What do you think is better?

[Extract_Here]

Pentium 4 or athlon x2?

which has better performance?

[warfacegod]

Depends on what you want to use them for. Intel and AMD both have their strong points and weaknesses. Not giving much of a crap about gaming, I generally much prefer Intel.

[dmaxel]

Although I prefer Intel slightly over AMD, I am very happy with either one. My current laptop has an AMD Athlon x2 64. However, comparing a Pentium 4 to an Athlon x2, I would personally choose Athlon x2 because the Athlon is more a true dual-core processor, like the Core 2 Duo. The Pentium 4 "dual-core" processors were among the first and therefore I do not classify as "true" dual-cores.

[warfacegod]

Although I prefer Intel slightly over AMD, I am very happy with either one. My current laptop has an AMD Athlon x2 64. However, comparing a Pentium 4 to an Athlon x2, I would personally choose Athlon x2 because the Athlon is more a true dual-core processor, like the Core 2 Duo. The Pentium 4 "dual-core" processors were among the first and therefore I do not classify as "true" dual-cores.

From what I've read, Intel got caught with their pants down when AMD put out their dualies. In real laymen's terms it looks like Intel just took a bunch of really high end single P4s and split them down the middle.

Extract_Here, If you're looking to buy one of the two then I personally wouldn't bother with either. They're both older CPUs, especially the P4. Besides it is quite likely that virtually all dual cores will be obsolete in another year or two anyway. The next class of CPU is coming soon with 6 and 8 cores with Hyper Threading.

[ikt]

Pentium 4 or athlon x2?

which has better performance?

If this is for a second hand machine then go for the athlon x2, since it's dual core and likely the old pentium 4 isn't.

Both are fairly well out of date though.

[cascade9]

Yeah, X2 is hardly new, but its way newer than the P4s.


From what I've read, Intel got caught with their pants down when AMD put out their dualies. In real laymen's terms it looks like Intel just took a bunch of really high end single P4s and split them down the middle.

Extract_Here, If you're looking to buy one of the two then I personally wouldn't bother with either. They're both older CPUs, especially the P4. Besides it is quite likely that virtually all dual cores will be obsolete in another year or two anyway. The next class of CPU is coming soon with 6 and 8 cores with Hyper Threading.

Pretty much, but Intel was 'caught with its pants down' during the whole P4 series.

Interesting idea on 'obsolete'. AMD are still selling dual cores, and will for a fair while yet. Intel will be selling them for a while longer (Core2Duo), at least and even when the last of the C2Ds get sold, Atom will be staying dual core for a long while yet.

While there are always faster CPUs around, a dual core will be more than enough for desktop use for a while yet. A long while IMO.

@ Extract_Here - get the AMD X2. I've used a fair few of the P4s, including the P4Ds and a fair few X2s. The _slowest_ X2 feels faster on the desktop than a P4D (which is pretty much the fastest of the P4s).

Besides being faster, depending on the motherboard you have a good chance of being able to upgrade a AMD X2. Less chance of doing that with the P4.

[warfacegod]

Interesting idea on 'obsolete'. AMD are still selling dual cores, and will for a fair while yet. Intel will be selling them for a while longer (Core2Duo), at least and even when the last of the C2Ds get sold, Atom will be staying dual core for a long while yet.

Perhaps "obsolete" was a poor choice of word. However, when you have a processor with 8 cores and Hyper Threading for an effective total of 16 cores, a mere 2 just isn't going to amount to much. That doesn't mean they won't get sold still.

I keep forgetting that the Atoms are dualies now.

Intel still sells the Celeron and it was obsolete the day it went to market.

[jjjc_93]

Take AMD vs Intel out of the equation and you will see the athlon x2 has 2 physical cores to the Pentium 4's 1 physical core. While Intel did make use of a technology named Hyper Threading, that can use a core as 2 threads, it is no match for 2 cores.
You will find most applications you use today will utilize both cores of the athlon x2, which gives it a massive performance gain over a pentium 4.

[cascade9]

Perhaps "obsolete" was a poor choice of word. However, when you have a processor with 8 cores and Hyper Threading for an effective total of 16 cores, a mere 2 just isn't going to amount to much. That doesn't mean they won't get sold still.

*sorry to do this, but its a fair comparison IMO*

A 1.6litre 4 cylinder 8 valve car is virtually noting compared to a 5litre V10 40 valve twin turbo car, but its still going to get your shopping, drive you work and hit 110Kph (or 70Mph) on the highway.

Just because there are far more powerful things around doesn't make the less powerful any less capable.


Intel still sells the Celeron and it was obsolete the day it went to market.

Actually....it wasnt obsolete, it was just crippled. Badly. Celeron 266 and 300 (0 level 2 cache) were really awful, slower than the 233MXX is was meant to replace. The 300a (128K full speed cache) was OK, (better than OK if you wanted to overclock, and/or run dual CPUs) its gone up and down since then.

[forrestcupp]

Core2Duo > Athlon X2 > Pentium 4

[JohnFH]

Which is the better fruit, an apple or a banana?

[caravel]

Which is the better fruit, an apple or a banana?
Guanabana

Athlon64 X2 is the superior CPU.

[warfacegod]

*sorry to do this, but its a fair comparison IMO*

A 1.6litre 4 cylinder 8 valve car is virtually noting compared to a 5litre V10 40 valve twin turbo car, but its still going to get your shopping, drive you work and hit 110Kph (or 70Mph) on the highway.

Just because there are far more powerful things around doesn't make the less powerful any less capable.



Actually....it wasnt obsolete, it was just crippled. Badly. Celeron 266 and 300 (0 level 2 cache) were really awful, slower than the 233MXX is was meant to replace. The 300a (128K full speed cache) was OK, (better than OK if you wanted to overclock, and/or run dual CPUs) its gone up and down since then.

Okay, I'm just going to stop saying obsolete.

[ankspo71]

If I were out shopping for a processor, I would need to look at the specs so I could compare. Pentium 4's come in a different combination of strengths/weaknesses. Processor speed, bus speed, and size of cache. My P4 is a 3.0ghz 800mhz bus and 1mb L2 cache (quick but not the best)... and is enough for me to do some good gaming even on Kubuntu. That's kind of pushing the limit's though lol. It works fine for me with Ubuntu.

I have nothing against AMD's though. My wife's 1.8 AMD flew past my Intel Celeron 2.0 processor, back when I had it. It was a BIG difference too. I have her beat now with the P4.

My next PC will be a real dual core though (or better), probably AMD too. I think the big Linux distros has a few years before they starts getting too bloated, so I'm okay with what I have for now.

[markbuntu]

I think that right now a fast dual core is a better value than a 3 or 4 core cpu especially since few apps/systems can be optimized for more than 2 cores to take full advantage of the added cores.

The price/performance difference definitely leans towards a fast 3GHZ+ dual core when compared to a 2GHz quad.

Anyway there are all sort of benchmark comparison sites you can peruse.

[xuCGC002]

I think that right now a fast dual core is a better value than a 3 or 4 core cpu especially since few apps/systems can be optimized for more than 2 cores to take full advantage of the added cores.

The price/performance difference definitely leans towards a fast 3GHZ+ dual core when compared to a 2GHz quad.

Anyway there are all sort of benchmark comparison sites you can peruse.

^^Best suggestion^^

[cascade9]

I think that right now a fast dual core is a better value than a 3 or 4 core cpu especially since few apps/systems can be optimized for more than 2 cores to take full advantage of the added cores.

The price/performance difference definitely leans towards a fast 3GHZ+ dual core when compared to a 2GHz quad.

Anyway there are all sort of benchmark comparison sites you can peruse.

If everything was equal, and the users is never going to multitask....maybe.

But everything isnt equal.

Its not just raw Mhz. There are other factors, with the main ones being FSB and cache.

I'd take a 2Ghz X4 4x512K/6MB (non-existing CPU, you could only get this with a X4 black edition or by underclocking a standard X4) over a 3Ghz 2x512K (X2 5800+) any day.

Anyway, on price/performance AMD is still your best bet, and the extra core doesnt cost much more. EG-

AMD Phenom II X550 (3.1Ghz, 2x512K L2 6MB L3)- $99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103680

AMD Phenom II X3 720 (2.8Ghz, 3x512K L2 6MB L3)- $109
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103652

Apart from pure single threaded apps (which are less common than you might guess) and older games, the X3 720 is much faster than the X550.

Yes, I know, windows benchmarks. But it gives you the idea.

BTW, that is from benchmark use. Real world multitasking would give the X3 an even greater lead. A X4 would be faster still...

Edit- I tried to post the tomshardware charts-> comparison between the X550 and the X3 720. But somethign in the format of the link doesnt likebeing posted. You can go to the following link, select (by ticking the box in front of the CPU name) those 2 CPUs and then hit the 'comparison' button if you want to see.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts/3DMark-Vantage-1.0.2,1396.html

[The Real Dave]

*sorry to do this, but its a fair comparison IMO*

A 1.6litre 4 cylinder 8 valve car is virtually noting compared to a 5litre V10 40 valve twin turbo car, but its still going to get your shopping, drive you work and hit 110Kph (or 70Mph) on the highway.

Just because there are far more powerful things around doesn't make the less powerful any less capable.



Actually....it wasnt obsolete, it was just crippled. Badly. Celeron 266 and 300 (0 level 2 cache) were really awful, slower than the 233MXX is was meant to replace. The 300a (128K full speed cache) was OK, (better than OK if you wanted to overclock, and/or run dual CPUs) its gone up and down since then.

I've gotta agree with that, I have a 2993Mhz Pentium IV, single core only, but it's still powerful enough for everything I need, in fact, its the most powerful CPU I own. Sure, it won't run the latest games, but it's more than enough to run Ubuntu, and XP in virtualbox at the same time. I can't speak for the Athlon, but the P IV is a great chip, just keep the thing cool and it'll serve you well. Neither chip is obsolete, definitely less power than newer chips, but in no way obsolete. Its plenty powerful enough for the average user. I should add that my P IV has to take up the slack from my terrible graphics card, which is running Compiz flat out, I usually have XP running at the same time too, with two or three users logged into Ubuntu. All this while going flat out running Folding@Home. The Pentium takes it all in its stride.

The ONE thing that it's not quite powerful enough for is physics flash games, the ones with loads of little particles. Those can get a little laggy when trying to run everything at the same time.

So no, a Pentium IV is not obsolete :) :)