Valhalla Legends Archive

What the deal with all of these processors... What makes one better than the other? Xeon, Celeron... What is the difference and which is the best?

P4 is good.

Quote from: jigsaw on February 06, 2004, 02:28 PM
What the deal with all of these processors... What makes one better than the other? Xeon, Celeron... What is the difference and which is the best?

Pentium > Xeon > Celeron

AMD > Intel

Quote from: hismajesty on February 06, 2004, 04:51 PM
AMD > Intel

To that statement, I always suggest you go watch the fires burning in an AMD CPU without a cooler, and then think about how good designs AMD must be making, and how much they must care about safety / security...

AMD Processors are just fine if you don't overly overexert them.

Quote from: Raven on February 06, 2004, 08:08 PM
AMD Processors are just fine if you don't overly overexert them.

Yes, that's my point. Buying AMD is like fixing things with duct tape. It works just fine if you're careful.

Even with the high temps put out with AMD processors, I still would rather use AMD over Intel. Just my opinion though.

Quote from: Adron on February 06, 2004, 08:11 PM

Quote from: Raven on February 06, 2004, 08:08 PM
AMD Processors are just fine if you don't overly overexert them.

Yes, that's my point. Buying AMD is like fixing things with duct tape. It works just fine if you're careful.

Well, duct tape is more of a temporary fix. It keeps it together until it can properly be repaired at a more convenient time. AMD processors are good processors for the average user, as long as you don't do stupid things like overclock it too high without proper coolants.

Water and gel coolants are being used widely in newer systems today, and from what ive seen on a few friends computers that use them, they stay right around 100 degrees f. (or 40ish celcius) for todays processors, thats pretty damn good, and these cooling systems aren't that expensive, i run an amd athlon xp 1.4 gighz, with only one fan, and it stays below 50 celcius (thats the warning temp.)

My uncle runs an amd athlon 3.2 gighz, and he doesn't even use water or gel cooling, he simply added a second fan, and an air duct to create a wind tunnel, works absolutely great.

Point standing, AMD's processors dont just rape intels because of speed, they are both put to the extreme tests for a reason, its all on how the user decides to run there machine.

Mesiah: AMD's don't go up to 3.2Ghz lol he was probably one of those idiots who bought an Athlon XP/64 3200+ and thought thats how many mhz it was. Those are only 2.2 ghz and if you overclocked them to 3.2 you would need a high end water cooling system/one of those rediculous compressors or 8 fans and running at full speed :p I find it hilarious that all AMD fans can never back up their preference of them over Intel, its always just their opinion. Sadly the few who do try to with fact are always wrong, or only right for a week or 2 until Intel takes back the market.
Edit: eh Mesiah lol ok I tuned out what you said the first time since it was so stupid I wanted to comment right away but I guess you were on a roll toninght? Intels stay far cooler and inadvertently quieter then AMD processors. AMD has minorly improved apon this with their Athlon 64 processors(which still can't compete with intel in that field) but since you're not talking about them I will just continue on... For starters the temperatures you listed to the overall climate of a system are nothing to brag about as I get better cooling while maintaining silence as well (1 fan at full speed is often louder then a few at low speed) If you want to give AMD anything, they're cheaper by some... very small margin, and often are ahead of Intel with cache size. Performance wise theres about 50 respectable benchmarks our there waiting to prove you wrong. You're very misled and obviously haven't done your homework.

Jigsaw: Pentium 4's are your best bet. Newer Xeons are also based off Pentium 4 technology and although dual capable which proves a great speed boost on applications optimized for dual processors (somewhat redundant as it is thanks to HyperThreading technology) but because Xeon is still with a 533Mhz Bus speed, and newer Pentium 4's have an 800Mhz bus speed, you're better off with the faster memory+bus speed. Celerons are pointless, they're for budget computers and were ideal in laptops until Centrino technology based processors came out due to their relatively good energy consumption, which has been beaten now. Celeron is only good for its inexpensive cost, because the (most) expensive part of the computer chip is the 'die' for it, which often makes available for larger on-die cache which is basically incredibly fast memory on the processor chip, due to it being so close and accessable, smaller amounts can often compete with much larger numbers of RAM (Hence the terms L1, L2 and L3 Cache, being measurements to how close it is). Celerons lack this, extremely. In addition to being slower, and using previous generation technology (to maintain its inexpensive cost, hence atleast giving it purpose) its overall cheap to make. You get what you pay for.

sorry hostile, i didn't mean to put 3.2 gighz, i meant the 3200. but as far as the processer heat, sure amd's will be hotter, but i was saying, if you take care enough of your machine, it is inexpensive, but hey, performance wise, but certainly not price wise, the mac g5 rapes even the amd 64, by a long shot..

i had a good website that told ALOT about all types of processers and there overall performance, if i find the link again i will post.

Thats pointless, I'm well aware of the latest cpu's performance. The Intel P4 3.2Ghz Extreme Edition beats even the Athlon 64 FX-51 by a long shot, thats not even including the newer P4 3.4Ghz EE. The Mac G5 would well own most systems but if you took that much money you could get a P4 3.4Ghz EE, overclock it with high end cooling and silent components and the last video card, ect and beat even that out, not to mention thats a Mac and you're far limited. If you honestly needed 64bit technology (which I can gaurentee almost no one here does, at home anyways) Then ya you have the aspect to consider.

Quote from: hismajesty on February 06, 2004, 08:38 PM
Even with the high temps put out with AMD processors, I still would rather use AMD over Intel. Just my opinion though.

I have an HP laptop with an AMD processor.  The major selling point was the memory -- 512mb, which was the most available at the time, and the 15" XGA TFT screen.  It has an AMD something 1800+ that runs at between 500MHz (closer to 511MHz) and 1.50GHz, depending on power consumption and provisions.

When it is plugged in, it runs at 1.5GHz regardless of whether or not I need it to.  Invariably, there has been extensive heat damage, and a nice warping of the section right next to my hard drive, making it difficult to get in and out w/o damaging the drive.

I don't believe I'll be buying AMD any time soon again.

Well, thats more of a universal problem then you think. Almost everyone I know who bought a laptop from a mass producing company (Compaq/Hp mostly) that contained a desktop processor (ie: not as it would an AMD Duran/Intel Celeron or Athlon-M/Pentium-M processor) they've been known to emit excessive amount of heat (to the point where youd be stupid to touch the bottom of it) which also leads to shooter life spands on a computer which isn't good. As of now, I think most companies have fixed this problem.