i would like to know which are the best processors around and why? pentium 4 or athlon xp?

Different strokes for different folks
AMD costs less and are very good
Intel cost more and are very good

http://www.xbitlabs.com/

Right on peter.

If your a gamer, go with amd, but if your going to do work, go with the more expensive intel. Intel is all around, but amd is especially for gamers. So, different strokes for different folks. ]:-)

That is some interesting logic since I see the new intel chips beating out the amd ones at gaming while the AMD chips do better at the office applications and digital encoding.

What it really comes down to is how much you want to spend, how loud of a fan you want in your computer(amd chips use louder fans), and what type of applications you will be running. Look at the benchmarks at www.tomshardware.com to see how the different chips do in different benchmarks.

hey, ah...amd_freak, sorry to burst your bubble, but it's the reverse, P4 excels at 3d, while athlon excels in work, like math calculations and CAD

I may be mistaken, but freinds that work at Intel tell me that AMD is much better for gaming, especially because AMD is more durable, just because its list Ghz is less than the P4, it's durability makes it work just as good as the P4. This is ideal for gaming, because you wish to get the best for your money, as games get more and more demanding. So buying a P4 at 1.8 Ghz is worse than buying an amd at 1.8 Ghz at the same or less than the same price. Again, I might be mistaken, because i'm not that good with cpu's, but just consider the preceding.

overall, the fastest AMD is pretty much on par with the fastets P4, give or take some millisecond performance that no human would notice, if you're on a budget, go with AMD, but get a good performance cooler

Good point, Amd is a lot more demanding when it comes to coolers, not only will you need a big fan, have a good cooling within your case itself, I do agree that Intel is easier to cool. So in wrap up, Amd is cheeper, yet Intel is easier, hey that rhymes. (remember that they are same quality)

You should do a cost benefit analysis before
your purchase. Most CPUs, amd or intel,
offer more than sufficient performance for
every app. Gaming benchmarks show that at
high res cpu speeds don't make much
difference, the vid card limits
performance(at least for current nvidia and
ati offerings). Also don't base your
decision on the current fastest offerings
from both. If you can't afford them, and
they are pricy, then top speeds of either
line shouldn't matter to you. Ignore the
people that say Intel is faster because they
have the current fastest chip. Its all BS.

Also take into consideration that athlon
mobos are more often better equiped with
more features than many intel boards and can
cost less.

Anyway, I'm rambling now.

I would go for AMD

depends on what you're going to do with your computer. If you need reliability, go with intel. If something goes wrong, p4's slow themselves down so you can keep going (ie: save your changes and shut down). amd will freeze, and you lose everything that wasn't saved yet.

it's like comparing apples and oranges...you can throw both of them a far distance, but they're made differently. Different designs, same goals. Like multiple solution to a common problem.

amd is cheaper, but you need to make sure you cool your computer...you need better fans, etc. Even the one that amd provides isn't good enough (at least that's what most amd users say...so it's the first thing they change). Intel, on the other hand, is fine with it's oem fan. I rarely go over 45C, even during prolonged cpu usage...and my case fans have their power cut so they're slower (actually, they're so slow that i can't even feel a breeze if i put my hand by the fans...they spin but don't push any air around).

For my purposes, i use intel...and i prefer intel, i don't want to have to worry about cooling or cpu freezing

Same here. Hey Froggx, I got my P4 mainboard to work again.

Intel has always been able to provide better overall stability for games. BUT, having said that, it also depends largely on the kinds of games that are played, and by how many games you play.

For example, the problems that most hard core gamers face, have to do more with the "jerkweed" game manufacturers who won't conform to one and the same standard, as opposed to the computer hardware oor capabilites of the video adapter or accelerator. I say "jerkweed" because these companies know full well that big 3D games have many files that use the windows registry, cache settings, and so on. Every time that you pop a game into the machine (without restarting), your computer gets taxed out more and more and more - because all of those settings keep getting filled with new stuff. There's only so much that windows and the display adapter can keep up with though. And that's where the main problem is. Unlike most third party software vendors who try very hard to conform 100 percent to microsoft standards, the gaming manufacturers have never done that. They put into a game whatever they think you may like - with little to no consideration for our windows based computers. Consider this: Each hardcore 3D gaming application by a different manufacturer, has a completely different impact on your machine.

I've nevver had 3D gaming problems on my AMD machines, because I make it a point to restart my PC right before I play, and then again, after I'm done.

That way, instead of forcing windows and the display adapter to work with 3 or 4 different graphics engines since each game may have it's on specific 3D engine design, the machine only has to put up with one type at a time - this of course being much easier for your dislay adapter and windows to deal with. Make sense?

But yeah, n3985 is correct. From the get go, Intel has gotten the kudos for better gaming stability, while AMD has managed to develop a very good reputation with end users, small to mid-sized offices, and even some network server applications.

If you follow the restart rule though, and if you have decent cooling and good temperatures, then I'd go with my budget, and for that, as we all already know . . .

Hey Intel, AMD rulez!

Also, something interesting for people who want to know more about AMD, or amd_freak specifically . . .

The actual AMOUNT of Mhz. or Ghz. speed is completely irrelevant when it comes to AMD processors. That's because quite a few years ago, Intel was the one who set the standards for speed, which Intel intially defined by the amount of Mhz. that the chip was running on.

Intel actually took AMD to Court - where AMD won - when Intel tried to force AMD to alter their chip architecture to conform STRICTLY with the speed criteria as defined previously by Intel. However, AMD won that lawsuit because they were able to prove that the bottom line has always been the final performance line, and thus, if an AMD chip running on 50 Mhz. was able to perform at the level of a 500 Mhz. Intel chip, than AMD had the legal right to sell their own chip as a 500 Mhz. chip. It simply wasn't fair nor technically feasable, to say that a chip could only be sold as whatever it is, STRICTLY because of the amount of Mhz. or Ghz. involved.

Of course a lot of things on the chips have changed dramatically since then, but the bottom line, legally, remains the same. If Intel has a P4 that runs at 2.5 Ghz. of speed, and AMD has one that performs at that same level while only using 1.8 Ghz. of speed, then technically and legally, the AMD chip can be sold as an XP2500 because its performance is equal to the standard that Intel has already defined with its 2.5 Ghz. processor previously. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Yeah, Intel lost that suit big time. It was great - because otherwise, there might not be any AMD chips at all today. Yet another reason for me to say . . .

Hey Intel, AMD rulez!

Yeah I've done a lot of research on the subject. AMD has innovated in the industry to come up with better techniques for handling and processing data. Intel doesn't do this, rather they just make the processes smaller and smaller, and squeeze every last bit of juice they can out of it. So as you can see, Athlon XP processors are behind in terms of GHz, but as was aptly pointed out their architecture is much better so it allows them compete and beat most Pentium 4 processors out there today. And when you all say that Pentium 4 processors beat Athlon XP processors for gaming, keep in mind that you're comparing a 2.4 GHz processor on like a .13 micron(or whatever they use now) to a 1.8GHz or so AMD and Intel barely wins in most cases. If you really are a gamer, save all that extra cash from a P4 and buy an AMD and a really good graphics card because that's what matters most.

but keep in mind the athlons come overlcocked straight from the factory, and the heat is anhuge problem. also, i've read that it is very easy to break an athlon chip during heatsink installation (maximumpc)

I worked on athlon before about a year or 2 ago and i had g force 2 mx as a graphic and it didn't give me any problems not even heat problems..i'm talking about my experience on using athlon that is just my opinion

I've had no problems with AMD, but it is the graphics card that matters the most. So, you can get an Intel processor with an OK video card, or buy an AMD (with quantispeed architecture) with a good graphics card. Its all tit for tat, shop around, look for the lowest prices, and it wont matter which you buy. Just make sure your using them correctly.

Ok, same old crappy argment. Athlons or overclocked. Yeah. Of course they are. That would be commercial suicide!

I remember when Pentium 3's ran hotter than a hot day in hotville.

And the celeron's where being sold left right and centre, and over clocked by 100mhz, usually more because everyone knew that the celeron of the time was a chip that was basicly left running slow by intel but could be pushed way higher.

Athlons run hot. That is the deisgn. So what? The new AthlonXP 2600+ runs a WHOLE lot cooler apparently, due to changes in design. Is that overclocked too? Come on people. AMD have got the temperature issue under control now, and with the 400mhz mo'bo's that just came out Intel is going to have a hard job pushing their systems to large scale comuter consumers, ESPECIALLY if the retail sector is forced by government, and it SHOULD BE, to adopt a fair system of measuring perfomance for all CPU's. For example, an independant group that is responsible for testing each processor type on applications and games and giving a "complete whole task" time rating.

Like time taked to render a sepcific object in a specific program.

Intel is ripping people off, because it is misrepresenting it's processors as far faster than the AMD, when it simply is not the case. If I were the CEO of AMD, I would publicly challenge Intel to a televised competition of speed, with each using it's fastest system. Then maybe the average person will have some understanding of the actual facts instead of looking for that near irrelevant MHZ rating. I mean, for someoe who knows next to nothing about computers, MHZ for the CPU, MHZ for the bus speed, MHZ for the RAM, it is all very confusing and the water is becoming muddier by the month! What's gonna happen when serial hard drives come out? We'll be seeing crappy sytems shipped out with serial drives and 128 meg sdram, TNT2 cards and all other basicly outdated slow equpiment, just like I recently saw a p4 2.2ghz machine, 128meg RAM, with TNT2 card? How ridiculous is that! It is taking the P*SS out of the consumer.

Intel are making it big still because of HUGE world dominating exclusive contracts with DELL, COMPAQ and others who supply nearly every computer in every office in the world! You don't often see AMD's in the office, largely because of contractual obligations.

And companies are tied into deals that help dell shift their expensive monitors by forcing companies to take a new monitor when they get a new system so Intel helps Dell, and Dell helps Intel. It happened at my old work. They company had to sell of 1 year old 17 inch IBM monitors for $75 (this was 3 years ago and at that time, $75 was a joke for a 17inch monitor) a pop to the staff because dell forced them to buy new monitors from them along with the systems! I believe they call it corporate greed!

So in summation from all of the above posts we have majority who think AMD is the better of the two, based upon posting input. I feel they are fairly equal and you should look on the upgrade by your needs and pocket book. If you are a gamer than you must consider those factors vs office environment. Consider the fact that the chips are changed or improved every year, and duration you expect to keep prior to another upgrade.

So it seems like Athlon XP only works well with Windows XP. Why the "XP" you ask. I'll just go with Windows ME with P4. I don't want CPU heat & Windows XP incompatability problems.

With quantispeed architecture, it will work equal on any OS, they just say XP, because XP is what people are buying these days.