Aqua-Soft ForumsI've haved AMD and INTEL systems.
You're not gonna see one run crazy faster then the other. I think what it all boils down to is.
Do you like the underdog; or the champ?
Amd Or Intel
really though, we don't benchmark computers--we use them. for all intents and purposes, amd is just as good as intel. the marginal difference between them for gaming, for photoediting, or whatever, probably isn't enough to warrant hardheaded opinions or big decisions. i mean, when you're using it, can you really tell the difference between comparable chips?
i myself have an amd because the intel premium is just too much for a college student. it's comparable performance at a lower price.
Originally posted by dreamz@Nov 15 2003, 12:27 AMi myself have an amd because the intel premium is just too much for a college student. it's comparable performance at a lower price.
EXACTLY!
What's the difference between the two? At the *MOST* a few hundred milliseconds? Nothing noticible by the human mind. Neither of the chips is gonna offer you 4-5 seconds reponse time over the other. On top of all that, if you use gentoo, or download binaries complied for your specific processor, you'll really notice no difference. I run FireBird as my primary browser; and I download builds compiled for P4 with SSE2, and it runs 5x as fast as default builds built for anyone and everyone.
I have to admit though, I have a laptop which is a 1.8ghz, 2 desktops which are 1.7ghz, and also a 1.8ghz P4. All intel. My power supply to my AMD computer died and Im too lazy and cheap to replace it. But, hoenstly, don't worry about your processor. Worry abotut your motherbord, and your amount of ram. The PC i'm posting this from is a 1.8ghz, and it ran like sh¡t until I added some more ram. Honestly, it ran like a 486 when i only had a 128mb of ram in it. I hated getting on it. I upgraded it to 384mb of PC2100 ram, and now it runs like a *BRAND*NEW* PC.
Originally posted by Deleted@Nov 15 2003, 05:34 AMEXACTLY!
What's the difference between the two? At the *MOST* a few hundred milliseconds? Nothing noticible by the human mind. Neither of the chips is gonna offer you 4-5 seconds reponse time over the other. On top of all that, if you use gentoo, or download binaries complied for your specific processor, you'll really notice no difference. I run FireBird as my primary browser; and I download builds compiled for P4 with SSE2, and it runs 5x as fast as default builds built for anyone and everyone.
I have to admit though, I have a laptop which is a 1.8ghz, 2 desktops which are 1.7ghz, and also a 1.8ghz P4. All intel. My power supply to my AMD computer died and Im too lazy and cheap to replace it. But, hoenstly, don't worry about your processor. Worry abotut your motherbord, and your amount of ram. The PC i'm posting this from is a 1.8ghz, and it ran like sh¡t until I added some more ram. Honestly, it ran like a 486 when i only had a 128mb of ram in it. I hated getting on it. I upgraded it to 384mb of PC2100 ram, and now it runs like a *BRAND*NEW* PC.
very good points... either chips are good and there is not gonna be any noticeable difference..
it just bothers me when people are uneducated about processors and think that because let's say a 2500 (again) runs at 1.8ghz that a P4 or celeron running at 2.3ghz or even 2.4ghz will blow it away because it's 500mhz faster, and that is not the truth...
i understand that benchmarks mean nothing to most people... but when purchasing a new pc, especially a cpu and mobo, a person should be educated in what they are purchasing instead of buying something because it's got a big number. So to the topic starter i would suggest you read some reviews or benchmarks and make your decision based on what you are going to use it for and how much performance you wish to achieve, not based on the cool Ghz #
Edit: and btw, you are right on the money about the ram and mobo being important. Without a large amount of ram either system will run like crap. And definitly do your research on a good motherboard for either cpu. I just purchased my new amd 2500 with an Abit NF7-S v2, after about a month of reading reviews and such on all items... and i think i made the best decision i could have.
Originally posted by dreamz@Nov 15 2003, 05:27 AMreally though, we don't benchmark computers--we use them. for all intents and purposes, amd is just as good as intel. the marginal difference between them for gaming, for photoediting, or whatever, probably isn't enough to warrant hardheaded opinions or big decisions. i mean, when you're using it, can you really tell the difference between comparable chips?
i myself have an amd because the intel premium is just too much for a college student. it's comparable performance at a lower price.
My freinds P4 2.4c at stock renders images about 1.5x faster then my 2600@ a PR of 3400. Makes a big diffrence when your render takes an hour. HT is nice when you can use it, awfully nice.
Speed isnt what sets the two companies apart.
Check out some reviews from some major sites (not intel or amd's site), and decide which one is best for you. I doubt anyone here has enough first hand experience between the two companies to give a real good, unbiased opinion. Most people cant even afford a computer in general, let alone to own two top of the line computers to compare against eachother. Few of us will be able to give a good argument with first hand evidence to back it up and very few have the experience and knowledge to really understand whats different between the two companies and which ones best. And im sure the answer isnt crystal clear, black and white. Take a pro's opinion.
Well that`s why i`m asking u guys 
Anyway, i think i`m going with XP 2500 or 2800 with a good nForce2 (nForce3?) Asus or Abit MB with a bunch of 1Gb DDRAM 400Mhz
I just don`t think that the performance difference will be THAT noticable but the ammounts of cash will be. And an OC is always an option
Thank you all for great replys 
PS Thanks for not turning this into a war, i just wanted to know real user experiences
I'm saying make your own decision based on the evidence given by trustworthy sources, not a forum. Do the research. The results are obvious. And if you look at the actual prices, theres usually only a 30-60 dollar difference which isnt much in the long run. So just pick the best processor. It's likely that it wont be that much more expensive if not cheaper than the other ones you're consider. Try Price Watch for shopping for all your necessary parts.
Originally posted by Chi Chi Rodriguez@Nov 15 2003, 11:42 AMI'm saying make your own decision based on the evidence given by trustworthy sources, not a forum. Do the research. The results are obvious. And if you look at the actual prices, theres usually only a 30-60 dollar difference which isnt much in the long run. So just pick the best processor. It's likely that it wont be that much more expensive if not cheaper than the other ones you're consider. Try Price Watch for shopping for all your necessary parts.
Well put.
The problem with forums (not necessarily A-S, but you do still get it), is that "fanboys" (I hate that word <_< ) can be as vocal (if not moreso) than any other sane person...
Personally, I'm on an Athlon XP 1800+, and it's not been too bad for the amount of time I've had it... But I'm still aiming to buy my God Box...
Hi, please read this informative website and quit arguing about it 
Originally posted by Unbeliever@Nov 15 2003, 03:29 AMWell that`s why i`m asking u guys
Anyway, i think i`m going with XP 2500 or 2800 with a good nForce2 (nForce3?) Asus or Abit MB with a bunch of 1Gb DDRAM 400Mhz
I just don`t think that the performance difference will be THAT noticable but the ammounts of cash will be. And an OC is always an option
Thank you all for great replys
PS Thanks for not turning this into a war, i just wanted to know real user experiences
If you want to choose between a 2500 and a 2800, save a few dollars and go with the 2500. You will NOT notice any difference in preformance. Although, many people will say yes you will, or the companies make it seem faster, you won't.
Look at the MoBo's that you want and whatever has what you want (IEEE 1394, USB 2.0, DDR-RAM, 8X AGP, X#'s of PCI, Max MB RAM) for less, go with it. I have heard positive things for both companies. Also, take a look at this site for AMD products. http://www.amdmb.com .
Originally posted by wizard@Nov 15 2003, 10:19 AMIf you want to choose between a 2500 and a 2800, save a few dollars and go with the 2500. You will NOT notice any difference in preformance. Although, many people will say yes you will, or the companies make it seem faster, you won't.
and also, the 2500 is easily overclockable i've heard, so you'll get maybe 3000+ performance for a 2500+ price.
Im thinking of getting a 2800 processor, why cant this one be as easily overclocked? i mean, why 2500 and not 2800?
Thanx for the explanation...
I think it was something about how that certain processor was wired. I know my BIOS lets me overclock without having to even crack open my case.
arre you guys just icreasing the FSB or also playing with the voltage?
well, i mean, 2500 is cheaper than 2800, and you can get at least 2800+ performance with overclocking, so why not just get the cheaper chip and get it up to 3000+? i think that's what a lot of people do.
as for voltages, i'm not an overclocker, but i think changing the voltages helps to maintain stability.
You change the multiplier in the BIOS to overclock Seph, that's the best way of doing it.
Thanx for the answer Wizard... but then, back to my other part of the question, getting a 2800 if i overclock it, would i be able to go over 3200?
Most likley they use the same chipset. The ones that you see on the market are modified a little, very little, so they are stable to run slightly higher than the previous chip. Theoretically it will go a little higher, but then again that is not always true.
Here is a web-site devoted to this kind of stuff from overclocking CPU's to memory.
Edit: More specifically to AMD processors
Originally posted by bubbabyte@Nov 15 2003, 03:44 AMAlthough you have an AMD at 2.2ghz and your bro has a p4 at 2ghz... they are definitly not equal... an amd, let's say 2500, is "roughly" about equal to a 2.5ghz P4...even though it's only like 1.8ghz...it's much faster than a p4.
Now depending on what kind of amd chip you have.. and how overclocked it is...that may be your heat issue. I've had a amd 2000 with a volcano 7 fan and it was running at about 50C idle... which was bad, but it was just a hot chip which a not so great fan. Now as where i have the much improved 2500 chip.. even at overclocked, my load temps are way lower then my old idle temps and i have a great, solid fan.
I'm guessing if you are running at 2.2ghz you either have a 3200 or a lower chip that is overclocked way too much... if not then maybe just a solid hsf.
@bubbabyte
I think you got the wrong end of the stick and maybe the semantics of my original post are to blame:
My CPU is an AMD Athlon XP 2100+ (1.73 GHz) "Thoroughbred B" (AIUHB) that is the official name of it as it comes bubblewrapped. I bought it from here. Additionally, I have not overclocked my CPU as I don't feel the need to.
My Brother has the Intel P4 2Ghz Northwood from the same site. Actually we ended up buying 15 of these as they were done for a good price 
.
I know I stated in my original post that I had a AMD XP 2.1Ghz+, when in fact it should have read AMD XP 2100+.
I apologise. :moon:
I totally understand the intricacies of AMD's marketing strategy of moving away from playing the 'Number Game', in fact, I think it was long overdue. The 'Number Game' allowed second-rate computer manufacturers to get away with putting together cheap, nasty and badly built systems just as long as they slapped a big number on the front.
What I was trying to convey to the topic-starter (I'm cursing him as I type ) is that there are OTHER factors to take into consideration such as NOISE and HEAT.
As computers are increasingly used in the home, and left on for longer periods, noise pollution is important. The issue that I was trying to highlight with AMD chips is that they tend to run hotter than Intel chips (before anyone sees this as flame bait, I actually got that from Tom's Hardware so take it up with them). As such, you have a trade off between heat and noise.
That is all I was trying to say.
Also notice I finished up with:
IMHO go for Intel if the things that bother me, bother you, otherwise save some money for those other things in life and go with AMD.
most notably:
IMHO - In my humble opinion
If the things that bother me bother you.
I hope this clarifies any lingering issues 
peace out (I've always wanted to say that!)
@Wizard - Thanks for the links, ive been reading them now...
@Everyone - I dont think (afdter going trough reviews at tomshardware) that we can compare the x000 numbers in the AMD's with their equivalent speed in Intel processors...
As it has been said before, you really need to make sure if the extra money you will have to pay for an Intel (not so big a diff anymore nowadays!) compared to the processing performance difference you will get is something you can go for...
In my opininon, i wouldnt really notice the diff betweeen a P42.8 and an athlon XP2800+....
Cheers
Seph
Before getting any system check the chipsets(mostly for AMD since they don't make their own). Different chipsets handle memory and FSB differently. (NVIDIA, VIA ...)
I usually check
newegg for prices b/4 making decisions.
The new P4's usually have more heat dissipation than the AMDs'.
My take: AMD.
Ewww, overclocking is baaaad. Why risk overheating an already super hot AMD chip. Are you trying to immitate the surface of the sun in your computer case? The chips are designed to run at certain speeds and I'm sure the manufacturer would have slapped some bigger numbers on the chip if they thought it could handle it safely without sacrificing stability or risking a burn up. If you dont like the speed of your processor, get a new one. But its not very wise to be overclocking a processor for these gains that you yourselves say are negligible.
Definately be sure to research chipsets and motherboards. Its a simple decision if you choose a pentium, get all intel stuff. AMD is a bit tough though.
This is a biased site, but it makes some good points and gives detailed info in plain english, just did a quick google search http://www.emulators.com/docs/pentium_4.htm It's pretty old though....
It doesn't overheat if you cool it properly.
Now we're spending more money on better (louder) cooling when we could have spent that extra money on a cooler running pentium chip that has that negligible speed gain.