Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Ripsnort on December 17, 2001, 08:24:00 AM
-
MB:
ABIT KG-7 (SUPPORT DURON / ATHLON, 266MHz FSB, DDR)
Price: $129.00
CPU:
AMD K7 ATHLON XP 1700 (OEM)
Price: $169.00
This is from a locally Korean owned store I've used for my computer gear for about 7 years now.
I'm an Intel user and have never used AMD, are they better than their questionable quality from about 5 years ago?
I plan to install my old gear (PC-133 Ram, GeForce 2 Vid card, SB Live) into this new box...
-
Great! I am using a similar setup, except that my CPU is not an XP model. Its an 1.4Ghz overclocked to 1.5Ghz.
This motherboard is great, but I'd say that if you can, get an KR-7 wich is the new model, with a significant memory speed.
But even if you cant get that one, the KG7 is a sweetheart.
-
u will need DDR ram, dont think PC133 will work in a DDR MB.
Whels
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
MB:
ABIT KG-7 (SUPPORT DURON / ATHLON, 266MHz FSB, DDR)
Price: $129.00
CPU:
AMD K7 ATHLON XP 1700 (OEM)
Price: $169.00
This is from a locally Korean owned store I've used for my computer gear for about 7 years now.
I'm an Intel user and have never used AMD, are they better than their questionable quality from about 5 years ago?
I plan to install my old gear (PC-133 Ram, GeForce 2 Vid card, SB Live) into this new box...
-
Thks for feedback guys, thks Whels, did not know that.
-
Looks good. Whels is right about the RAM. Other than that everything should swap over fine.
-
If you're planning on using DDR ram,I'd take a look at boards based on the new 266a chipset from via.Significantly faster then the 266 chipset.
The Soyo Dragon Plus looks to be a winner.Check out the link below...11 are tested,along with two nforce boards.
Motherboard Reviews (http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/01q4/011126/index.html)
-
Just an opinion.... ;)
Intel P4 1.7 mhz
Abit TH7 (though I prefer many other boards over ABIT)
will cost you only 385 bucks at United Micro
Your same AMD setup at United Micro is 320...I am not sure the deal you are getting...but for the additional 65 bucks their is no way I would buy an AMD.
Though AMD is a decent chip it is no way as compatable as the Pentium....Mainly becuase most programmers and hardware folks make their stuff with the Pentium archetecture in mind especially since Intel is the industry leader...I would love for that to switch one day...but that is my personal opinion.
Cheers! and I hope this helps...I have always liked AMD but the Intel P4 chip is superior IMO.
;)
-
Originally posted by Cyan:
Just an opinion.... ;)
Intel P4 1.7 mhz
Abit TH7 (though I prefer many other boards over ABIT)
will cost you only 385 bucks at United Micro
Your same AMD setup at United Micro is 320...I am not sure the deal you are getting...but for the additional 65 bucks their is no way I would buy an AMD.
Though AMD is a decent chip it is no way as compatable as the Pentium....Mainly becuase most programmers and hardware folks make their stuff with the Pentium archetecture in mind especially since Intel is the industry leader...I would love for that to switch one day...but that is my personal opinion.
Cheers! and I hope this helps...I have always liked AMD but the Intel P4 chip is superior IMO.
;)
Don't listen to a word of that Rip. The P4 superior? bahahahaha. Only superior in price. And compatibility? Puhlleaze. I'm on my 4th Athlon system and I have never had one single compatibilty problem that was attributible to the CPU. My current system outperforms P4s of higher clockspeeds in benchmarks...and it was far cheaper.
-
If you are looking at any of the P4 chips prior to the P7 than I would agree with you...however the P7 introduced a new archetecture that makes the chip out-perform comparable K7 chips.
As for gaming issues...because a chips Mhz is faster doesn't necessarily mean the chip is faster for your game. This is where AMD makes a statement. This statement is true, however again..that statement was made prior to the launch of the P4 1.7mhz chip.
When you look at the mere 60+ dollar difference...their is no comparison in the two chips. If AMD wants to continue to pursue the market as they had in the past they will need to get their chips back to the original 30 - 40% less than pentium prices.
I had AMD's and Cyrix chips for a long time running side by side with Pentinum chips...and a couple of things I noticed over the years...
1. Intels chips lasted longer (life wise) than the AMD and especially longer than the ever frying Cyrix chip.
2. Intels chips never conflicted with any hardware or software...try putting a WG 8port hub in a Cyrix or AMD system...BLAH nightmares! among many other networking hardware pieces....this is why all MAJOR corps go with Intel. If Intel and AMD or Cyrix where in the same league then all the big corps would go with them...It would save them a BUNDLE...
Fact is AMD is still proving itself...they make a good product..it needs to get better and faster on the Mhz side if they want to compete with Intel. Cyrix is almost out of the game...(i believe they are even under new ownership). Intel will continue to dominate because AMD is getting better. If it were not for AMD Intel's chips would never get better...
Bottom Line - You want to buy AMD to support the cause...go ahead.....I did and will probably again. But if the price is only a few dollars....my butt is buying the Intel all day long. Its like arguing the difference between a Lexus and a Toyota...same car...same car company...but the lexus is soo much sweeter.....and so is the Intel.
Intel P7 Spec Info:
Introductory 1.4GHz. and 1.5GHz. Clock Speed with roadmap to 2GHz. and beyond
400MHz. "Quad Pumped" System Bus
"Hyper Pipelined" Technology - 20 stage pipeline depth for greater frequency capability
"Rapid Execution Engine" - ALUs run at twice the speed of the core frequency
256K L2 Advanced Transfer Cache running at core processor speed
8K L1 Data Cache
Execution Trace Cache - Caches decoded Micro-Ops readying them for execution
Advanced Dynamic Execution - More efficient speculative out of order execution unit feeding execution engines
Enhanced Branch Prediction Capability - Compensates for the deeper pipeline's higher likelihood of mis-predicted branches
Streaming SIMD Extension 2 (SSE2) - 144 New instructions including 128bit SIMD Integer Arithmetic and 128bit double precision floating point instructions in addition to SSE and MMX instructions.
[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Cyan ]
-
The Athlon XP beats any Intel processor so far, and has many more instructions. Programers dont program based on the CPU, that doesnt happen anymore, DirectX solved that.
The only programs you will not run with an Athlon, is the programs designed by Intel to show off what they can do and what the Athlon cant.
SSE 2 is usless if thats what you are refering to. It may add a framerate or two but the program has to be coded to take advantage of that.
FOR NOW, AMD is bar none the makers of the best consumer CPU's. If Intel makes a better one, then I will gladly buy Intel, but I doubt it, with their insanely high prices.
Rip: Go to www.crucial.com (http://www.crucial.com) for the RAM.
too bad you didnt make this choice a month ago when the RAM was at an all time low.
-
BTW - about hardware incompatibilites. OF COURSE you will get problems with CHEAP HARDWARE. DoUH!
The best hardware runs like a champ on AMD systems, even with my 150 front side bus.
And dont tell me that Intel's motherboards are the most stable and supported, thats bogus, they have had problems with their memory architecture etc, why the hell you think they dropped the ball on their precious RAMBUS. It was a fiasco, so they ended up doing the right thing, supporting DDR ram, wich AMD had done a long time before.
I remember when AMD and Cyrix chips were a nightmare, but you are talking about years ago. I used only intel back then. but things turned around. If intel improves, and AMD turns to toejam again, then I buy intel.
I buy quality, not companies.
Now go play with your Intel stock ;)
-
Animal,
Firs, I agree with your Crucial Recommendation...bought 2gb of ram from them a week and a half ago....couldn't pass up the deal...and their CS is TOPS!!
As for your statements about the AMD chip...I disagree and so do most analysts in the PC market. In most tests where the AMD came out of top it was in a custom built system compared to an integrated system running a Pentium from either Gateway or Dell.
If the AMD was so superior they would be selling alot more of them and at a higher cost..simple economics. Fact is they are making huge strides "recent deal with Gateway and Dell that allow them to offer the K7 processor to their customers" but they are not their yet...this is a good thing because it will force either Intel to keep improving or force AMD to improve past Intel. When that happens the price will go up, people will shift to the AMD as the standard and Intel will have their work cut-out for them.
If AMD is so much superior why do all the top Graphic Design groups insist on Intels?
If AMD is the top chip now...why do all Processor and RAM Hungry CAD systems come stock with Intel?
I want to agree....but I have to disagree with ya animal.
-
AMD all the way Rip, FLASK MPEG recording is the only thing the P4 is superior at.
If you want or need to keep the PC-133 sdram you can buy the ECS K7S5A mobo as it supports either ram. <but not in a mixed memory configuration>
It can be a real bear to setup properly but I have figured out a hassle free method to install and configure it.
-
Stock...I don't need no Stinkin Stock :eek:
No seriously, Animal.
You have a good point...and I to buy quality not companies...I have done this for many years and will continue to buy quality...I have to because my systems cannot drop on me or I am in deep ()*&!
AMD and Intel both play the clocking game where they put in components where each individual chip can perform its best...
But the fact remains that 10 times the number of Intel chips are sold. And more high end users use Intel than any other chip out their...that speaks volumes.
Its no different than the linux v. microsoft argument.
Is linux more powerful? Sure if you look at basic operations and stability!
Does linux out perform microsoft? NO WAY...no where near. MS has more software written for it and the games are far superior!
So who is best? MS why...Marketshare and Quality of the overall value...not one specific application.
Cheers! :)
-
Intel sells more because they can afford to hire 3 retarded blue guys and cute little cartoons with aliens.
;)
-
ROFLMFAO!!!
Great one...Ok Ok Ok...I am buying an AMD NOW!
Phew and to think I was so mislead!!! :cool:
-
Cyan if your putting systems into companies and want the least risk of a comeback then most belt n braces types would of course fit the Intel.
But we are talking best bang for the buck for Gaming.
AMD XP cpu's kick butt big time with Intel, slower clock speeds yes, but better chip design overcomes that.
Why do more people buy Intel ?
Cos they are brain dead sheep generally :)
Follow the big advertising budget no matter what blatant lies they spew forth at times :)
95% of people believe that MHZ rating is the only rating to think about when buying a computer or CPU, its only the likes of us who generally appreciate the differences.
Basically saying that Intel is better because they sell more units is errmmm false,misleading,untrue,crap,misrepresentation and err just plain wrong.
-
I used to be an Intel guy,but that has changed.
Check out the links below benchmarking various cpu's from Intel and AMD.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q4/011031/index.html (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q4/011031/index.html)
Both are fine cpu's.But you'll save money with the AMD,and it outperforms Intel in what is in MHO the most important thing...gaming performace.
[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Sox62 ]
[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Sox62 ]
[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Sox62 ]
-
I have seen benchmarks done by a plethora of companies and analyst groups showing side by side comparisons. Some showing Intel wins and some showing AMD wins.
I guess I am still pushing the Intel angle...for now anyways.
Thanks for the great Debate guys...its a blast knowing that I game with such smart guys...makes debating more fun.
Cheers! and Happy Flying.
Cyan :)
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Cyan ]
-
I see your point Cyan, and if I had a company I'd buy Intel just to make sure.
But for a gaming system, why get Intel if you can get AMD much cheaper and faster on most games.
-
If AMD is so much superior why do all the top Graphic Design groups insist on Intels?
I thought all the top graphic design groups used Macs?
The P4 is a good chip with alot of room for growth... but to say it outperforms the Athlon+ is a stretch. The Athlon outperforms it and is cheaper.
Whether or not Intel is more reliable is virtually irrelivant with this group of people. Somehow "just buy another one" became acceptable when things go wrong. As long as the $$$ permit it... why would people care about reliablity?
AKDejaVu
-
Hi RIP, I bought all that in my signature (with the exception of the Geforce 3) for $565. Got everything including a case from United Micro except the DDR RAM, Crucial all the way on the memory. My PC smokes man, been good to me. I even got the CDrom and HD in that $565. I said all that, now go compare at newegg, they are cheaper. As far as the difference, I have owned a few intel machines and this AMD machine is more stable. Now, I put this together myself and didnt buy a dell/gateway/mocron like I did with the pentium machines. They hjad all the crap you can get stuffed in to your display. Mine is a bare bones Aces High monster now with that Geforce 3.
Good luck bud. You reall ougfhta consider a VIA 266a motherboard though .
-
I trust DejaVu's words, specially coming from an Intel employee.
No bias, no roadkill, not masculinity.
I envy ammo's PC very much. Its a beast, I couldnt think of better parts for it. He did his homework on this bbs.
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Animal ]
-
Cyan, if you were an engineer, you'd hide that P4 "feature list". ;) (I hate to tell you but "hyperpipelined" is NOT a good thing performance-wise.)
Honestly either CPU is a fine choice, BUT the AMD Athlon XP is faster and cheaper than the Pentium 4. That is not a fact that is in dispute.
I've built both Intel and AMD systems in the past and my honest opinion is that the AMD systems CAN be a little bit harder to setup on a VIA chipset board. Once you get it right though, they are rock-solid stable. I just did an Athlon on an nForce board last night and it was EXTREMELY easy to setup and incredibly stable.
The reason Intel dominates on the OEM stage is their intensive advertising and name recognition. (The fact that Intel is not exactly known for being kind to companies that drop them for AMD might be a reason too. ;) )
One extremely nice feature of the Athlon and Duron processors is the fact that all of them fit in the same socket (socket A). This makes the system much more upgradable than Intel boards, as Intel has a habit of switching sockets every few months. Ex: Socket 423 to Socket 478 switch for P4. Slot 1 to Socket 370 for Celeron and P3. Tualitin P3s are also not compatible with current socket 370 boards. Now if you go and add the Rambus factor, it's not hard to see why the "enthusist market" is firmly on the side of AMD.
-
Rip, if you go with the AMD CPU, order one of these bad boys to keep it cool:
Swiftech MCX370 http://www.swiftnets.com/ (http://www.swiftnets.com/)
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: banana ]
-
Not an Engineer...at least I don't have a pocket protector and a slide ruler on me.
As for the upgradeability I couldn't agree more...bah I hate when I have to agree with people....
As for the AMD....for now I am sticking with the P4....maybe I will buy another AMD just for kicks and tricks to mess with....It's been awhile since I owned one, even though I still build them on a regular basis.
Cheers!
-
Cyan, next time try AMD. Its a whole different thing than back with the K6 chips that were awfully toejamty.
Anyways it doesnt hurty to try different things. Ive been an nVidia man since the TNT 1, and Im buying a Radeon 8500.
I know its problems, but just to TRY and like it. Maybe I will.
-
Aye Animal,
I am also looking at the Radeon 8500...it looks awefully sweet!!!
And I too have been an Nvidia man for along time...
-
I noticed no one mentioned that AMD chips have Direct 3D microcode instructions in their processor instruction set. This will (and does) allow AMD chips to out perform Intel processors in direct 3D graphics. That means an AMD XP1500 (w/DDR ram) system should outperform a pentium 4 1.5 GHz (w/RIMM) in frame rates.
Btw, I use Intel.
Ledz
-
I bought couple days ago XP 1600+ and Soltek SL75DRV2 mobo.
Mobo seems quite good, not bad at all considering its price - which is way below any ASUS/ABIT
Too bad, distributing in US is quite weak in comparison to Europe/Asia, but SL75DRV2 has had very good reviews. http://www.tomshardware.com (http://www.tomshardware.com) (somewhere there in 13 mobo tests) http://www.lostcircuits.com (http://www.lostcircuits.com) /easily found)
In local hardware geek forums I've heard bad about Abit boards though.
Well, not exactly extremely bad but that those are less stable than many other KT266A chipset boards.
-
There are a few things that I thought I'd mention, since we are having a civil discussion here. :)
First, processor clockspeed comparisons between two different core designs are really useless. I could explain in gory detail all that is involved in proving this statement, but I'd probably lose 99% of you in the process. (AKDejaVu and I could have some fun debating though. :) ) In general the shorter the pipeline is in the CPU, the faster it will be at the same clockspeed as a competing processor with a longer pipeline. Without factoring in ways of "cheating" to shorten the pipeline (branch prediction and hardware prefetch), you need to go through a number of tasks to complete each instruction. Pipelining a CPU breaks the three major tasks in the ALU down into a number of smaller jobs, this allows higher clockspeeds, as less needs to be done per clock. (In case you are interested those 3 main jobs are "fetch", "decode", and "execute". "Fetch" grabs the next instruction from memory, "decode" determines what the instruction is and what memory locations to read and write from/to, and "execute" does just what it says.) Now in the case of the Athlon there are 11 stages in its pipeline. The P4 has 20 stages. What this tells you is that it is much easier to hit higher clockspeeds on the P4 than on the Athlon. It also tells you that at the SAME clockspeed the Athlon has a worst case performance level almost 2x that of the P4. Now those "tricks" I mentioned before like hardware prefetch and branch prediction can allow you to essentially eliminate stages in the pipeline for better performance, but both the Athlon XP and P4 both incorporate these features. (The P4 has somewhat better hardware prefetching abilities, because it has extra bandwidth on it's FSB to allow it to do so, than the Athlon XP. On the other hand, the Athlon XP has a superior branch prediction unit than the P4 does.)
It's also worth touching on the fact that the Athlon XP has a VASTLY superior x87 floating point unit than the P4. The P4 lives and dies by it's SSE2 instruction set to achieve parity with the Athlon XP in floating point intensive tasks. (Most mathematical software and direct x games are very floating point intensive, and in fact you'll find that in benchmarks the Athlon tends to dominate in these types of tasks.)
Now to be fair I should mention that the P4's ALU (arithmetic logic unit) is at least as good as that in the Athlon, but with one noteworthy difference: It operates at 2x core frequency. This will result in the P4 gaining an edge in some applications as the clock speeds continue to ramp up.
Both companies like to resort to clever marketing names when describing their CPU architectures. Intel calls their P4 architecture "netburst", which IMO is deceptive to the general (ie, uneducated in CPU design) public. "Netburst" is TOTALLY UNRELATED to the Internet. AMD calls their CPU architecture "Quantispeed", which doesn't mean anything, but sounds kind of neat. ;) Because of the general level of ignorance of CPU benchmarks, other than raw clockspeed comparisons, AMD has switched to a PR type rating scheme. If you actually do compare performance between a system identically configured with a P4 1.7 Ghz and an Athlon XP 1700+ (1466 Mhz clock) you will find that AMD has actually underrated their CPUs for the most part. The 1700+ is certainly a match, and generally superior to, the 2 Ghz P4 with Rambus ram. If you put SDRAM in a P4 system you might as well cut it's performance by 30+ percent. When looking at P4 systems it is very important to avoid SDRAM powered (i845) systems like the plague. (Unless you feel good in knowing that your old P3 1 Ghz would actually outperform your brand new P4 1.6 Ghz in most benchmarks ;) )
I'd write more if others are interested. :)
-
There is one very large diffence that hasn't been mentioned that accounts for Intel's much higher sales to the OEM market. (Compaq, HP, Ibm, Gateway, Dell, etc.) That is the fact that these companies almost always resort to integrated sound and video to make the cost of building a system as low as possible. HP and Compaq (and EMachines) also "save money" by putting in very cheap power supplies that are not standard ATX form factor (and only 145 or 150W). The reason I put "save money" in quotes is that these power supplies are vastly underpowered and fail so often that many computer stores have been forced to stock them because of the demand for the things. Compaq goes one step farther on the ladder of corner-cutting and removes the AGP slot and uses system memory as video memory for its SiS derived integrated video. (This makes replacing the video card on a lot of Compaqs impossible.)
When you take into consideration that until just recently you could not get integrated video AND sound on an AMD Athlon (socket A) supporting platform you can see why OEMs don't like AMD systems. Top that off with Intel's intensive marketing (#11 in the world for advertising expenditures in 2000, and likely higher in 2001) compared to AMD's virtually non existant advertising and it's not hard to see why OEMs prefer Intel. (Intel CPUs are also marked up at a higher percentage than AMD processors.)
-
A well timed article indeed:
http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=1570 (http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=1570)
If AMD is so much superior why do all the top Graphic Design groups insist on Intels?
If AMD is the top chip now...why do all Processor and RAM Hungry CAD systems come stock with Intel?
After reading this article I'd be kicking myself if I bought a dual Xeon system.
-
Wierd Bloom... I don't know a single dual Xeon system owner that regrets the move.
AKDejaVu