Does the athlon outperform the pIII??

[imhotepmp]

I was looking at AMD's benchmarks here:
http://www.amd.com/products/cpg/athlon/benchmarks/benchmarks.html
and according to them the athlon really does outperform the pIII in every test(wouldnt expect them to put a test if athlon wasnt the winner). So if this is the case, whats the point of a pIII? Is it easier to overclock? From a price/performance ratio it seems that amd has the advantage..plz no flames all you die hard intel people

 

[NFS4]

Of course AMD is gonna tip the scales in their favor

As it stands now the Thunderbird/Athlon = the Coppermine/PIII in performance. The Thunderbird slaughters the Coppermine in pricing.

The only thing that the Coppermine/PIII really has going for it is overclocking and the evergreen BX chipset.

 

[Modus]

<<Does the Athlon outperform the PIII?>>

Yes, it does. And the PIII outperforms the Athlon. Confused?

Actually, both the Athlon and P3E processors are so close in terms of real world performance that benchmarks become a toss-up. The new Socket A chips are better for their integrated full-speed cache, and allow the Athlon(Thunderbird) to edge out the P3E(Coppermine) in the majority of tests. Still, the differences are minimal. Even overclocking is fairly even between the two companies, considering the new Socket A boards from ASUS, ABit and QDI.

The core of the Athlon is inherently stronger than the Coppermine in both FPU and integer calculations, and these are helped by its 200 MHz FSB. However, the Coppermine makes up ground because of the relative maturity of its platform. The subsystems (memory, AGP, etc.) on P3 chipsets are somewhat better optimized than their Athlon counterparts, and it is generally agreed that this (combined with the Coppermine's 256 bit cache bandwidth) is what allow it to stay competitive with AMD's offerings.

Regardless, Intel has been unable or unwilling to compete on price for quite some time. Looked at objectively, there is no reason for the market to consider anything but an AMD processor for a new system.

Modus

 

[ltk007]

Thunderbird is about equal to the P3 in most things, but the regular athlon is noticably inferior in similar clocked tests.

Price/performance the Athlon wins without a doubt.

 

[sov05]

The Katmai PIII was killed by the Athlon Classic
The Cumine PIII beat out the Athlon Classic
The Cumine PIII is slightly slower than the Athlon Thunderbird, but they are close.



However, the Athlon was always cheaper CPU wise.
The Athlon Classics overclocks well with the GoldFinger devices which allow for multiplier manipulation, not as well as the PIII's using FSB only, however.

The Athlon T-Bird overclock well, and they do not require a GoldFinger Device, since it is on the motherboard, $50 saved there.

The main advantages for the PIII was that it could easily overlock 200MHZ more. And it could work in any BX board from a major maker, like abit/asus.

The new T-Bird overclocks near 200mhz with somewhat ease. the main thing is mobo's. a VIA KT133 board is $140, and a BX is $99. And old BX boards can upgrade to PIII. A Slot A KX133 board can't upgrade to the T-Bird

 

[Kill_Phil]

i cant awnser that for ya, but ill tell you that if i were gonna choose between a 500mhz athalon and a 500mhz pentium i would pick the one with the lower overall pricetag. because i dont think i would even notice a difference between them, so really the cheaper one is the better one imho (but its ok to brag if yours really is a tad faster then your friends )

 

[DDad]

Well, my $.02 worth is it's like comparing oranges and tangerines- which is better?
Tbird wins some, PIII wins some
OC'ing- Actually I consider them about equal- Not enough is out on TBirds yet to see what they will do, but the classics don't clock as well as the 100 mhz FSB PIII, but better than the 133 mhz fsb PIII. However, if AMD keeps sending Tbirds out with 900 cores you can expect that to change!

 

[tmj]

damn right modus! it's the frigg'n mobos that are holding AMD back. We need a Socket-A to Slot-1 slocket.

 

[tmj]

Update: Those benchmarks show Intel on a Apollo Pro mobo, FYI. Might have had a performance impact. On an i815, I'm sure there would have been a few changes in who took 1st place.

 

[pen^2]

imho, when it comes to comparing cumines and athlon classics, the bus speed has got lotz to do with it. e.g. on bx133, cumines are faster; however, on bx100 athlons are about equal or faster..... there is a noticable difference between my k750 @ 9.5*100 and 7.5*127... just my 2cents

 

[WetSprocket]

Bring on the Micron DDR(samauri)spelling. This should put an end to this debate til the Willamette.

 

[Paco21]

Intel is better because of their stability and compatibility. Whether athlon is a little faster is meaningless compared to stability and compatibility

 

[Prodigy^]

I'll have to agree with Paco21.....I mean, what does 2-3 fps extra mean? The PIII is generally faster in games, but it's not much......so I guess one could say the Athlon is better because it's cheaper......but on the other hand - Intel CPU's can often be overclocked much more and easilier than Athlons, so.......?

 

[sov05]

The new T-Bird's overclock quite well and same with Duron.

 

[sov05]

Keep in mind the Intel MTH issue, which shows Intel doesn't make really stable boards anymore.

Also, the shortages of CPU's. The VaporWare Release of the Intel 1 GHZ. And the temporary recell of the PIII 933, i820, and i840 chipset.

 

[LXi]

sov05: Not really, I dont really consider MTH one of Intel's official products, plus they already stopped using it. Also, the i820 with pure RDRAM solution, or i815E and SDRAM solution are both rock stable and high quality.

 

[DDad]

&quot;I dont really consider MTH one of Intel's official products&quot; Ummm, then whose product was it?
The whole 820 series has been a total muckup, and denying that it ever happened is irresponsible- it proves that even Intel puts out a bad product now and again
tmj: If you notice, those marks were put up before the i815 was introduced- besides, buy a 815 board (they're currently rarer than a Socket A!)
And a Final note- Like it or not, my Athlon 700 is MUCH more stabile than my wifes factory PII 300- so much so that I eventually &quot;gave&quot; her &quot;my&quot; computer! I had to get used to getting BSOD's at least once a day again!

 

[Modus]

Paco21,

<<Intel is better because of their stability and compatibility. Whether athlon is a little faster is meaningless compared to stability and compatibility>>

Don't be ignorant. I challenge you to build a system that is noticeably more stable than an Athlon machine.

Modus

 

[jmcoreymv]

Modus: For the record my dell p3 500 on a bx platform has not crashed since ive got it. And I have not rebooted for any changes in the past 4 weeks. It is running win2k pro and I do graphics, programming, gaming, web development, video editing, pretty much everything.

 

[LXi]

DDad: Since when did MTH makes Intel a bad chipset maker that makes bad solutions and unstable boards? Hardly, granted the MTH was a huge screw up. But overall, Intel boards still have much better track records than AMD. And it's just totally wrong to claim that Intel is producing crappy boards now just because of the MTH issue. I dont consider it an offical product because it was never meant to be one, it was a temporary solution to the high RDRAM prices. Plus, there is absolutely nothing wrong with i820+RDRAM, great performance, rock solid stable, and good quality. I dont understand why its a muckup, its just way too expensive for people to accept right now, by no means it sucks. Oh yea, did you forget the good old BX chipset? And the promising i815E? Intel still makes great quality, stable boards.

 

[Mikewarrior2]

They both make quality, stable boards... Anybody who claims that one is totally more stable than the other is pretty much full of it... Unless you're comparing a No-name athlon mb to an Asus, both platforms are ultra stable and reliable.




Mike
EDIT: with the exception of MTH equipped i820 boards, that is

 

[LXi]

One thing cannot be denied, your options are a lot more wider with Intel than with AMD.

 

[Mikewarrior2]

yes, but you still can't say that the AMD options are unstable.. The KX133 is starting to finally mature, as will the KT133 as time goes on.

I mean, with intel, your options are BX, i820(eck), Via133A, and i815(i omitted a few, but htey're rather unimportant in the current mb market).

With Amd, you get the AMD750, KX133, and soon to be KT133. Intel only holds a slight lead here..

I used to really dislike AMD(had horrible experiences with the k6-2 line) but they are making excellent products right now. Nobody can deny that.


Mike

 

[LXi]

Mikewarrior2: Excuse me, but I never ever said a thing about Athlon boards being unstable. I was simply defending the fact that Intel is still making excellent chipsets. True that MTH was a huge mess, but who in the world can be perfect all the time? To say that Intel doesnt produce stable boards anymore is simply untrue.

 

[HellRaven]

Lxi, I have read several threads now that you have posted to and in every one you continue to claim that Intel is more stable and has wider options than AMD. Yet, you seem to have no proof of such.

Both Intel and AMD have had their share of problems with various pieces of the puzzle, but to claim one is better than the other without conclusive proof is rediculous. The truth is, there is no test yet that proves one is better than the other. I personally have built many AMD systems, and many Intel systems and neither had any more problems than the other. Other people may have had different results but there are simply too many factors for anyone (including myself) to reliably say that one chip is more stable. There will always be varying components that have problems that may not have anything to do with the processor or motherboard itself. Different Operating systems, different drivers, different memory, different quality motherboards, different quality memory, video cards, etc etc.

In fact, the same argument is often applied in the battle for which operating system is the &quot;most stable.&quot; Some people say Linux, others NT/2000, who is to say one is better than the other.

In the end I think it comes down to what YOU think is best and what the best value YOU think is. In my opinion, AMD has always been very good in the value side, which is why they continue to get my business and they continue to grow. Intel still makes good chips, but dollar for dollar I have always felt I got a better deal buying AMD.
Like I said, that is my preference and others may feel that Intel is better for them because they like to OC a celeronII to 1ghz =) There is definately a preference here in the AnandTech forums for Intel processors since they can Overclock pretty well, (Well until the Duron information hit at least) Thats fine. Thats why the debate continues, because everyone wants to be right =)

ok, thats my long ramble on this subject heh.