have any body realised how much athlon xps suck copared to p4s in my opinion amd sould just pack up and get out of the bussiness now because there is just nothing that thay can do to catch up to the might of INTEL

should remind you of 3 things:
1- the comparison between P4 and Athlon xp, is based on RDRAM for P4 and DDR for athlon xp. this two kinds of memory are very different in prices and it's not fair to compare this two CPUs like this. I wish i could see a comparison by same memory for both CPUs.
2- unless you need the extreme performance you should go for the price/performance comparison. so instead of P4(2533)Vs Athlon 2600+ you should look for the P4 processor which has the same price as the athlon and then compare them.
for example you can find Athlon 2000+ for US$91 but you can't buy even P4 1.3GHZ(US$150) or P4 1.5 socket478(US$102)are higher in price (prices based on pricewatch.com on 29/8/02) .It's clear which one you should buy, unlese you have unlimited budget.
3- one of the major problems now is in the VIA chipsets that don't have a good memory(DDR) interfaec. the only chipset that has good performance for VIA is KT266a that just supports up to DDR2100 and is old and poor featured comparing to new chipsets.

I believe it's not like what you said. now AMD needs good chipset and motherboards more than ever, If the mobo makers can provide them then nothing will be wrong with the ATHLON XP.

(my English isn't good and there could be some mistakes. I apologize for them)

Now, either you work for Intel or you haven't been out for a while. I consider the XP more powerful than the P4. What makes the XP look inferior is the limitation of FSB and memory bandwidth. Imagine the damage if an XP should run on a 533Mhz FSB rather than 266Mhz and that memory bandwidth is 4200 rather than 2100.
Now THAT would run Intel out of business (CPU business that is).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of any the two, but evidence shows that under the same limitations, XP would outrun P4. On top of that, XP is much cheaper than P4.
Of course, AMD doesn't have the bottomless resources Intel has. So surely you must realize how good they are just to keep up.


<font color=red>If you feel like going to work today, just lie down and it'll go away.</font color=red><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Oracle on 08/29/02 08:44 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

Ignorant or just plain stupid remark???

Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.

CLS
PRINT "Yes, yes...Intel is best."

FOR A=0 TO ONEZILLION

PRINT "Then AMD will release a processor that crushes Intels to smithereens."
PRINT "After awhile Intel will release a new processor to counter and they will once again be best."

NEXT A

PRINT "Point taken?, pointless argument"
END


<font color=red>My computer sucks ass</font color=red>

He is an idiot, just ignore his post so he will go away.

<font color=blue>Unofficial Forum Cop</font color=blue>

You guys have it all wrong.

AMD and Intel are nothing but peons compared to the real CPU giant...VIA!

It's only a matter of time before the C4 will be released at reach amazing speeds of 1.4ghz!!!

Muhahahahahahaha

<font color=purple><i>Smokey McPot - Your Baby's Daddy</i></font color=purple>

Sure, probably a kid that don't know to speak and write very well. And no base at all, just his biased opinion. Poor boy.

DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!

First off, for all thoes who keep blaming AMD's poor performance on the via chipset and ddr vs rdram issues this is what I have to say.

Here's a metaphor for you, say an AMD is a car, the engine (cpu) is amazing like all the AMD fanboys like to say it is. The only problem is the wheels (lets say the wheels is the chipset) have no tires, and there's a very very small gas tank (ddr ram). Lets compare this to Intel where the engine is great, wheels have tires and it has a huge fuel tank. So would you buy the car with everything equipped? or would you buy the car that has a GREAT ENGINE AND SUPER CHEAP! but the rest of it is handicapped? You can't just keep blaming the rest of the parts as the reason why AMD is behind, it's the whole package or nothing in my mind.

Are you AMD fanboys buying for AMD the chip only? or for the whole deal? Personally I'd buy for what would give me the best performance overall, not just one section.

As for my preference obviously I like Intel, but I TOTALLY disagree with the poster who I think is completely ignorant. It's thanks to AMD that Intel (and vice versa) are pushing each other to the limit in terms of technological advances. Because they keep pushing each other not only do WE the user benefit from fast and faster cpu's but CHEAPER AND CHEAPER cpu's. Thus in the end, who benefits? The user with faster and cheaper chips. So to the orangewolf, don't bother posting if you're going to make ignorant posts.


Cooj

<i> I am ignorant no more! </i>

Oi, who's stealing my VIA jokes?

The VIA chipsets are shoddy just now. I'm waiting for a nice new one that's top notch before I upgrade again.

AMD Is An Anagram Of MAD, Intel Is An Anagram Of INLET, Cyrix...Ah Who Cares?

Okay, my first impulse was to just flame the idiotic troll, orangewolf. After all, it was a pretty ignorant post.

But then I started reading the replies and thought to myself "Dang, those are also some rather ignorant replies." Not all, but some.

First let me point out that the VIA chipset is <i>not</i> to blame. AMD's own chipsets hardly performed any better. Further, even with <b>dual-channel</b> solutions from nVidia (who worked closely with AMD to design them) the Athlon <i>still</i> doesn't run any better.

So if <b>no one</b> (including AMD themselves) can develop a chipset to give the AXP more bandwidth, than appearantly it <i>isn't</i> the chipset that is to blame, but the <i>CPU</i>.

Secondly, nothing that AMD can ever do, including increasing their CPU's bandwidth, is ever going to make a 'P4 killer'. Why? Because the inherant design of the P4 itself still has a <b>lot</b> of room to for improvement. All Intel would have to do to is make a few core improvements, and violla, a P4 that can stand up to anything from AMD with very little effort.

Intel is appearantly into just making money and remaining a non-monopoly by keeping AMD alive and kicking and always having a more expensive, but better performing solution. AMD is appearantly into just making money by producing cheap mid-range CPUs that at best match an Intel CPU, but for less cash.

So in conclusion: AMD doesn't want to be the best, and Intel doens't want to be a monopoly. So long as both companies hold the same view, neither will <i>ever</i> have a CPU that drastically outperforms the other's. Not because they couldn't, but simply because it isn't in the best interest to even try.

The sooner you realize that, the sooner you realize that this whole AMD vs. Intel crap is completely and totally meaningless.

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>

*wonders if his reply was idiotic...*


Cooj

<i> I am ignorant no more! </i>

*wonders if the guy's even here* this looks like a hit and run post.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.

Why is it that XPs are compared to P4s running 800mhz faster then get put down because it got beat by a cpu running nearly 1ghz faster? I like both intel and amd, im just wondering why they don't compare them equally.

im a newbie so go easy on me <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Henry8866 on 08/29/02 12:19 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

I point you twords the Linux Kernel compiling benchmark... Not everyone runs a shotty ass Microsoft OS.. Look how much better AMD is for software development! Maby Intel should only sell to runny nosed 3d gamers, and leave the real x86 processing to AMD.. heheh...

Next time you throw out flame bate, try to be a little less obvious.

Say, what version of DOS is on this sparc thingie?