
> computer that someone brings me for service
> is pull the fan/heatsink, clean the top of
> the CPU and heatsink, and properly reinstall
> it with thermal grease. I do this on my own
> systems about once a year.

Interesting tips. I've learned something.

Thanks Parker.

Sincerely,
Cac

[The Phantom]

Parker, I think your comments are on point.

If Norm had a Dell box with an AMD (although nonesuch exists) with the appropriate systemboard; and with the quality control that companies like Dell exercise -- with decent fans, heat sinks, etc.; then you'd have a valid one-on-one comparison.

As an aside, I suspect that many computer makers use "Intel" because it inspires confidence in the buyer -- Intel produces a fine product, but its reputation, like most giant corporations, often depends more on its advertising budget. That is, in the real world, in many commercial arenas, the better product can lose out to a better-promoted product.

[Cacarulo]

> I had three Dell Intel's and an off-brand
> AMD. The AMD melted exactly two weeks ago. I
> now have four Dell's. The AMD was only two
> years old. One of the Dells has been running
> 24 hours a day for five years (the BJStats
> server.) The melt-down has been extremely
> inconvenient. I just got back my old e-mails
> and orders files an hour ago and will be
> reconfiguring for another week.

> Having said that, the AMD is much faster for
> sims. But, is doesn't have hyper-threading.
> HT is wonderful if you run long intensive
> compute bound jobs (like sims) and also wish
> to use the PC for other tasks at the same
> time.

> On cost, Dell is amazingly cheap,
> particularly if you buy a refurbished unit.
> (Although that may be US only.) I just
> bought a 3.0 GHz Prescott with SATA drive,
> PCI Express video card and half a gig of
> DDR2 memory for $713. Free shipping no tax.
> Very well built with an enormous heat-sink,
> quiet fans and a chassis that opens like a
> sandwich for easy maintenance. No screws for
> the case or the cards. Lift a plastic
> retainer and all of the cards can be pulled
> out. On the minus side, no support for my
> old EIDE disk or tape drive.

> Of course this is just one person's
> experience.

If I ever decided for AMD I would pay especial attention to the cooler

Sincerely,
Cac

[paranoid android]

> If I ever decided for AMD I would pay
> especial attention to the cooler

For what it's worth, I've heard (it may or may not be fact) that AMD CPUs run cooler than Pentium 4's. So you should probably pay the same special attention to cooling if you get an Intel as well.

I've also been thinking about upgrading my CPU/motherboard for about 6 months as well. The consensus I've heard is that you get more for the money with AMD over Intel.

There's probably no right or wrong decision though. Both are good and the slight differences in speed probably won't be humanly noticable. I also doubt that either will melt on you.

[Cacarulo]

> For what it's worth, I've heard (it may or
> may not be fact) that AMD CPUs run cooler
> than Pentium 4's. So you should probably pay
> the same special attention to cooling if you
> get an Intel as well.

Will do.

> I've also been thinking about upgrading my
> CPU/motherboard for about 6 months as well.
> The consensus I've heard is that you get
> more for the money with AMD over Intel.

> There's probably no right or wrong decision
> though. Both are good and the slight
> differences in speed probably won't be
> humanly noticable. I also doubt that either
> will melt on you.

Totally agree.

Sincerely,
Cac