i dont understand why AMD cpus are alot less expensive than Intel cpus.
when i got my 2800 barton, it was around
145$$. The intel 2.8 is around 230$$

Why is there a huge price difference??

is the 2.8 P4 a better performer? is that why AMD sacrafises performance for value??

thanks

You have just opened the floodgates for the AMD vs. Intel arguers that frequent this site. Within a few hours there will probably be a barrage of posts on here asserting that AMD sucks and just as many saying that Intel sucks. Quite frankly, both processors are great in the performance sector. The Pentium 4's faster front-side bus gives it a slight advantage in speed, making that Pentium 4 2.8 with an 800 MHz front-side bus closer to a 3000+ or a 3200+ Barton (probably between those speeds).

Intel probably has a better track record in the reliability sector, but not by much. This is probably due mostly to the fact that it has been around longer. Personally, I own a Pentium 4--not because I think it's a better value, but because I have owned Intel's in the past and I trust them, though I am sure an AMD chip would work very well. I'm just stubborn about switching.

The AMD chip is probably a better value, but only time will tell as we see how these two chips fair in people's systems as the processors get older.

so were would the 2800 barton stand compared to an Intel P4 interms of speed...benchmarks...etc....

thanks!

All I have to say is that Amd cpu's are out there to give hope to first time computer builders (Ex. Myself) Personally I think Amd is the way to go. What do you have to lose for spending $145.00 on the Amd Athlon Xp 2800+. If your willing to spend $230.00 then get either the Amd Athlon Xp 3000+ or the 3200+. Go to this website to see benchmark results http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031223/cpu-guide-14.html
I hope I helped

Larry there is a price difference because of the ignorance of corporations. I have noted many times were Intel Representives stated "Why would you buy an inferior product?". There is a simple reason for price difference, these companies are presenting themselves to you as they would like to be viewed. On the side of performance, well thats up to you. The reason a barton 3200+ is beaten by a P4 3.2GHz is not because a p4 has a 800fsb, but because of the mhz difference. After all the talk of how mhz doesn't matter anymore it still does and its quite simple. AMD cpus are more powerful per each mhz, but there just comes a time when the gap in mhz is just to large. Take for instance this. The first 2600+ 266fsb was a 2.133ghz. The second to come out was a 333fsb at 2.083ghz. And now we have the barton 2600+ at 1.933ghz or something like it. The first 2600+ at 266fsb was competitive with a p4 at 2.53 , the second beat it, the third, well it might beat the 2.53 but not the 2.6. AMD knows their mistake and from now on you ll notice with their new athlon64 that they will not widen the gap anymore but increase in mhz as in rating. athlon64 3200+ =2.0 3400+ = 2.2. Dont look at the 3000+ its at 2.0 because AMD knows its not competitive at 1.8ghz. If you can get a AMD athlon XP to 2.3ghz then you got yourself a 3.2ghz P4 procesor performance wise, excluding all programs which benefit from HT. Which really is encoding and such things.

I've run cyrix.
I've run AMD
I've run intel.
I now run a p4.
next i want an amd.
After that I'll probally have hmmmmmmm........

At 1.6 gig the new amd 3400+ sure kicks the p4 ass so much for the GHz (a) u must be really ignorant not amd or intell they are both great cpu and I would take them both.

they are both good. it's like chevy versus
ford . i've owned both and i prefer amd.
my first amd was a 286 x 8 mhz in a tandy
tl-2. now i have a 2500 running at 3200
speed and it only cost 90 bucks. the only
problems that i've had with amd's is burning
them up by trying to push them too far. but
that's due to my stupidity not amd's chips.

I've used both AMD and Intel, and after having both certainly both use myself and recommend AMD.
The reason? That AMD's are better? No, not really...however, they are also not, in any way that I've found, worse. Therefore, the only thing left from there to factor in is price, and AMD simply blows Intel out of the water there.
Therefore, I would say the decision is simple...you can get two products, of roughly equivalent quality, durability, and performance, but one is only half the price of the other. Tough choice?

$145 compares to $230 way differently than $1450 compares to $2300. Both are cheap compared to what you are getting.

Intel has to pay for advertising and way more engineering and probably better engineers. When you buy Intel the good news is you are contributing to the research dollars for some of the best solid state scientists anywhere, and the bad news you are are also contributing dollars to parasitic advertising firms.

Intel will always have fewer annoyances, which gives them broad appeal. amd will always have more annoyances, which creates their value proposition in the first place. An amd requires care in cooling, volting, and multiplier vs fsb settings, and for that care you get a discount. There is no loss in reliability, but there is an increase in required attention.

Standard Oil beat everybody when monopolism was allowed, Walmart beat Sears when free enterprise was rewarded, but lets hope that both amd and intel will be around for a long while since they are each producing a superb product while competing fairly.

Another point of view is two companies using two different business models approach.

While Intel has been making money, AMD has not. There is no P/E ratio for AMD because they fail to make $1. Yes, not $1.

How long can a Company remain as a player without making money? Anyone's guess.

But, there is no way AMD will close it's door. There are only two "giants" Intel and AMD. US Government will never allow a One Chip company to control the entire industry.

The question remains (for me), had the pricing been equal, what would people be buying.

After a few months of use, I am spoiled by the HT technology. Oh yes, I like my Barton 2500+ running at 2.2 Ghg, my XP1700+ running at 2.18 ghz. I also like my 2.6C running at 3.38 ghz with HT and abundant memory bandwidth.

The price difference? $90 for the Barton versus $170 for the 2.6C, a whopping $80 difference or 90% higher. I am also running very cool with a Kamakaze cooler that costs $40 (landed) and a SLK800 at $42 (landed) to keep my two AMD systems running VERY cool and very quiet. With the cooler, the price differential is now narrowed down. The 90% is down to 45%. Now, when I compare the $40-50 price differential to the entire system (in my case each cost $750 in parts), the $40-50 becomes 7% difference in part costs.

So, for 7% higher in cost, should I get a HT Intel with 5500mb/s memory bandwidth, or a Barton 2500+?

The decision is yours.

Lastly, AMD provides the mean for those cannot afford, allows a low cost system. Then, Intel also provides the Celeron which may not be good in gaming (lack of cache), but excellent in video and MP3 processes (high FSB speed).

This very same discussion could be found in the choice of case selection; a $40 case versus a $130 while they both serve the same purpose. The $40 may look even "better - look cool effect", while the $130 one is just running cool.

Please don't hold me to it. I am simply voicing my 2 cents. My next new rig is AMD Opteron.