intel pentium is fast.amd 64 is the fastest. most reliable has to be the pentium. fastest to process data transfer is the intel xenon, due to its pipelines and front side bus. celeron is as crappy as the athlon stability wise.i say go for pentium for price nd reliability or amd 46 for graphics and gaming.mix in that processor with a ge force and u got un beatable graphics
The AMD 64 technically is not the fastest, because it only has a max of 2.2 gigs (or 2.6?). It makes up for this, however, by moving more info at a time (64 compared to the 32s that all other processors are). This means it can pretty much do the job of a 4.4 gig processor, but ONLY WITH 64 BIT PROGRAMS. It has to go much slower with a 32 bit program.
GO for AMD 64 (Clawhammer) if your looking into the future. Otherwise, get a Pent 4 or Athlon XP (Both are pretty much as fast as each other, though there are faster Pent 4s). Just stay the heck away from Celerons.
Screw the AMD 64, almost anything windows related doesn't even take advantage of it. The Celeron is pretty much the P4 with the cache ripped off. P4s run cooler then the Athlons, Athlons crunch numbers great but lack the performance a large on die cache and HT can give you. The FSB speed is also lacking on the Athlons along with the math co-processor. Get a nice board with a good chipset and go for an 800 MHz FSB 1,024 L2 P4 pres.
Athlon is NOT fastest overall, far from it. When p4s are coupled with a great chipset, good FSB, good RAM, and someone who knows how to adjust the core voltage correctly, they work at their full potential and will own an Athlon. Now if you want a real processor go with an Intel Itanium
Itanium? Try again my friend. Itaniums arnt really worth it.
Also, just incase someone is easily presueded, do NOT adjust the core voltage of a processor. This is a bad idea, even if you know how to do it. Core voltage or any other form of 'overclocking' is extremely dangerous to your computer, and isn't even very benificial anymore. If you really needed to fiddle with the processor, than its probably time for an upgrade.
Just to let everyone else in on the Itanium scheme it boasts up to 6 MEGS of onboard cache and uses EPIC parallel 64 bit address architecture. An Intel Itanium 800MHZ/133 6MB Cache 64-Bit CPU will run you about $900.00. We use them in clustered SQL server and database setups to handle terabytes of data at a time. There is nothing like a Quad Itanium EPIC 64-Bit 4U rack mount server with over 25 gigs of RAM my friend. They are just well.... S3XY!
Overclocking is safe? Than why isnt it done standard?
It may be benificial, but we've reached the point were its ridiculious to do. Sure, 6 gigs is nice, but what in gods name am I running (I've seen a p4 run at 6.4 gigs. It required twin liquid cooling system, and no, I dont know how they managed it).
I know 5 people with degrees in computer science, repair, and so forth, and none of them have needed to or tried to overclock since p4s. Its not necessary anymore. But if you feel like laying 200+ dollars down just to feel good, go for it.
And, by the way, there is a good reason why almost no one uses itaniums-Not worth it. Who in the blazes needs that much cache memory?
Oh well, as always, its about preference. I'd rather run a AMD 64 FX than a P4 Extreme Edition, or the cache bulging Itanium. Blah.
I am talking corporate servers and networks here bro, not your local yokel gaming PCs. I don't expect any PC user to have even seen or think about buying a quad Itanium system lol. I am talking about some of our ISP backbone Routers that process Terabytes a second; awesome machines to work on if you get a chance. I still overclock my home P4s above 3 GHz. When running multiple compilers and 3d Grafx applications you need that extra amount of clock speed real quickly. Overclocking is not done standard because why would companies overclock their PCs when they can sell the "higher" clock speed processors for more cash? It's all about the money!! This is why Intel strives SO HARD to lock their CPUs and stop overclockers, they lose money. Providing that you know what you're doing and you keep her cool enough its smooth sailing. A machine that may have been otherwise out dated isn't because of overclocking. Tweaking our PC allows us to use her for all she is worth, then when you can't squeeze anymore cycles out of her go out and upgrade!
You compared the Itanium to 32 bit home processors. Dont pull a John Kerry and start blaming stuff on me.
You sound just like my friends who are constantly trying to open up their Nintendo controllers/systems and complain about the types of screws they use. The keep saying that the use torque screws to keep them from fixing their controllers, when actually its to keep you from doing something stupid.
Intel locks you out so you cant do anything stupid. Believe it or not, most computer companies have learned from IBMs little propritary sprint a few years back (actually before my time). Computer companies usually push for compatability and upgradable components (this is why the have form factors of course). But you have to have limits. Just imagine if Intel made overclocking a valid option-the urge of million of dunderheads to simple crank it up would be a disaster. If any idiot with the inteligence to flip a switch or screw with BIOS could overclock, chips would be roasting left and right. People hate Intel and switch to AMD or, god forbid, VIA (1 gig... shudder).
I still stand by my statement-overclocking is now almost completely obsolete (unless your that computer nut job that actually bought p4 ED).
Anyway... I dont think this is going anywhere. Lets just agree to disagree and let this topic go back to its original question- Celeron or Intel (We can assume he ment P4). And to that I say.
I never compared the Itanium to a 32-bit "home processor". I said if you want a REAL processor then go for an Itanium. That statement was implying people to realize the absolute potential of number crunching power the Itanium processors possess; then for that user to realize its existence is way out of the home PC environment and intended as a pun.
Well back in the day overclocking wasn't as simple as changing some BIOS settings either... Even today to get past some CPU locks you need to modify things (bridging cache) to get your overclocked result. Now if I was to go to a NORMAL PC user and ask him what the BIOS was or how to use it, think they could? From both aspects to protect hardware yes that may be part of it. But if a user even touches the CPU or screws with BIOS settings it voids the warranty and they are stuck buying ANOTHER CPU from the company lol. So both ways the company wins, they make double the profit if a user voids the warranty OR they save money buy not allowing the user to overclock a CPU. Part of the reason MANY people migrate to AMD (other then cost) is because of how EASY it is to overclock their product (the duron); the athlons aren't that much harder either! In a few years from now more process demanding applications will be out and higher end CPUs will exist. 3 GHz processors will be found in standard 700$ computer packages. The need to overclock may not pose as a benefit now to the average user. But in a few years when you may want that extra processing power and your hardware is "Out of date" it does have a nice advantage!! I can't get enough number crunching power personally for my needs; I wish I had an Itanium cluster in my house ! Agreed to disagree.
Corporate Guy
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Why would anyone want a noisey itanium cluster in their house?? Do you live in a data centre or something?
AMD 64 Bit would be your best option if you know what your doing. I have a 64 bit and i love it, i leave my computer on 24/7, and i can use it for anything, i play any game there is, and i also use it to edit movies and such. With a good motherboard, this processor will beat anything out there. And yes, it can be over clocked too. While overclocking seems to be useless, it can help, but it actually is not good for the processor. It kills the life it. Which is why its sold at the speed of the car. Its kind like a car engine, if you supe it up to make it faster, it kills the engine over enough time. Overclocking makes the processor less reliable which is why the company wants to lock it. They don't want people to give there processors a bad name because they tried to over clock them, and fried them. Also, if you are intent on overclocking, make sure you know what your doing, or you might as well light $400 on fire. If you overclock and fry your processor, you can't return it. Now, as for pentium 4's, there good for average and other people. They are easy to install, and will run all the current software without a hitch (64 bit does too). Now, just because you buy a p4 3.6 doesn't mean your computer is going to run faster than someone elses 2.6ghz. It all depends on the setup, and how much bandwidth can get through to the ram and motherboard and back through the processor and harddrive. If you don't know how to build a computer, your best bet is to buy a top of the line model from your favorite computer vendor ( Dell, HP, Toshiba, IBM) are all good names. Try to stay away from no name brands and compaq has alot of problems, (bad mobos, p/s) and they don't have great tech support. If you do know how to make your own computer, then i'd highly recommend any of the 64 bit family processors. They start at about $180 and run upwards of $900. However you can get complete systems at HP that have 64 bits in them, and so does alienware.
Good luck with deciding. Oh, and one more thing. STAY AWAY FROM CELERON!!! they are cheap and they do not have the stablity of a p3.
Alright, I'm not gonna lie to you all here, but I know about computers, just not as much as you lot. However I would like to get up to your 'standard' of knowledge. Personally Id rather have a 64bit AMD to any Intel but WHAT IS OVERCLOCKING? I can gather its something to do with almost overpowering something to affect ure pc performance wise, but what exactly is it? I have a AMD Athlon thats about 4-5 years old i think now and its served me pretty well although it is a little noisy. It runs a 1.10 ghz (out of 1.11ghz) which is the peak but i think this overclocking business can change all this right...tell me how i can modify my comp and make it faster guys..
Over clocking is when you speed the processor up. However, your motherboard and processor need to be compatible. You also need to make sure that your fan is strong enough for faster speeds, otherwise the CPU will get too hot and fry. If your AMD is 4-5 years old, you might want to invest in a new computer..
But if your bent on getting faster speeds out of your current one, i'd suggest maxing out the RAM first, because this makes the biggest difference in perforamce. If your going to overclock you need to know some basic things. For one thing, over clocking is making the processor "think" faster, or in tech terms, your upping the voltage to the proccesor which will make the clock cycle faster. However be warned, alot of peoeple don't know how to properally overclock and end up frying something. New motherboards have heat sensors on them that know when the board and CPU is getting too hot, they will turn off the computer. If yours doesn't have this, i would not suggest overclocking.
To overclock, you need to go into your BIOS and change some settings. You will need to change the clock cycle, which goes up by 1 mhz. Now, be warned, when you up this, it will shorten the length of the life of the CPU. Its pumping alot more power through it then it is recommended for. You should experiment with different speeds. If you have a larger fan on your CPU, you can get away with a lot, however, if its stock, you can probably only get up to about 10-15 mhz more without problems. This wouldn't be bad in your case, it'd make your CPU a 1.2ghz.
A 1.2 ghz CPU with maxed out ram, for your case will probably be about a gig will make your computer alot faster and you will see it.
*Will excessive overclocking shorten the life of the processor? Yes it will but processors CAN run absolutely 100% fine above the locked limit to a certain degree. This is due to companies needing to GURANTEE this processor can run at the posted speed.
*Are computer brands such as Dell, Toshiba, & IBM really good? Dell I do not like and IBM believe it or not has several faulty hardware problems (I'm contracted for the IBM corporate office in upstate Fishkill NY) and deal with them daily. While the more expensive stuff (top end) is good id stay away from any of the T series tops and their HDs and PWSs. As far as Toshiba goes -- they are alright & HP actually makes some good high end models as well.
*Eric has listed partial information regarding overclocking & I will add on and elaborate further.
Overclocking 101:
One thing you forgot to mention was what core voltage alteration does for overclocking. On a very short note excessive heat caused by overclocking creates a poor environment for electric current conduction inside the CPU. Maintaining the core voltage pre-set for the CPU imposes limits on how much you can actually overclock; even though you may have seemed to reach the limit your core can handle higher but not running at that particular core voltage. So how do we stop the CPU's current hungry components from b!tching? THATS RIGHT! We then would increase the core voltage there by increasing conductivity and stability at that temperature with in the CPU. Now cool your CPU extremely well and you take away this heat there by increasing conductivity (electric potential) allowing a higher speed to be run.
As I stated above each processor can be run past its "locked" state just fine to a certain point. BUT nothing is exactly identical so where this line sits can vary from CPU to CPU. Due to this variable this is why CPUs are locked at such a limit - knowing the CPU can very well operate at this level of performance.
Lets take a look at the following equation:
"Front Side Bus speed x Clock Multiplier = clock speed"
So reading that we now have discovered there are essentially 2 ways to go about overclocking a CPU. The company and even the particular chip is what decides what part of this equation you are going to change to achieve a higher speed. The multiplier is the best and most safe way to perform an overclock - changing the multiplier settings essentially ONLY effects the CPU and not the entire system unlike increasing the bus speed which has the opposite effect. How ever clock locked CPUs have a hard wired multiplier and are impossible to overclock using that method - there is however methods of exploiting design flaws to allow this multipliers state to be altered (connecting bridges etc..). Ok so we can't mess with the multiplier - on to the other half of the equation (the FSB). How we go about altering your FSB speed is entirely dependant on your motherboard; this may be done through BIOS or through physical alterations of jumpers on the board itself. But unlike altering our multiplier increased FSB DOES effect all the components of the computer and your hardware must be able to support this increase at a cool stable level with in it's limits. One important thing when overclocking not to forget is latency rates from slower hardware responses. If your hardware can not keep up at a stable rate then there really is no point to overclocking because the lag time makes up the difference you would have gained. An example of this lag time would be your RAM's column access time, Graphics card abilities, virtual memory utilization (this is where eric's statement about maxing your RAM comes in), and other obvious reasoning. Due to excessive heat generation you must be able to sufficiently compensate for this change with good cooling hardware to retain stability and decrease the risk of any damage.
tanner you are actually wrong about computers coming out stock. alienware sells computers that are overclocked using liquid cooling. i have read that AMD is actually very behind Intel in chip technology. AMDs run at noticably higher core temperatures than comparable pentiums due to the fact they need to run them at higher speeds to compete with pentiums. its similar to comparing japanese cars to german cars. you rarely see a german car with a red line of 8000 rpm and max hp above 6000 where as many japanese cars have red lines in excess of 7000 with max hp coming at over 6000. that is a very big generalization so dont bother to attack me for it but im sure people understand what i am trying to get at. pentiums are known to be much more stable then AMDs. oh....and tanner, ask the common computer user to find the BIOS with no help, or even the motherboard. most people dont know a damn thing about computers so overclocking really is the domain of atleast experienced computer users.
Christopher, your info is a bit out of date. Currently, as of all the articles I've seen, Intels run hotter (Extremes and top line P4's) compared to the new AMD 64s. Now, I don't know about the older Athlons and such, but between the top two processors of today, AMD has a huge advantage in cooling (Cool and Quiet helps ALOT). Just look at the BTX board: designed specifically so your P4 doesn't burn a hole through your case.
I (Tanner) would like to apologize about my before statements. Quite frankly, I'd like to retract them. I've learned quite alot and know more then a do now, so I know I'm wrong on many points.
well for one thing chris, i own both a german car and a japanese car and i can tell you that you should stick to something else besides cars and computers. For one thing, yes german cars may have more horsepower because they are built for the autobahn,at lower RPM's. However, japanese cars can produce the same amount of horsepower at a higher RPM's, because they are built with a higher powerband. Big deal, its not even about horsepower anymore.
BUT.. this isn't a car forum is it?
Back to computers, AMD is alot better and just as stable as a pentium is. I own both of those too, and i will say pentium does do some things faster, but my 64 bit AMD will never bog down, and is much better for playing games and such that requires alot of hardcore processing. Also, AMD has a bigger powerband for processing RAM processes, so it "thinks" faster than a pentium. It also doesn't run any hotter than my pentium, if anything my pentium runs alot hotter than my AMD.
well i never said i was an expert on either so you can swallow you pride back down eric. i was giving information that i had read though it may be outdated. there is no need to put me down. i honestly dont know much about the chips themselves and only have surface information from again what i have read. but since i dont know anything about cars or computers i should bow down and rush to you for advice right?
fine, since u are the god of computers i guess i should not bother anymore. it was nice trying to make a contribution to a section of this forum full of @ssholes, or just u.
Im no super expert in computing but I would personally say that AMDs are all round better performers, especially in gaming. The older AMDs are reliable, however nowhere near as reliable and 'extendable' in terms of overclocking ad the new ones. I have a 1.1ghz AMD thunderbird which really doesn't like to be overclocked as I've tried it but I installed half life 2 yesterday and plays surprisingly well for a computer thats under the minimum system requirements. I do really need to get that new 64 bit AMD i was on about though! Intels and AMDs will keep battling for the better place with each performing better at certian things, but new tricks and technology will always come out. Havn't Intel just released their first 64 bit processor? And for the Celeron part of Intel well they suck apart from the wireless capability...but I'm sure theres many more wireless solutions on the market! I can't see how with AMD 64 bit a higher fsb can have its downsides though? This is one of the main architectural features with the 64 bit range having around 2ghz fsb compared to Intels measly 600mhz.
INTEL MAKES CELERON. Intel and amd are the same. Neither are better for the money up to the 3000+ . Anything beyone 2800+ is a tad faster than equivalent intel. I run a 3500+ thats faster than an fx-55 could ever be. All depends in how much you know, how much muney you have and how much u want to change. Amd requires new mobo.
Tim. no. Amd and intel are too completely different companies for one thing. Another thing is that the ghz you see doesn't mean much any more. 64 bit processors have 2 times as many pins as a 32 bit, hence, 64. Which would mean that when the processor is computing, it has twice as many pins, making it in theroy, twice as fast as it would be stated. So, say you have the fx-55 clocked at 2 ghz, even though they come at 2.2 or higher. But say its at 2. Well when its computing infromation, its actually running at 4 ghz, but windows can't handle this because the software isn't written for 64 bit, which is why there is a new windows coming out for 64 bit. So don't be bashing on the 64 until you know more about it. Amd doesn't require a "new" motherboard, it requires one thats made for it. Intel does too. No motherboards are interchangeable between the two.
Now, on the matter of 32 bit. The processors don't run the same. I can tell you that the AMD's will run hotter no matter what your doing, and that the intels won't be as good if your into editing video or playing alot of games. Processors are designed for different purposes, like the centrino is for wireless, amd is more for gaming and video editing, and intel is more of a common used processor. Interesting enough, Apple uses the 64 bit in there computer, so it must be doing something right ;)
Oh, by the way, celerons aren't bad if your not using them for extensive video editing or playing games. If you need a cheap computer for doing papers or just as a business computer, they're fine. I would expect more from you since your an IT and all, you should know these things.
Actually What I said was right. Even with hyper threading technology it still dosent make intel more efficient. Hyper threading only works for certain apps that are made for it. Alot arent. Just like am with the 64, w/o programs to benefit from it it isnt used much, there for making both even. Hense intel being better at some apps than amd, and amd better on some apps, intel with some games etc. So when it comes down to it there all comparable. Even though amd dosent have a direct competiting chip to the intel celeron, amd is releasing a new chip shortly that will put major heat on intel with their celeron. Also just to clarify this now, since I know someone will bring it up sometime. Intel IS releasing its dure core this year and AMD is also releasing their dual core. (amd fx-55,fx-53 will stay single core)
Lol sorry i know intel and amd are diff companies. Lol i just realized it. I was pretty drunk when i typed it and i apologize. My second imput fixed it i think
Guys, overclocking is not just bumping up core voltage. Upping the FSB speed and the multiplier make your processor run faster; it then requires a higher voltage to run stable, as does the memory and AGP/PCI bus, which will be running faster than their native 66/33 Mhz. Increasing the front side bus speed also stresses the memory, which is why, when the PC133 spec was the standard, manufacturers like Mushkin and Crucial (high-end) were making PC150 SDRAM: it used the same I/O standard, but was certified to run up to 150 Mhz and sometimes beyond.
The decision of which processor architecture, speed, and chipset to buy requires far more information than can be supplied in a coherent post. Do some reading, ask the geek at your local computer store, then go shopping.
And everybody else who was ranting about who's processor can beat up whose: get bent. I have a 3.06G 1M p4 in the laptop which runs lean to save battery life, a 3.6G 2M OC'd to 4.2 in the desktop, and quad PIII Xeon 550 1M's in the server for web services and storage, and all three do exactly what I need them to do: powersaving mobility, bad-a$$ gaming, and reliable storage. Arguing on a message board is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still a retard.
Some random geek, I dont have time to check all my spelling and typing, Same with alot of other peeps in here. So dont complain, I can type good when I want, just a forum dosent matter, Like you said.... Its a forum.
O and a q, What interface Hard drives do you use on your server. Also what os. Just curious.
David Jones, Jr
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Hello:
Does anyone have any ideas whether there will be any difference in the speed when you work with large database analysis between Intel Pentium 4 2.8 gHz (desktop) compared to Intel M 1.86 GHz (laptop)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Yes, ok, to start off, laptops generally are alot slower than desk tops. @nd look at the speed. Almost a 1 ghz boost. SO not only does the desktop have a faster cpu, it also has a bigger psu, hense desktops being faster than any laptop. End of story. Laptops will never be as fast as a desktop, due to space. Use the desktop.
Desktop will out perform the laptop cuz the lap top uses shared memory. For everything. The cpu is more effiecinet, but the memory situation is horrible on laptops. The video memory is shared with the ram. So its hard to even compare them. The desktop normally wil be faster if it is within a ghz of eatch other with the same amount of ram. Now if the laptop has more ram it mite be faster, but, if it does not, the desktop will normally out perform a lap top with most apps. Ive had 1 ghz desktop be faster than a 3 ghz laptop, it all depends on setup, config, os, what you have enabled/running, and how much juice u got feedin thru the psu. Id still take the desktop. Personally, i think laptops ar good, for portability. Thats it. There is not a laptop on earth that will outperform all desktops. Like i said, laptops have to much space limitation.
and o may i add, Amd still has the fastest cpu. its off subject now, but hey all good. Intel evenw ith their dual core comming out, my fx-55 will still put the smack down them. go amd, well intel if u on a server, amd if u do anything media wise.
I have an Athlon 64 3000+ processor. Anyone in here think it's any good. I must say, I am pleased with it, but will probably upgrade in a couple of years or so. Works really well with my Pinnacle video editing.
So the question should be now which is best - Celeron, P4 or the new Dual-Core which is supposed to have much greater performance and run much cooler than its predecessors. Any of the gurus here want to enlighten us?
I have a AMD 64 3000+ OC to 2.8 Ghz. Got the most bang for my money and I am sure my system would beat a lot of Intel machines quite easily At least, running 64 bit windows is better off on this platform as it can also run 32 bit program natively, unlike Intel.
...wow this thread is really annoying. AMD is by far, ahead of intel R&D and has been for some time now. And as far as server processors they are ahead of them too. But honestly if we are talking servers we're talking more of bandwidth capability and application. And moreover if you wanna talk tiers. intel and amd are on the bottom rung, Sun has been making ultra sparc II for years and they have been full 64bit machines but then again most people have no idea what I am talking about here.
So which is better. For the price AMD, for performance AMD. EXCEPT in certain cases. Intel will always be better at video encoding and AMD is a better multitasking, gaming cpu. Also Intel's run hotter then AMDs and require bigger heatsinks. So basically lets break it down:
AMD FX60: the best and fastest for the consumer
Pentuim D 550: Best for overclocking at the moment, a $130 processor that will go to 4 ghz stable!
AMD AMD2: best bang for your buck
Sun Ultra Sparc II: still the best server processor made.
and celerons are the most unreliable cpus ever made except for the first and second gen AMD chips.
So basically if you want the best go AMD, not to say that you can't make a nice system with a pentium 4, its just a lot more expensive for what you get.
When Intel makes processors they come from one big sheet and are cut individually from the one sheet. After testing each proc, the fastest and most stable are labeled Pentium and the lesser quality ones get the Celeron label. So which do you think would be better.
PC World Magazine or Maximum PC magazine I can't remember which but its true. The sheet they make would be for say 3.2 gig procs and the ones that are excellent get labeled P4 3.2ghz and the ones that are not quite up to the task get labeled Celeron 3.2ghz. Not that the Celerons are no good, they just don't meet the standards for the pick of the crop.
AMD does the same thing with there XP and Duron line a while ago, now its XP64 and Sempron. I read somewhere that the XP2500+ was made from a batch of procs that was meant to be XP3200+, because demand was so low on the 3200 when it first came out, and thats why they overclock so well.
I should clarify that last statement or someone might visualize a big sheet of processors with cores and chips being cut from the sheet. The sheet is a big wafer with the silicon surface having been produced on it. The quality of this surface and its conductivity determines how fast a circuit and chip can be incorporated on to it. The surface is not completely uniform and some of the procs made from it will perform better than others and there is the split of Pentium and Celeron.
Both processor are good. But I think celeron is slower comparison to pantium.. Definitely it saves your battery life but if game are an issue then a Pentium is the way to go.
it's too late to reply on this thread but the conversation is very helpful & informative good going guys. personly I suggest Intel is more powerful fast as compare to Celeron
