Alienware 17 R4 2017 review
I'm partially rebuilding an old computer, upgrading CPU, mobo, memory and graphics card; question is, would I be better off with a p4 or an Athlon? The computer's going to be used to watch DVDs, internet, word processing, occasional gaming (but nothing hard core) and the intention is to buy a beginner's digital camera in the next six months. I heard P4s are better at handling graphics work; does this mean I should go for a P4 in terms of watching DVDs/using the camera? Hope someone can give a few pointers, cheers!
Cheers. Did do a search but didn't find this. (don't want anyone to think I'm too lazy...heh heh).
Would go with most of that other post, to whit;
Intel P4 - more expensive, but runs cooler; allegedly faster for games and graphics.
AMD Athlon - much cheaper, compatible with everything, doesn't require the system to be entirely built around it, however runs hotter thus requires more cooling thus potentially more noise unless you get a quiet fan/heatsink.
I have an Athlon 2100+; to be honest, saying that a P4 would be quicker is going to be splitting hairs because it's ridiculously fast.
The quality of DVDs and so on will be more influenced by the capacities of the graphics card than the processor (within reason).
Oh, and 'partially rebuilding'?? all you're leaving behind is the hard drive, sound card and the box???
Without a doubt, AMD. Yes, the P4 may be better on paper, but certainly not in reality. That, I can promise :-)
The system's been failing piece by piece ever since it was bought (3 years ago), so everything else is already no more more than 6 months old! Would it be safe to say, then, that I could drop prices by going for a mid-to-high end Athlon rather than a P4 and use the extra to get a better graphics card and a quiet fan with no discernible drop-off in quality?
Exactly. it's a myth the P4 or any intel proccesor is faster. The best way to check speed is look at [email protected] stats. there is a AMD there that's done a packet in just over 2 hours that's getting close to a alpha chip at 1000's of times more expensive.
See for yourself.
I like them better. they scream and are just so much cheaper. Just get really good fans and good heat sinks.
From personal exerience the AMD blows intel away in speed doing anything on your computer including playing games. Noticable way faster.
You need a good power supply too with AMD if you go to the top end chips.
If you want something that's - easy to set up (no jumpers or BIOS settings to touch) - is stable (no mysteriously changing speeds, or having to change settings to get software installed) - runs cool - is so picky about power supplies - and is fast ( click here )
... get a P4.
If you doubt any of the comments about setting up or stability, you only have to look around the forum, where theses questions come up time after time.
Motherboards with the 845PE chipset are excellent.
But now I'm really confused! I already built a system using the Xp 2000+ and it works just fine, but I'm not a big games player and I don't have a DVD drive. I guess there is no answer; it's just down to personal preference really. It's just that the magazine keeps referring to P4s as better with graphics. Thanks guys
Any Athlon XP processor currently available new will storm through DVD playback and games. You have your own experience of the XP2000+ to go by. Compared to a 2Gig P4, the Athlon is probably faster, but you wouldn't notice the difference without a benchmarking utility. More and more these days the performance of a system is dictated by the graphics subsystem, so save your pennies and get a decent graphics card, at least a Ti.
You won't look back.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.