So, I've always heard and thought that in general, the AMD processors have hotter core temps. But, my smart-ass friend thinks Intel's have the hotter cores.
Can someone point a reliable source at me that can tell us the answer?!
So, I've always heard and thought that in general, the AMD processors have hotter core temps. But, my smart-ass friend thinks Intel's have the hotter cores.
Can someone point a reliable source at me that can tell us the answer?!
AMD by far.
I, also, go AMD.
1978 Silver Anniversary Corvette
I thought that also, but he (my friend) wants a source of information for this accusation...
Fine, I'll do a little search (that is all that is required because that is what a majority of computer literates think).
1978 Silver Anniversary Corvette
Try this arcticle. You can make your assumption based on this. Click Here.
1978 Silver Anniversary Corvette
Thanks, Garfield, but I read that entire page and it didn't even mention "temperature". It was basically an analysis on business competition between Intel and AMD.
Just show him this video:
http://www.streamgate.de/filer_test/...PU_Cooling.zip
[Signature here. (Remove this!)]
I wish I could, but it "uses unsupported compression". Thanks, anyways, y'all, but I'm just gonna forget it. It's no biggie.
A pentium 4 can run without a heatsink, it slows down whenever it gets to hot
pentium 3s will not run but they dont burn up.
An Athlon can run without a heatsink, although smoke and death of motherboard/processor will result
Sadly, while AMD chips are the better chip (ie. more powerful, more stable), they do have heating problems. I personally run a 1.2 GHz T-bird that has threatened to overheat on me... however, after a better cooling power supply and another fan in the back of the case, she seems to have settled down, but DAMN that thing heats up a room. Why get a furnace for your house? Hook your duct work straight to the back of your computer!!
I still love the chip tho...
I'd say athlons are the best value out right now, but I definetely wouldn't say they are faster (I'd rather have a 2.0 ghz P4 than a 1.4 ghz athlon), nor more stable... as I am typing this from a computer lab than from home, because my 1.4 ghz athlon system refuses to run the windows 2000 install to completion.
myths... all myths... the 1.4 Athlons are faster than the 2.0 GHz P4s.. Intel has ramped clock speeds for the pure sake of having the number on the market. It's the pipe length that kills the actual power in the P4 processor. Check the benchmarks.
And just as a side note, I've had the same problem installing Win2k here at work. I had to reformat using the FAT format before it would work right. That has nothing to do with your processor, my friend.
And from my own personal experience, I'd say the AMDs are more stable, hands down. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
If you truely believe a 1.4 ghz athlon is faster than a 2.0 ghz P4, I won't be able to convince you of anything.
I don't have any firsthand experience with the pentium line, but I've had a lot of problems with my athlon system.
As for windows 2000, I'll mess with it more at home, but it's more likely a problem with the hardware than the software, as linux mandrake enters a kernal panic about 1/3 of the time that I attempt to install that as well.
