Whats so wrong with pentiums?

[Aculaud 0]

All i hear from a lot of computer go-ers is stuff like "Pentiums, what a waste of money" and "Pentiums? Oh, they suck" and pentiums suck this and pentiums eat that and blah bla-blah bla-blah. Anyone care to tell me whats so wrong with them? I mean, if they were really that bad, why would they be put into so many successfully working machines?

[Bart.Jan 0]

I think there is nothing wrong with them. Only AMD has better cost/performance and when someone buys AMD he must advocate his purchase.

[Aculaud 0]

I see, so its like, If you buy from a smaller company (AMD, which i have, by the way) its customary to bash the big guy.

The only thing i can see thats wrong with pentiums is the price.

[WKK Gimbal 0]

I don't think anyone (except school kids) really ditch Pentium. Most hardware sites seem fairly neutral to both Pentium and AMD. The only thing people generally critize Pentium for, is their prices, which I also find a tad high.

[Warin 0]

Here's the deal:

The P4 architecture is more about ramping up to higher speeds than it is about performance. The first generation P4's were soundly tromped by AMD, and only the smaller .13 micron fab and a much bigger cache have given them the performance advantage.

I cant wait till the Clawhammer Athlon hits this fall. Even though I'll need a new mobo, it'll be worth it. Much faster than the current Athlon, probably faster than the P4, PLUS a new 64 bit processor instruction set.

[Placebo 29]

The way I see it is if you're buying Intel you're paying for the name, if you're buying AMD you're paying for the performance.

If people want to pay that bit extra that's entirely groovy for them, after all don't a lot of us pay Å60 for a pair of trainers (sneakers) when we can get a similar quality pair for Å15 which don't have a trendy brand name on them?

Frankly it makes no sense to me to pay more money for less performance, but then if life made sense where would the fun be?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

GEEK FIGHT!!!!!!!!

[Aculaud 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ May 20 2002,15:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but then if life made sense where would the fun be? <span id='postcolor'>

...everywhere

[FetishFool 0]

It's a ratio.

Price : Performance

P4 CPUs are very expensive. Plus, you need to buy a new P4-ready power supply, very expensive RDRAM and the obligitory new motherboard.

P4's outperform Athlon XPs, but the price isn't worth it to the average user.

Athlon XP CPUs are inexpensive, with inexpensive DDR SDRAM and you can get away with a cheap motherboard.

Basically, if you want the best of the best: P4 platforms all the way.

If you want a great system, with a low price: Athlon XP's are trump.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">P4 CPUs are very expensive. Plus, you need to buy a new P4-ready power supply, very expensive RDRAM and the obligitory new motherboard.

P4's outperform Athlon XPs, but the price isn't worth it to the average user.

<span id='postcolor'>

At the SAME clock speed the P4 does not outperform the Athlon. It's only in the rarified air up over 2ghz where the AMD loses out.

There are several chipsets that allow you to use DDR or SDRAM with the P4. But the performance hit is significant.

If you look at the core architecture and put clock speed aside, the Athlon is better for todays apps than the P4. Period.

Over time, we may see this change..but by then we'll have The Hammer

Yes..I am an AMD fan. I was an Intel fan until the price performance delta for AMD killed Intel

[Antichrist 0]

Well to put it in perfomance price terms

AthlonXp 1800+ (1.54 Ghz) is faster than Pentium 4 1.9 Ghz

While the price is twice as cheap

End of story!