AMD Duron vs PIII

[Childs]

EmperorNero....I make 6 figures administering, fixing, and purchasing all hardware for my company. I've fixed everything from clustered E450s, RS-6000s, to yes...the lowly PC (well...these days pcs are anything but lowly!). Maybe my computer experience doesnt compare to the cash register at Denny's that you use, but its enough for my company, and all of our clients to stake their business on. In any event, I can troubleshoot hardware. You keep running Norton AV and Seti@Home...I didnt know you could run Nortan AV OR Seti@Home on an Athlon. Knowing that, I just changed my opinion of the whole thing.








HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA






We cant all get along? I think we can. I will go away if you dont mention my name, cause...well sh*t, I take it personal, and will keep this thread going until 2012...just outta spite.

 

[Petro89]

Let's see, you both have some valid points. My AMD/Intel processor ratio has been about 50/50, and I've seen pros and cons for both. My favorite processor i've owned is my Athlon 600 (which absolutely flies at 7x115=805), and my least favorite was my K63-400 (which was barely stable at 450, and eventually fried for some reason). In between have been 486s from both companies, a P100, 233MMX and a K62-500. Thus I believe my opinions are justified, especially considering I've built many P3 systems for friends.
Now, redpriest was right on the money when he said that almost all problems with the 750 chipset were corrected by the KX133. My MSI K7Pro gave me hell, but my new KA7 works like a dream.
I will also vouch for childs though. I have had much less problems with my pentiums. I popped in my P100 and 233mmx, and they worked off the bat, and gave me several years of reliable service.
Well, I'm going to stop rambling. The bottom line is that both have good and bad points. I'd rather buy an AMD as of late, due to the outrageous prices of P3s, but I definately wouldn't hesitate on buying a future Intel product if the price and performance are right.
Childs, it seems strange that the processor just died. They usually put up with a lot of stress. It may have been just a fluke or something, so I wouldn't bae my entire opinion of AMD on something like that.

 

[Childs]

Petro...it wasnt entirely on that one system. First of all, I personally think that he was in fact the culprit...hes more braun that finese. There appeared to be something wrong with the cache, when it was enabled it couldnt boot windows, and when it was disabled, it was stable, but of course very very slow. I came over again and it died. I'm a resonable man, and naturally it seemed like it was the Fry's jinx. I swear to god those guys must play soccer with their products at lunch time....errr..Fry's fanatics..save the flames for another thread. I know it was just a bad CPU, or he outright broke it. But when I was researching similar problems for Athlons I found alot of people had all kinds of problems with their systems, and with my previous experience with the K6-2, and the Athlon we had to put to sleep, I feel hesitant about AMD. And yes, with the latest chipset, things seemed to be better. But the old chipsets are still floating around out there, so it is something to aware of. I think in time the platform will be rock solid...it already has a cost/performance advantage, but in my opinion I'd wait alittle bit before investing in the platform.

The point of my original post was that with Intel, I didnt have to worry about such things as much. You always pay extra for percieved reliability. I also stated that you should never be the first one to buy something...most products experience a certain...teething period, where all the bugs are worked out. My suggestion to someone on the fence about which CPU/platform to go with, was to go with whats proven. I dont think that its such a unreasonable comment to make. It turned into a CPU war thread, but I wasnt trying to bash AMD. I simply contributed to the discussion. Then yes...I got childish. I am trying to let it go...really I am!

 

[Petro89]

Well, the battle between the two is something that will not be solved for a long time. And definately not by ripping on each other on this forum. So lets spend less time arguing, and more time using our computers for playing games and downloading porn.

 

[OCwannabe7]

If you're low on cash and you don't run professional audio applications using todays multitrack cards, then go AMD with the best mobo you can get for it (in fact , I actually would wait a bit till the kinks get worked out).

I work mainly with audio multitracking and know first hand the incompatibilities with many of the top audio boards out there with AMD procs.
OC-ing an amd is a bit more of a bitch as well (more heat on an amd, mount gfd/soldering)...but if you're up for it....you can make it happen.

Other than that info, it's all dependent on your cash flow. intel costs more.....should they? NO...but they do.

I stick with intel.....but only for a reason - audio tracking. Intel also supports new instructions with top audio apps), etc.

If you're a gamer.....then you're fine with either. I've never seen incompatibilites with the popular games and the Athlon/Duron.

Joe

 

[EmperorNero]

yeah, that was real mature of you, childs. when a 15 yr old is more mature than a man who makes "6 figures administering, fixing, and purchasing all hardware" for his company is just sad. first of all, I don't care how much you make or what you do, redpriest's and my point is that you do not have enough, if any, experiences on an athlon system so you cannot give a valid judgement on which is better. secondly, you are not just "contributing" to the thread, you are flaming this thread with your infantile ranting.

 

[Boomman]

lol
jumping to conclusions is like jumping off a bridge

 

[Shudder]

I say let them buy Intel.

clock for clock you get pretty much the same performance with AMD and Intel.

Oh, and since I bought AMD I was able to get that shiny new video card and manage to spend just as much as you did without buying anything other than the processor. Maybe even another Hard drive just for the hell of it. Your loss.

 

[Mem]

By the time I read all the flamming I forgot the question,anyway price wise the Duron is the bargain,Intel especially the 700E is great for overclocking & probably no.1 choice for overclockers so if you are not going to overclock go with the Duron makesure you get a good board like the Asus A7V or MSI if you cannot afford Asus.Also remember you can always upgrade to a Thunderbird later so not a bad upgrade option on the AMD route.

 

[Childs]

And whats your experience Nero? Running Norton AV and Seti@Home on your Athlon? Oh...excuse me! Whatever you say must be written in stone then! Is that why you chose EmperorNero for you nick? Because youre THE authority on Athlons and Pentiums?

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

And this thread turnedd extremely childish when you guys tried to make this discussion into a religious one.

 

[redpriest_]

It didn't turn religious until you started spouting the party line FUD.

 

[Childs]

Spouting the party line eh?

Well redpriest_, that I did do. Its a philosophy that we use inthe corporate world, and I really do believe it can apply to individual users as well. There are alot of things to consider when making purchasing decisions. I tend to think long term, as in whats the better investment in the long run. The AMD platform is initially cheaper, but IN MY EXPERIENCE it tends to cost more in the long run. For someone on a limited budget, the platform looks attractive, but you have to consider all of the other components that you MAY need to upgrade as well. Research is important. Even if you went with the Intel platform, you still have to consider your graphics card, sound card, power supply , etc, to make sure that its compatible with the chipset your using and that everything will perform the way you need it to. In my cousinds example, he tried to get by with a mobo/cpu, and it didnt work with anything he had, so he spent alot more than he anticipated trying to get it to work.

Continues

That being said....you typically dont have to worry about components not working with an Intel based system. Sure you may have bad components due to the manufactoring process, but other than that it will work, because the Intel platform is what everyone makes their products for. When AMD introduced a new chipset/platform, there were all kinds of problems with various peripherals. It took time to stablize the platform. Here we are again...a new chipset, and new chip...the Duron. Now...you can be:

A) Be the first one to get it and see discover any incompability issues that may occur.

B) Wait a bit, let the hardware community discover them for you, so you know what to expect, and you can make a better purchasing decision. ie..what if your existing hardware will have problems...do you really want to go ahead and purchase it knowing that it isnt "cheaper" anymore?

C) Go with what works. Go with whats been around awhile, so you wont be surprised by any hidden costs.

When someone looks at the Duron or the Celeron, it looks like their main concern is costs. Duron is new. There is a good chance that there will be problems with existing hardware. People who are concerned with costs are not likely willing to take chances with their hard earned money, so what do you do? You remove as much risk as a possible from the equation.

The other side of the coin is that there may be no problems at all, it may be the smoothest launch in history.

This always comes back to my original post...piece of mind. People buy name brand products for a reason. Could my conpany get by without buying Sun, Cisco, HP, Xerox? Sure. Theres all sorts of alternatives out there in every category, but there are usually reasons as to why...say..Linksys isnt considered to be in the same class as 3com, Lucent, and Cisco.

Theres nothing wrong with what I originally said. I didnt think concept was that hard to awknowledge...


I'd hate to see UT vs Q3, Coke vs Pepsi, or Linux VS NT mentioned in these forums!

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA

 

[redpriest_]

Of course.

If you don't research the platform you are going to buy, then you're going to have problems one way or the other. On the five or so Athlon systems I have built, I have had 0 problems.

 

[EmperorNero]

<< And whats your experience Nero? Running Norton AV and Seti@Home on your Athlon? >>


actually, yes..that was my experience w/ the athlon - what else could it be? in fact, I was playing quake3 w/ 2 IE windows open in the background. if a computer saavy would know, both quake and SETI is quite demanding on the cpu and other components of the comp. the ONLY crash that happened so far was from IE, no surprises there. you see, I actually have an athlon system and use one, which makes me more qualify to say whether it's good or not. I'm not saying it's better than Intel, and I'm not saying intel is better. but I'm saying w/ the right components, an athlon system can be as stable or even more than an intel system. my system is a classic athlon, k7v, crucial memory, voodoo3 3000. (to the guy who posted the original) if you do decide to go w/ the duron, you should wait for the processor to mature. yes, when something's new, there are going to be growing pains. but then look how well the athlon turned out - and most of its growing pains were in the MOTHERBOARDS, not the actual chip itself, which so many ppl tend to blame. so far, the duron can, and has the potential to be a great chip. just pick the right components and you'll be happy. plus, you'll save extra cash. you can listen to ppl who have actually tried an athlon, or you can listen to blind intel zealots who's bent on thinking amd is no good no matter what. it's your call.

 

[Childs]

Oh...my bad...you also had IE with 2 windows open as well?




HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA




I think we all pertty much agree on the same things, we just stand on different sides of the fence. If we were to stand on the other side for a bit, we'd probably realize there isnt that much difference. I really do believe thats its a more research oriented purchase when you go with AMD...thats not to say thats its bad. When I got my P3-700 I researched it for about a month...looking at articles with benchmarks, reading messageboards like these forums, and read just about everything cpu/mobo/overclocking related in the newsgroups. It pretty much validated what I've been saying for the last few days, but I'm sure that if I was looking specifically for pro Athlon info, it would look just as good, because...apparently, there are alot of satisfied Athlon owners...either that or they all just read the forums! Its a good thing. I honestly would like to not have any compatibility issues with any cpu, and it looks like we are getting closer to that point.

And if any of ya think different....I challenge you and your Athlon in the Counter-Strike map of your choice! One stipulation...no DSL vs cable discussions! I must warn you tho, I am an uber-lpb and I have no mercy on hpws!

 

[LordFrogi]

I have a computer.

 

[qaz]

Lord Frogi - cool, i have a computer too

 

[incallisto]

Well, first I want to say that AMD is fine and dandy. If that's what you want in a processor, go for it. They are great gaming rigs. I'm not a gamer, so I don't really need an AMD processor. AMD is a great company. They will rectify any situation that you may have with your processor. I'm just not a fan of VIA. I've never had anything but problems from my VIA board (even the Apollo133, which is like an i820 in my opinion).

There are so many people who will immediately attack me like a 10 year old child on antihistiamines and a half-gallon of cough syrup. Just because I said I am not a fan of VIA or AMD. Let's see what happens.

Now, back to my point. I prefer Intel-based processors and chipsets. Intel has only made two mistakes: Rambus and the PSN! Other than that I always buy Intel Pentium IIIs and 440GX/BX chipset-based motherboards from Tyan, Supermicro, and ASUS. Why? Because I have never had a single processor failure in the past five years of building systems. I've owned several AMD based systems and none of them have performed on par with an Intel Pentium III in terms of stability, performance, and over-all gooey-ness (mmMMMMMM! gotta love gooey! Did I mention sugar? Where?!) Anyway, I am not saying I wouldn't buy an AMD Athlon or Duron. I just wouldn't buy it for a Workstation or Server (which is what I use and build). IMHO

Wasabi?

 

[DaddyG]

I've used just about all of AMD's processors in the &quot;Corporate World&quot; and for personal use. I have NEVER had a problem related to the AMD cpu. The first one I used was a 386-40, really spanked Intels 486-25 in integer apps. Iv'e used most of 'em since then, didn't use the original K6, but the K6-2's and Athlons have been fine. Intel uses advertizing hype to scare the corporate types, just like IBM used to do way back when. Quote &quot;Ya don't get fired for chosing IBM or Intel&quot;.

Don't forget, AMD used to be a second source for Intel CPU's way back.

 

[incallisto]

Well, ask any system administrator which they'd prefer in their server and I guarantee 9 out of 10 will say Intel, Alpha, or Sun. They aren't going to even consider AMD until AMD drops VIA or VIA gets a stable SMP-based platform.

That's what it is all about IMHO. SMP!

 

[sandorski]

Hehehe, G*U*T*B would have been proud!

 

[Dexion]

Childs: I completely understand your &quot;faith&quot; in the big Intel corporation, however the latest chipset problems was not AMD. In fact I think you completely forgot about the i820 MTH issue? To continue with Intel chipsets, as of today, there still hasn't been a successful predecessor after the BX chipset. In fact, Intel's predictions of the i840 and Solano(i815) chipset is still hanging over our heads with BX and VIA133 chipset boards selling far better than any Rambus or Intel alternative. To say Intel is fully reliable isn't quite true, each and every company has flaws or errors in which they may not even be fully responsible for. I completely understand your compatibility issue with previous AMD products, but these are mostly software or other hardware compatibility problems that arises with low budget systems. In comparison, the Athlon is not a budget system, in fact, its now a respectable performer and a high end alternative to Intel. Like Nvidia, AMD has grown much more respectable this last 2 years, much like how nvidia captured the graphics market within a 3 year period over ATI, Matrox and 3dfx. Although AMD has not captured the entire market, it was a successful hurdle to make such a difference in the processor market that some people thought was impossible. Times have changed, during the K6 years, AMD was a &quot;so-so&quot; type company, with little or no partners to support their products. Its quite unfair to use old examples to judge the brand.

Childs, what I'm trying to say is, open your eyes and see the alternative. Don't judge it by simple or minor problems OTHER people have talked or experienced, and then come here to shout how the product is unreliable. Try it yourself first, then complain. Don't do it in reverse.

 

[EmperorNero]

nicely said, dexion. stop holding ancient grudges against AMD, and stop blaming AMD for something out of their jurisdiction.

 

[cabojoe]

The guy has been brainwashed by good marketing and hearsay!
**********************************************************************


Athlon 750 @ 928, 2/5 L2, 1.85 volts
ABIT KA7
128 mg Infineon PC133, 128 mg Mushkin PC133 rev. 2
Ninja Micros Goldfinger
GlobalWin FKK32 Heatsink/Fans
Creative Annihilator 2
SB Live! x-Gamer/MS Digital Sound System
2 10 gig HD
HP 8x4x32 Burner
48x CD
Kingston Nic
WireSpeed DSL Modem

 

[Quickfingerz]

This is a cool thread. It reminds me of those soap operas or... wrestiling. Drama!


Duron is cheap and fast. Most people don't overclock. <--- Doen't that explain it all. It the normal world of computing (OEM non-overclocking), Durons are certainly better.