View Full Version : Which is hotter: AMD or Intel?

09-30-2001, 11:32 AM
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?!:confused:

09-30-2001, 11:37 AM
AMD by far.

09-30-2001, 11:38 AM
I, also, go AMD.

09-30-2001, 11:50 AM
I thought that also, but he (my friend) wants a source of information for this accusation...

09-30-2001, 11:51 AM

09-30-2001, 11:52 AM
Fine, I'll do a little search (that is all that is required because that is what a majority of computer literates think).

09-30-2001, 12:01 PM
Try this arcticle. You can make your assumption based on this. Click Here (http://www.marketingdirector.org/amdvintel99.html).

09-30-2001, 12:13 PM
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.

09-30-2001, 02:36 PM
Just show him this video:

09-30-2001, 04:30 PM
I wish I could, but it "uses unsupported compression". Thanks, anyways, y'all, but I'm just gonna forget it. It's no biggie.

09-30-2001, 10:54 PM
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

10-01-2001, 06:33 AM
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... ;)

10-01-2001, 07:38 AM
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.

10-01-2001, 07:51 AM
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.

10-01-2001, 08:17 AM
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.

10-01-2001, 10:23 AM
Read it and bawl your little eyes out, B1TCH:


Is what I said in my previous post not true? Ramping clock speeds does not grant you performance boosts, my friend.

And I'd say you have a PEBCAK problem with your system at home.

10-01-2001, 10:24 AM
I don't mean to be nasty, but I hate unsupported spews of supposed knowledge. Please read up on this stuff before you compare the numbers on the front page of the book.

10-01-2001, 12:34 PM

From Firingsquad, "Athlon has a hard time making up for the 600MHz clock speed deficiency that currently exists."

Anand's article was the exception rather than the rule. I think the nvidia driver's anand was using didn't recognize the P4 stepping, and thus the 2 ghz P4 had no optimizations.

I just got Linux Mandrake 8.0 running though, and I must say, even a Win2k install that goes smooth takes twice as long and two more reboots over the only one reboot needed and otherwise smooth Mandrake install.

10-01-2001, 12:57 PM
Benchmarking Pentium 4 against Athlon is a controversial thing. The right choice of applications can either make the one or the other look better or worse. Intel's new Pentium 4 at 2 GHz however is beating AMD's fastest Athlon in the majority of frequently used applications and deserves therefore the title 'fastest PC processor'. Intel won the 2 GHz race and it also retook the crown of the maker of the fastest CPU. I am hesitant, but in a way we have to respect those facts and congratulate Intel.

What remains the same however, is the fact that Pentium 4 is still significantly more expensive than a comparable Athlon processor. AMD's brand new price cuts make even the cheapest Pentium 4 look overly expensive. The price difference between Athlon 1 GHz and Athlon 1.4 GHz has become so small that almost everyone interested in a high-end system should go for an Athlon 1400. Buying a Pentium 4 would give you only marginally more performance, but for a much higher price.

Two things make it very hard for me to praise Intel any further though. The battle against VIA and its P4X266 chipset is something that I simply don't appreciate, because for us consumers, P4X266 is certainly a good thing. Basically, if Intel's managers would be real guys, they wouldn't fight with VIA in the courtroom, but release i845 with DDR-SDRAM support early and battle against P4X266 on a technology, performance and reliability level. The delay of DDR-i845 plus the threats against Taiwanese motherboard makers show that Intel is utterly unable to play it straight. I really wonder who is responsible for this attitude, since the most Intel people I know (except for a few really unpleasant ones) are honest, straightforward and hard-working guys that deserve everybody's respect. They also deserve to be represented by a management that sticks to rules of ethics and fairness to the benefit of its customers.

There's another reason why Intel's Pentium 4 2 GHz release might not be important after all. So Intel is back making the fastest processor. So Intel has won the 2 GHz race. Who really cares? The majority of people don't give a rat's behind about a 2 GHz processor! Who can blame them? Which application would justify the purchase of a 2 GHz monster for more than a tiny minority of people? Intel may have regained some prestige it lost to AMD a while ago. However, the current economical problems, the low NASDAQ and the recession in the PC-business will certainly NOT be solved with Intel's Pentium 4 2 GHz processor. What a shame!

AMD's upcoming Palomino core will bring even more performance and higher clock speeds, so the war between both companies is by no means over.

AMD continues to offer the price/performance advantage

Maybe I'm retarded, but a 600 MHz "clock speed deficiency" is hardly worth noting when the performance difference is so minimal. And if you read the articles you posted, neither overwhelmingly acclaim Intel for the feat. AMD is still #1, on a "bang for your buck" basis. And with the upcoming Palomino... Intel better be ready to stick it's tail between it's legs and go cry in the corner....

10-01-2001, 01:03 PM
Warning: Dumbass question ahead.

Will Itanium really make that much of a difference? With most programs being written for 32 bit architectures, will it even matter?

10-01-2001, 02:21 PM
Itanium is for servers, 64 bit computing for the general desktop user is still a ways off.

When buying for all out performance, price aside, I'd rather have a 2ghz p4. I really don't care to evaluate a company's business practice to determine what product I should get either.

Itanium actually sucks hardcore when running x86 32 bit code. Running in emulated mode, it will be lucky to be as fast as a pentium 1.

10-01-2001, 03:12 PM
LOL...I'm gone for a day and you all have turned my simple question thread into a war!!! Hehehe...

10-01-2001, 03:19 PM
BTW, my friend just messaged me telling me how all of you that agree with me are dumb and stupid wrong people. Then, he tries to correct me on water-cooling (something I've been researching). Oh yeah, the performance tests really don't mean a damn thing when it comes to water vs. air, right? LOL....

10-10-2001, 08:43 AM
all i can say is


10-10-2001, 01:50 PM
I have a 1.4Ghz Athlon and Win2k installed. It works great. I don't know if the pentium 2Ghz is faster or not, but my Athlon is quite good. It is a lot faster than my 366Mhz e-machine.

Ofcourse I will eventually upgrade, but I'll have to go with and I64.

BTW I had to get a new motherboard to run the CPU.

10-10-2001, 02:22 PM
Over at sharkyextreme.com in a review, they said that running normal applications, the 1.4 Athlon runs faster than the 1.8 Pentium. That's awesome.

10-10-2001, 07:25 PM
Does anyone know how Athlons XP stacks up against P4. Also when will it be available, I saw it once on moterboardexpress.com, the next day it was gone thought. Also what is going to be the price? The P4 1.5 ghz, is cheaper then the next highest Athlon at 1.4 ghz.

10-10-2001, 09:03 PM
>Athlons XP<

XP? Do you mean Athlon MP? I have no idea when it will be available...

I've heard the MP is made for portable applications (i.e. laptops) and servers.

10-10-2001, 09:33 PM
>XP? Do you mean Athlon MP?

No I mean XP. go to www.amd.com

10-10-2001, 09:36 PM
The athlon XP 1800 (really a 1533 mhz processor) with a KT266A (fastest motherboard for athlon) is faster than a p4 2 ghz.

Check out pricewatch.com for the prices. 1800s are availible for $230 shipped now.

10-14-2001, 09:12 PM
Athlon XP is AMD's way of trying to convert between Intel and AMD CPU speeds. They are trying to hook into MS WinXP brandname and at the same time give a benchmark against the P4 chips.

Until Intel gets DDR/SD RAM mainboards there is no choice in the CPU (why are they are stopping production?). DDR is much better value than RAMBUS.

Interesting side note is the dropping share price of AMD. They are making the better chips but are in trouble as the share price has dropped to under $9 from over $25. Hope they don't go under in this war with Intel.