Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Does anyone have any current experiences with the AthlonXP
processors running Photoshop 7 and Nikon Capture. The cost factor
vs the P4 is very tempting and I would like some input prior ro
making a hasty decision.
--
J Mowry
Does anyone have any current experiences with the AthlonXP
processors running Photoshop 7 and Nikon Capture. The cost factor
vs the P4 is very tempting and I would like some input prior ro
making a hasty decision.
--
J Mowry
However, if you do buy an Athlon processor, make sure it's either a
Barton or a Thoroughbred Revision B. http://www.newegg.com is generally
one of the most trusted online computer retailers around, with
excellent prices.
Barton is best, since it has a 512 Level 2 cache (vs 256 for a
thorough bred rev. b), which will help speed up processing times.
Also, getting these versions of Amd's processors has a cooling
advantage - they each use .13 micron instead of the older .18
micron technology, meaning they run a lot cooler, and that you can
use quieter fans to cool your system.
Does anyone have any current experiences with the AthlonXP
processors running Photoshop 7 and Nikon Capture. The cost factor
vs the P4 is very tempting and I would like some input prior ro
making a hasty decision.
--
J Mowry
DO not mean to start a war! but you guy are out of touch. Nothing
can beat the new P4C with HT and 800MHz Bus. It is cheaper than
Athlon, and beat the AThlon in every benchmark. The best one is
the 2.8GHz overclocked to 3.3Ghz (920 MHz Bus) . Don't compare
the Athlon with old P4. Look at tom's hardware and anand tech and
make the judgement yourselves. AMD is history, their hope now is
the 64 bit coming next quarter. Compare the price of the two
processors on http://www.pricewatch.com/
AMD 3200+ (400MHz bus) $450.
P4C 2.8GHz (800MHz) $245
The P4C 2.8GHz (no overclock) performance is equal the 3200 Athlon
XP. Better yet, the P4C is HT. The 2.8GHz P4C is the best CPU
for overclock.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/index.html
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834
Cau
The prices on xp processors seem to be dropping at a decent rated too (kind of anoying since I recentlly bought one). I got a athlon xp2400+ thourobread for 120$ with motherboard (new) about 1 1/2 months ago. Just after it was too late to get a price match they ran the combo for 100$ and then again for 90$. I saw the athlon xp2000+ for 70$ with motherboard last week (these are obviouslly cheap motherboards, ecs k7s5a pro) Looking quicklly online it seems that you can get the 2400 cpu several places under 80$ now, the 2600 under 100$, and the 2700 for about 120$. For those of us cheapo's that don't need the latest greatest, the amd's are pretty competitive with intel celery's (you know, mostly water, not a lot of substance). If the intels have taken a major drop in price recentlly too and are outdoing the amd's in the more economical catagoires forgive my ignorance, but when I bought one and for a little while after while I was still comparing, the amd's were offering a lot more bang for the buck.Cau,
I agree that the P4 has pulled ahead - but my concern is more about
finding a high-quality, inexpensive processor. If the need for a
2800 mhz and higher processor is so important for some people, then
by all means spend the $300 or so for it.
For the most part, I'm talking about processors that cost under
$100 and still will do just as much work as any of the numerically
higher processors.
For my work, a 1700 works just fine - overclocking it to 2200
stable has rarely resulted in noticeable results in processing
time. It helps with 3d-gaming a bit, but that's still more
dependent on my graphics card.
Anyways, glad that you posted prices for comparison - but I'll
won't debate the merits of AMD vs. Intel any longer in this post.
The prices on xp processors seem to be dropping at a decent ratedCau,
I agree that the P4 has pulled ahead - but my concern is more about
finding a high-quality, inexpensive processor. If the need for a
2800 mhz and higher processor is so important for some people, then
by all means spend the $300 or so for it.
For the most part, I'm talking about processors that cost under
$100 and still will do just as much work as any of the numerically
higher processors.
For my work, a 1700 works just fine - overclocking it to 2200
stable has rarely resulted in noticeable results in processing
time. It helps with 3d-gaming a bit, but that's still more
dependent on my graphics card.
Anyways, glad that you posted prices for comparison - but I'll
won't debate the merits of AMD vs. Intel any longer in this post.
too (kind of anoying since I recentlly bought one). I got a athlon
xp2400+ thourobread for 120$ with motherboard (new) about 1 1/2
months ago. Just after it was too late to get a price match they
ran the combo for 100$ and then again for 90$. I saw the athlon
xp2000+ for 70$ with motherboard last week (these are obviouslly
cheap motherboards, ecs k7s5a pro) Looking quicklly online it
seems that you can get the 2400 cpu several places under 80$ now,
the 2600 under 100$, and the 2700 for about 120$. For those of us
cheapo's that don't need the latest greatest, the amd's are pretty
competitive with intel celery's (you know, mostly water, not a lot
of substance). If the intels have taken a major drop in price
recentlly too and are outdoing the amd's in the more economical
catagoires forgive my ignorance, but when I bought one and for a
little while after while I was still comparing, the amd's were
offering a lot more bang for the buck.
The deal that I got was basically the selling price of the cpu and
a free motherboard. Compared to best internet prices at the time I
was only paying 10-20$ for the motherboard and geting it locally so
it fit my budget. If I were actually paying the normal sale price
for the motherboard (I think it was 70$ at that store), I would
have defanatlly got something better for the same price or a little
more.
What do you think about the value and performance of the and chips
(the 2400 I got has dropped to 70-80$?
The prices on xp processors seem to be dropping at a decent ratedCau,
I agree that the P4 has pulled ahead - but my concern is more about
finding a high-quality, inexpensive processor. If the need for a
2800 mhz and higher processor is so important for some people, then
by all means spend the $300 or so for it.
For the most part, I'm talking about processors that cost under
$100 and still will do just as much work as any of the numerically
higher processors.
For my work, a 1700 works just fine - overclocking it to 2200
stable has rarely resulted in noticeable results in processing
time. It helps with 3d-gaming a bit, but that's still more
dependent on my graphics card.
Anyways, glad that you posted prices for comparison - but I'll
won't debate the merits of AMD vs. Intel any longer in this post.
too (kind of anoying since I recentlly bought one). I got a athlon
xp2400+ thourobread for 120$ with motherboard (new) about 1 1/2
months ago. Just after it was too late to get a price match they
ran the combo for 100$ and then again for 90$. I saw the athlon
xp2000+ for 70$ with motherboard last week (these are obviouslly
cheap motherboards, ecs k7s5a pro) Looking quicklly online it
seems that you can get the 2400 cpu several places under 80$ now,
the 2600 under 100$, and the 2700 for about 120$. For those of us
cheapo's that don't need the latest greatest, the amd's are pretty
competitive with intel celery's (you know, mostly water, not a lot
of substance). If the intels have taken a major drop in price
recentlly too and are outdoing the amd's in the more economical
catagoires forgive my ignorance, but when I bought one and for a
little while after while I was still comparing, the amd's were
offering a lot more bang for the buck.
--The prices on xp processors seem to be dropping at a decent ratedCau,
I agree that the P4 has pulled ahead - but my concern is more about
finding a high-quality, inexpensive processor. If the need for a
2800 mhz and higher processor is so important for some people, then
by all means spend the $300 or so for it.
For the most part, I'm talking about processors that cost under
$100 and still will do just as much work as any of the numerically
higher processors.
For my work, a 1700 works just fine - overclocking it to 2200
stable has rarely resulted in noticeable results in processing
time. It helps with 3d-gaming a bit, but that's still more
dependent on my graphics card.
Anyways, glad that you posted prices for comparison - but I'll
won't debate the merits of AMD vs. Intel any longer in this post.
too (kind of anoying since I recentlly bought one). I got a athlon
xp2400+ thourobread for 120$ with motherboard (new) about 1 1/2
months ago. Just after it was too late to get a price match they
ran the combo for 100$ and then again for 90$. I saw the athlon
xp2000+ for 70$ with motherboard last week (these are obviouslly
cheap motherboards, ecs k7s5a pro) Looking quicklly online it
seems that you can get the 2400 cpu several places under 80$ now,
the 2600 under 100$, and the 2700 for about 120$. For those of us
cheapo's that don't need the latest greatest, the amd's are pretty
competitive with intel celery's (you know, mostly water, not a lot
of substance). If the intels have taken a major drop in price
recentlly too and are outdoing the amd's in the more economical
catagoires forgive my ignorance, but when I bought one and for a
little while after while I was still comparing, the amd's were
offering a lot more bang for the buck.
bus to really maximize the memory bandwitdh. It is this feature
- The new chipset with dual channel DDR which allows the P4C 800MHz
that beats AMD not the core speed.
Breeze Browser to convert from RAW to Tiff or when encode Mpeg2
- The introduction of HT in the new P4C. In the past when I use
file for DVD, I can't use the machine more. With Hyper Threading,
that doesn't happen anymore, the other thread is still available
for use. Better yet, I can still use XPHome and running virtually
multiprocessor system.
CPU price is not the biggest part in a good system anymore. If you
want to save some bucks by buying cheap CPUs, I think you should
buy the P4C 2.4Ghz at $170. Even at this speed P4C beats all the
Athlon XP 2800+ and below. AMD's way of measure performance is no
longer accurate, it is misleading now.
Cau
The prices on xp processors seem to be dropping at a decent ratedCau,
I agree that the P4 has pulled ahead - but my concern is more about
finding a high-quality, inexpensive processor. If the need for a
2800 mhz and higher processor is so important for some people, then
by all means spend the $300 or so for it.
For the most part, I'm talking about processors that cost under
$100 and still will do just as much work as any of the numerically
higher processors.
For my work, a 1700 works just fine - overclocking it to 2200
stable has rarely resulted in noticeable results in processing
time. It helps with 3d-gaming a bit, but that's still more
dependent on my graphics card.
Anyways, glad that you posted prices for comparison - but I'll
won't debate the merits of AMD vs. Intel any longer in this post.
too (kind of anoying since I recentlly bought one). I got a athlon
xp2400+ thourobread for 120$ with motherboard (new) about 1 1/2
months ago. Just after it was too late to get a price match they
ran the combo for 100$ and then again for 90$. I saw the athlon
xp2000+ for 70$ with motherboard last week (these are obviouslly
cheap motherboards, ecs k7s5a pro) Looking quicklly online it
seems that you can get the 2400 cpu several places under 80$ now,
the 2600 under 100$, and the 2700 for about 120$. For those of us
cheapo's that don't need the latest greatest, the amd's are pretty
competitive with intel celery's (you know, mostly water, not a lot
of substance). If the intels have taken a major drop in price
recentlly too and are outdoing the amd's in the more economical
catagoires forgive my ignorance, but when I bought one and for a
little while after while I was still comparing, the amd's were
offering a lot more bang for the buck.
--Does anyone have any current experiences with the AthlonXP
processors running Photoshop 7 and Nikon Capture. The cost factor
vs the P4 is very tempting and I would like some input prior ro
making a hasty decision.
--
J Mowry
--Does anyone have any current experiences with the AthlonXP
processors running Photoshop 7 and Nikon Capture. The cost factor
vs the P4 is very tempting and I would like some input prior ro
making a hasty decision.
--
J Mowry
JMowry,
Here ya go...
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=axp2700&page=8
bus to really maximize the memory bandwitdh. It is this feature
- The new chipset with dual channel DDR which allows the P4C 800MHz
that beats AMD not the core speed.
Breeze Browser to convert from RAW to Tiff or when encode Mpeg2
- The introduction of HT in the new P4C. In the past when I use
file for DVD, I can't use the machine more. With Hyper Threading,
that doesn't happen anymore, the other thread is still available
for use. Better yet, I can still use XPHome and running virtually
multiprocessor system.
CPU price is not the biggest part in a good system anymore. If you
want to save some bucks by buying cheap CPUs, I think you should
buy the P4C 2.4Ghz at $170. Even at this speed P4C beats all the
Athlon XP 2800+ and below. AMD's way of measure performance is no
longer accurate, it is misleading now.
Cau
The prices on xp processors seem to be dropping at a decent ratedCau,
I agree that the P4 has pulled ahead - but my concern is more about
finding a high-quality, inexpensive processor. If the need for a
2800 mhz and higher processor is so important for some people, then
by all means spend the $300 or so for it.
For the most part, I'm talking about processors that cost under
$100 and still will do just as much work as any of the numerically
higher processors.
For my work, a 1700 works just fine - overclocking it to 2200
stable has rarely resulted in noticeable results in processing
time. It helps with 3d-gaming a bit, but that's still more
dependent on my graphics card.
Anyways, glad that you posted prices for comparison - but I'll
won't debate the merits of AMD vs. Intel any longer in this post.
too (kind of anoying since I recentlly bought one). I got a athlon
xp2400+ thourobread for 120$ with motherboard (new) about 1 1/2
months ago. Just after it was too late to get a price match they
ran the combo for 100$ and then again for 90$. I saw the athlon
xp2000+ for 70$ with motherboard last week (these are obviouslly
cheap motherboards, ecs k7s5a pro) Looking quicklly online it
seems that you can get the 2400 cpu several places under 80$ now,
the 2600 under 100$, and the 2700 for about 120$. For those of us
cheapo's that don't need the latest greatest, the amd's are pretty
competitive with intel celery's (you know, mostly water, not a lot
of substance). If the intels have taken a major drop in price
recentlly too and are outdoing the amd's in the more economical
catagoires forgive my ignorance, but when I bought one and for a
little while after while I was still comparing, the amd's were
offering a lot more bang for the buck.
Cau
In the last two years the war between AMD and P4 in term of CPU
speed were meaningless. I don't think any of them are worth
upgrading. Recently there are two new features coming in the P4
that are most interesting:
bus to really maximize the memory bandwitdh. It is this feature
- The new chipset with dual channel DDR which allows the P4C 800MHz
that beats AMD not the core speed.
Breeze Browser to convert from RAW to Tiff or when encode Mpeg2
- The introduction of HT in the new P4C. In the past when I use
file for DVD, I can't use the machine more. With Hyper Threading,
that doesn't happen anymore, the other thread is still available
for use. Better yet, I can still use XPHome and running virtually
multiprocessor system.
CPU price is not the biggest part in a good system anymore. If you
want to save some bucks by buying cheap CPUs, I think you should
buy the P4C 2.4Ghz at $170. Even at this speed P4C beats all the
Athlon XP 2800+ and below. AMD's way of measure performance is no
longer accurate, it is misleading now.
Cau
Cau
--Does anyone have any current experiences with the AthlonXP
processors running Photoshop 7 and Nikon Capture. The cost factor
vs the P4 is very tempting and I would like some input prior ro
making a hasty decision.
--
J Mowry
JMowry,
Here ya go...
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=axp2700&page=8
Cau
--Does anyone have any current experiences with the AthlonXP
processors running Photoshop 7 and Nikon Capture. The cost factor
vs the P4 is very tempting and I would like some input prior ro
making a hasty decision.
--
J Mowry
JMowry,
Here ya go...
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=axp2700&page=8
Cau
In the last two years the war between AMD and P4 in term of CPU
speed were meaningless. I don't think any of them are worth
upgrading. Recently there are two new features coming in the P4
that are most interesting:
bus to really maximize the memory bandwitdh. It is this feature
- The new chipset with dual channel DDR which allows the P4C 800MHz
that beats AMD not the core speed.
Breeze Browser to convert from RAW to Tiff or when encode Mpeg2
- The introduction of HT in the new P4C. In the past when I use
file for DVD, I can't use the machine more. With Hyper Threading,
that doesn't happen anymore, the other thread is still available
for use. Better yet, I can still use XPHome and running virtually
multiprocessor system.
CPU price is not the biggest part in a good system anymore. If you
want to save some bucks by buying cheap CPUs, I think you should
buy the P4C 2.4Ghz at $170. Even at this speed P4C beats all the
Athlon XP 2800+ and below. AMD's way of measure performance is no
longer accurate, it is misleading now.
Cau
Cau
--Does anyone have any current experiences with the AthlonXP
processors running Photoshop 7 and Nikon Capture. The cost factor
vs the P4 is very tempting and I would like some input prior ro
making a hasty decision.
--
J Mowry
JMowry,
Here ya go...
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=axp2700&page=8
