View Full Version : Got|Apex? Intel Pentium 4 1.5GHz Processor Review 04/23/2001
04-22-2001, 08:56 PM
Thsi is where you can post your questions and or comments on this review.
Thanks for reading,
04-22-2001, 11:25 PM
What are some specifics... I know in using a 1.4, the load time with 128 mb ram in Win ME is more than a P166 with 256mb ram (HONEST) How bout encoding a Divx? 2 hours or is it still a huge 10?
Would you reccomend this over AMD later this summer?
04-23-2001, 02:27 PM
if you had your choice..
an AMD 1.33 w/256mb ddr ram /266fsb
or P4 1.5 w/256Rdram /400fsb..
which one.. if money were no object?
i dont play any games. just love my photoshop, corel, and webpage creator apps..dreamweaver, frontpage, etc..
and love burning cds? and have a cable connection..
04-23-2001, 04:49 PM
eh, likely the p4, if only for the photoshop.
to be honest, you wouldn't notice a huge difference between the two, overall.
04-23-2001, 11:16 PM
Now I may be wrong and may be recalling this incorrectly, but as I understand it, RDRAM is rated by speeds. The RDRAM I was always told to get (if I ever had the money too) was the PC800 rated RDRAM. I was wondering if Got | Apex? knew what the included RDRAM with Intel's new P4 1.5GHz chips.
P.S. I'm an AMD user myself, but have nothing against AMD or Intel, but as far as I know the P4 chipsets from Intel are still going to have to change over to a new motherboard type so purchasing a P4 right now will just mean a shelling out more money to purchase yet another motherboard. My opinion (if my surmation about the Intel motherboard is correct) would be to hold off on any Intel OR AMD until a motherboard that doesn't cripple the CPU's performance comes out.
04-24-2001, 12:19 PM
As a gamer, one would think the P4 would interest me. Not really. I always use Celeron setups when I build for others (unless they're doing things like Photoshop, CAD, etc., then its full P3 or P4). Like the article had said, they built the new video cards with T&L. Who's using it? They're all overkill, and people know it. That's half the reason the market is slumping. People already have what they need. They don't need to upgrade with every release. Slow the hardware innovations down and let software and society catch up! For the record, I run a non-overclocked Celeron 400 with 256 RAM (128 too much), and a Diamond Viper 550 with only 16MB video RAM. And that runs the game Black & White at full detail with no slowdowns at all.
So, even though my system's 2 years+ old, its still in the game. (I'm still getting a Celeron 800 soon)
04-24-2001, 01:28 PM
I used to have an intel, a 500 mhz. It was amazing when i got it a year ago or so. Well, 2 months ago, the bastard failed on me. It would no longer work, and i got pissed. So i went and bought an Amd 1ghz for an amazing 130 dollars US. I was even more blown away when i found out it was an Axia core with copper interconnects. Now im getting 1.45ghz out of the sucker, with a super orb!!!!!!
I will recomend to all of you, if you find an athlon with axia stepping for under 150, get it. For gods sake.
If you think of it, a much more expensive processor can only keep up with a slower processor. What kind of junk is that. I would go with the AMD any day, not to mention you have a choice of motherboard, rather than sticking to the one brand, and you can choose the memory YOU WANT!!!!!
Im not about to throw my 1 256mb and 128mb chips to get 128mb ram from a P4.
AMD ALL THE WAY.
04-24-2001, 01:45 PM
I went from a Celeron 300A to an Athlon 800 about a year ago, after reading impressive reviews -- finally, AMD was on top of Intel in the speed game, even floating point-wise! Brought it home and found it compared very favorably to the Compaq Deskpro PIII-600 I had at work. Especially considering I used one of those $50 Jabil Kadoka boards. And the whole upgrade cost me -- then -- about $280.
When Black and White came out, the shortcomings of my Jabil came to fore. It locked up solid from time to time, the Northbridge couldn't handle piping to my GeForce Ultra. I went to PC City, my local Minta clone retailer, impatient, incapable of waiting for a mail-order replacement, and walked out with a 1.2ghz Athlon 266FSB and an Asus board complete with heat sink for under $400. Runs like a damn charm. And I used my old 3x256MB DIMMs. Not that I would break the bank if I wanted to buy a new set of DIMMs --768MB of PC133 costs now $180. How much for 768MB of RDRAM?
I _almost_ bought one of the Access Micro P4 boxes, until I did the research and found that in all likelihood it would be no faster than my Athlon 800 as a desktop box. Even Intel's people have acknowledged the 'mistake' of RDRAM. Who cares if you can play Q3 at 180,000 FPS in 640x480? Who plays Q3 at 640x480 anyway? Show us the test at 1280x1024x32bit and you'll see that the only difference between a P4 and an Athlon in real-world Q3 performance is price.
And Darth, darling, if in the future you're comparing four processors on a bunch of bar graphs, do us all a favor and stick to the same color for each of the entries... why make us read the legend for each graph separately?
Thank AMD for making power affordable. Curse Intel for trying to rape us with planned-obsolescence motherboards and just plain weird RAM, not to mention their responsibility for the idiotic "PC2100" naming convention (by dubbing RDRAM "PC600, PC700, PC800", et cetera...)
Intel will do just fine, anyway, they'll sell tons of boxes on clock speed alone. Plenty of dummies in the world...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.