Tomshardware ran a review on P4 and it failed badly against the AMD.<P>I am an AMD biased person as well but I'd really like to read more reviews besides Tom's. I am planning to upgrade my Athlon to the new P4 but I can't seem to find any good reviews on the P4. <P>Does anyone know where I could get more reviews and testing on the P4?
There are lots of differences between the two CPU`s. The P4 has lots of promise, I must say, and of course it will perform badly at first because there isn`t any software optimized for it. <P>As far as other reviews are concerned point yer browser to <A HREF="http://www.google.com" TARGET=_blank>www.google.com</A> and type in `P4 review` and prepare to read a lot of reviews. I recommend hot cocao and a comfortable chair.<P>Brann Mitchell
I am upgrading my PC from AMD700, MSI mobo, 256MB Rams to...???<P>I already bought a new Philips 109P, a Cardex GTS2 Pro/400 and I think I can wiesel my way for a new Mobo and CPU.<P>I know the Thunderbird is a good buy but I don't think I can do another upgrade for at least another year.<P>When the stores open next week, I will be getting a 1.2GHz Thunderbird and a Soltek SL-75KAV-X motherboard with Cosair RAMs.<P>I hate to think that I would regret not buying the P4 when I had the chance... any comments?
Benchmarks show the AMD Athlon 1 Ghz performs and sometimes out performs the P4 1.5 Ghz. Go with the Athlon.
Hear, hear! It will take some time for game developers to write software (and nVidia to write drivers) that will truly take advantage of the P4 (well, benchmarks anyways!). And you might regret having RAMBUS, however. A 1.2GHz T-bird should hold you over 'till next year. Then see what choices you have. Maybe you`ll want an Itamium... <IMG SRC="http://www.guru3d.com/ubb/wink.gif"><P>Anybody else jealous of this kid?<P>Brann Mitchell<P>"What you buy today is already obsolete, and the State of the Art is what you can't get."
Just read this!!!<BR> <A HREF="http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm</A>
Well, you know, some people just need to rant. I am a little underwhelmed by it as well, but I realized something about our time. Intel probably started work on the P4 waaaay back in '95 or '96 when computers were not as popular as they are today and CPU's were built purposely for speed. Even DOS ran slow. Computers exploded in popularity, fortunes blossomed, and so we have what's called PR, marketing, and focus groups that try to decide and forcast what a buying public wants. I think that the P4 we have today is very much a product based on those guidlines, and it shows. It's a clock speed war, but not a speed war. 1.5GHz is a label Intel can slap on a box. Intel also has a history of maiming a perfectly good processor in the name of marketing -- like the 486 and the 486SX. Intel's biggest problem with the P6 is that it had the ability to run 16-bit code much faster than it's native 32-bit code.<P>Today we have 1GHz machines and to me it's a bigger deal than what it seems. That's one billion cycles per second. A resourceful programmer could do a huge amount with that much power! It could be enough. Carmack could more than likely code the next four Quake engines on that. So how fast would a 10GHz machine be? About twice as fast as what we have today. And I'd buy it in a second!<P>This is a very complex issue and it's my secret hope is that the P4 won't last long, but I don't think that will happen. Intel is slowly making it's way toward a perfect CPU. Until then, AMD didn't call it the Athlon for no reason.<P>Brann Mitchell