Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

AMD Athlon vs. Intel Pentium III ;-)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

R.G.

unread,
Jan 24, 2001, 6:12:54 PM1/24/01
to
I'm upgrading my system to some processor above 700 MHz.
I have to change the motherboard and the processor anyway.
Which one would you reccomend?

Thanks in advance

Robert


Routerguy99

unread,
Jan 24, 2001, 6:26:13 PM1/24/01
to
AMD

"R.G." <rg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WjJb6.5002$13.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

MachineMike

unread,
Jan 24, 2001, 8:43:36 PM1/24/01
to
AMD is by far your best performer and value (cost), but can be a bit harder
to iron out the glitches when building.
An AMD Athlon 800 Mhz CPU and MB can be had for less than $250, while an
equal Intel system could cost $50 to $100 more. AMD is also better for
overclocking.
I have an AMD Athlon 800 Mhz (Thunderbird) on an ABIT KT7-Raid MB OC'd to
1Ghz!


ftm!

unread,
Jan 24, 2001, 11:41:44 PM1/24/01
to
"R.G." wrote:

> Which one would you reccomend?

AMD's Thunderbird.


Ron Reaugh

unread,
Jan 24, 2001, 11:51:01 PM1/24/01
to

R.G. wrote in message ...

>I'm upgrading my system to some processor above 700 MHz.
>I have to change the motherboard and the processor anyway.
>Which one would you reccomend?


Definitely Intel. Get a 750E cC0 on am Asus CUSL2 and run it at 950+. or
just get a PIII/1000EB.


Marvin Zamora

unread,
Jan 25, 2001, 1:52:54 AM1/25/01
to
AMD...great OCing...VERY CHEAP...and this is coming from someone who used to
only buy intel CPUs, but the tbird juss blew me away =D

"R.G." <rg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WjJb6.5002$13.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

Douglas Ellison

unread,
Jan 25, 2001, 8:01:48 AM1/25/01
to
Do you get the feeling you're out numbered RG.

AMD are

1) Faster
2) Cheaper
3) Easier to Overclock
4) errr...NOT INTEL

DOug

"Ron Reaugh" <Ron-R...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:VgOb6.9292$1m.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Henk Borsje

unread,
Feb 7, 2001, 3:48:46 PM2/7/01
to
Agreed!. The Athlons are always slower handling the SETI work units, a
very memory intensive application that exceeds the size of the cache. I find
that my Athlon is waiting a lot for memory. Some people suspect that the
software is not optimized for Athlons, but I doubt that. TheTBs seem
somewhat better, but they don't seem to beat the PIII.

HJB


"Bryon Lape" <bl...@grey-net.com> wrote in message
news:3A803383...@grey-net.com...
> Faster is relative. The AMD has a L2 cache running at 1/3 the processor
speed
> while the PIII's run at full speed. If the loop is larger than 128K, the
AMD
> cache is filled and runs much slower than the PIII.

0 new messages