🚀 go-pugleaf

I draw the opposite conclusion. AMD is the clear winner in any performance
for value equation.

The numbers on the Athlon XP refer to the comparable speed of the older
Athlon Thunderbird cpus. In other words, AMD is saying that an XP 1600+
would perform as well as a Thunderbird clocked at 1.6 ghz.

If you do any reading at the many hardware sites that review cpus and
compare benchmarks, you'll find that the XPs also generally outperform a
Pentium IV at the rated speed. An XP 1600+ will outrun a P4 1.6 in a
majority of games and benchmarks, and the same holds true all the way up the
line.

One good comparison of the XP and P4 at a variety of clock speeds can be
found at http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q4/011031/index.html. Although
it was written a few months back, the conclusions are still valid. You can
find similar reviews and conclusions at www.anandtech.com


It is dangerous and simplistic to assume that higher numbers on a cpu label
mean higher performance. The key to the Athlon's success is that it
accomplishes more work in the same clock cycle. The Pentium IV, meanwhile,
was specifically designed for higher clock speeds -- and some say that
engineering compromises based on marketing decisions kept if from being as
good as it could have been. The theory is that Intel felt that when the
average computer customer walked into a store and saw a P4 running at 2
gigahertz and an Athlon running at 1.6, they would assume that the P4 was
faster -- whether it really was or not.

In fact, if you compare them at exactly the same speed, the P4 finishes
third in performance behind the Athlon and the Pentium III !!! There is a
fair amount of evidence to support that conclusion, if you care to wade
through some geek speak at http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm

"Ari Oppenheimer" <ak79@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:3c9213fc.0@news1.mweb.co.za...
> Hi,
> I've noticed that the new AMD Proccessors are call XP 1600, XP 1700, XP
1800
> etc, but the actual speed of the XP 1600 for example is only 1.4 GHz.
>
> Now does this compare to a P4 1.6Ghz or a P4 1.4Ghz. Also, consider the
fact
> the the P4 runs at a 400Mhz bus. To me it seems as if Intel comes out as
the
> sure winner over here. After all it seems as if P4 1.6Ghz is better than
AMD
> 1.4Ghz,.
>
> Please let me know if my deduction is right, or should I go for the AMD
>
> Thanks
>
>