it's Official: Dell goes with AMD

[honvetops]

This is a couple days old, sorry.... I found the comment section on the bottom to be kinda educational-  "for me only I guess"  hope its pertinent*

 :-/
http://firstpersonshooters.engadget.com/2006/08/18/dell-goes-with-amd-its-official/

[SilentAssasin64]

Dell may be smarter than I thought...

This gives me now 2 (yes...only 2) reasons to buy a Dell!  Yes!

[honvetops]

this is a stupid reply but;
For some reason I can't see myself getting an AMD processor !  Maybe cause I'm 40  but I kinda like sticking to Intel...... Do the AMD's run a lot hotter ?  I guess their about the only real choices we have *.

[soybean]

Do the AMD's run a lot hotter ?  

I don't know if this holds true with the latest processors from AMD, but at least some of the major series of AMD processors such as Athlons and Athlon XPs supposedly ran hotter.  However, I think it's really not a big issue to most users; actually, I would say it's generally a non-issue.

Now, if you build systems using AMD processors, you had to be sure to properly apply thermal compound to the processor before mounting the heatsink, and be absolutely sure the fan is working when you first power on because AMD processors could quickly overheat and be damaged.  Intel processors, on the other hand, would just throttle back and run slower if getting too hot.

So, as a practical matter, a properly installed AMD processor presents no heat concerns to the user.  I bought a computer in Sept 2002 with an AMD Duron processor.  I later replaced the motherboard and replaced the processor with an AMD Athlon XP 2200, which I'm currently using.  I can tell from temperature readings that my processor runs fairly cool, ususally not higher than 45 degrees Centigrade, and often lower.

[Dilbert]

Also, a 2.2 GHz AMD Athlon can run as fast as a 3.0 GHz Intel, if not better.

[homer]

Also, a 2.2 GHz AMD Athlon can run as fast as a 3.0 GHz Intel, if not better.

really?? may i ask for some evidence to support that claim?

[soybean]

I'm curious about that claim, too.  The Athlon XP 2200 has a clock speed of 1.8GHz.  I believe the general rule in comparing AMD processors to Intel is that the number, such as 2200, indicates an approximate equivalency to Intel actual clock speeds.  In other words, an Athlon XP 2200 is about equal to a 2.2GHz Pentium.  

[GX1_Man]

I don't usually quote Wikipedia, but you guys seem to trust it, so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PR_rating

[soybean]

Interesting article there.   And, here's a web page which confirms what I was saying about my Athlon XP 2200: AMD Desktop CPUs.  Here's an excerpt:

"So is the 2200 + (Thoroughbred Revision A) faster than the newest Pentium 4s? No it isn't. AMD benchmarks the 2200 against Intel's Pentium 4 at 2.2 GHz that has a 400 MHz bus and uses DDR RAM. It performs 4-10 % better than the Intel Pentium 4 2.2 GHz. However, it is doubtful that this difference would exist if RDRAM was used with the Pentium 4. [highlight]For all practical purposes the AMD Athlon XP 2200+ should be considered to be evenly matched with the Pentium 4 2.2 GHz[/highlight]."

[unlovedwarrior]

i still like amd for gaming

[Neil]

Don't forget the Athlon 2200 is probably much cheaper than Pentium 2.2GHz

[unlovedwarrior]

true

[SilentAssasin64]

<snip>Do the AMD's run a lot hotter ?<snip>

Actually...no, they don't.  AMD chip do more clocks per cycle (this means they do more work with less power).  Because of this they require less raw power to do the same amount of work (when comparing to an Intel chip).  Because these chips require less power they do not produce the same amount of heat (again, when comparin to Intel chips), they produce less.  This is one of the main reasons why people that overclock like using AMD's, because they can get them higher while still being at a safe temperature.

My $0.02...if any of this is wrong please correct me.