by pr_capone 39 Replies latest jw friends
AMD Athlon 2000+. Home built. 640 megs of memory. I've used Athlon in my last 5 computers. Seems to work well for me.
Any geeks here. Tell me why I can't get Outlook Express to run. It won't let me delete it and reinstall it. I delete it and it reinstalls itself in a few seconds. It gives an error message when I try to run it, something about not being installed properly.
Ken P.
i've always had an athlon processor, but the new p4's are very very nice. but i think i might try the athlon 64 FX once i get the money for it. it looks fat...
AMD are good but I think Intel are always just that little bit better. They seem to let AMD think they have *almost* caught up and then just have somethign they can pull out.
How can you say that Simon? lol AMD was the first one out with the 64 bit processor. I read an article... I will see if I can find it and post it later about how HP will be dropping Intel and going with AMD producs because Intel couldnt get their 64 bit processor to work. Intel finaly gave up saying that 64 bit technology wouldnt even be needed until around 2006. Then a few months later here comes AMD with their own 64 bit chip. w00t!
AMD for me baby.
Elsewhere - The running cooler bit doesnt even really matter as long as you have a good fan. Keep in mind that the melting point on those processors is 170 degrees d00d. Mine runs at a cool 62.
Kansas District Overbeer
I prefer Intel because they support hyperthreading and aren't pushed as hard as AMD pushes their chips (therefore they run cooler). I have tried AMD off and on again in the past, but always seem to go back to intel. My last attempt with AMD was using a dual Athlon 1800 MP setup. It simply was not reliable. I'd get lockups, reboots, etc., every once in a while. I'm now running an Intel 3.06GHz P4 on an Asus P4B533-E and love it. It runs soooo much cooler than my previous Athlon setup.
Performance-wise Intel usually beats Athlon (except for the Athlon64) but they are so close performance differences are a moot point, IMO.
Specs
I build my own systems....I miss my old 486 DX2/66.....ahh...The memories.
Currently running ---Intel P4 3ghz 800fsb/512 megs Corsair DDR400 running in Dual Channel/Ati 9700 Pro vid....
Previous system was an AMD 2500 Barton running on a nice Asus(A7N8X DX rev.2) board....Worked great but got an awesome deal on the Intel gear and so switched. The AMD was great for overclocking and was very cheap to build. The processor costs about a $125 CDN and is a great bang for the buck.
Next system will probably be an AMD64 based system once the price drops....Lots of changes coming in computer technology this year and it gives me a good reason to upgrade...ie..BTX form factor/DDR2 and PCI Express.
Guess I'm a big geek eh?
Wolfy
How can you say that Simon? lol AMD was the first one out with the 64 bit processor.
Intel's Itanium processor was released a long time ago ... well before the Athlon 64. Granted, it was not targeted for home use.
... Intel couldnt get their 64 bit processor to work.
"Intel couldn't get their processors to work"? LOL I'd like to see that article...
Keep in mind that 64-bit doesn't automatically mean "way faster" than 32-bit. You won't see significant performance boosts until you get a 64-bit operating system and your apps are optimized for 64-bit processors. Even then the benefits may not be extraordinary.
Intel isn't stupid; they have tricks up their sleeves to keep AMD nipping at their heels.
The running cooler bit doesnt even really matter as long as you have a good fan. Keep in mind that the melting point on those processors is 170 degrees d00d. Mine runs at a cool 62.
62 degrees C? My P4 runs at 30 degrees C. Have you seen the video clips that show what happens to an AMD proc and a P4 when the fan stops? I think they were posted on Tom's Hardware or Anandtech... the AMD proc goes up in smoke and is destroyed. The P4 locks hard but survives.
Sure, if your heat sink and fan are good you'll be ok, but the excessive heat shows that AMD pushes their chips much more than Intel does... they have to to get the performance closer to Intel's.
I cant find the link but I found the story on another forum.
64 Bit Not For The Home?William Siu, General Manager in charge of Intel?s desktop computer chips business, recently gave an interview to Reuters in which he stated that a computing platform based on 64-bit processors would not become relevant for home PC users until the year 2006. The interview was conducted on February 18, 2004, the day after Intel made an announcement reversing their position and endorsing 64-bit computing throughout its product line. The interview and change in position on the technology platform is an obvious reaction to the progress made by scrappy but diminutive competitor Advanced Microsoft Devices who is already offering a line of 64-bit processors for both the home and business. Intel currently offers a 64-bit processor for servers, however, the sales of the processors and server systems using the processors has been miniscule and developing partner Hewlett Packard has not only questioned the viability of the processor, called Itanium, but offers a line of Proliant Servers based on the AMD Opteron 64-bit processor. The announcement by Intel on February 17, 2004 outlined the companies plan to create 64-bit ?extensions? to its existing 32-bit Xeon processor.
I apologize.... I did mean to add for home use. The AMD 64 is intended to be for home or business use.
Kansas District Overbeer
Amd k6-2 500mghz on asus p4a motherboard, homebuilt.
SS
