Glad you brought it up! Well, the Pentiums run cooler, are more reliable and generally out-perform the Athlons but are a bit more pricey. Any rebuttals to the above are more than welcome. What the hell, its not like were wasting paper or something.
I am also running on a pentium 4 machine and have never ever had a problem with it. It is much cooler, reliable and you dont have to worry about leaving it on in the summer with no AC. Also they have much better technology than amd's and are worth their money. Some amd people talk about the clawhammer....
Well when the clawhammer comes out, there will be like a 3.2 ghz pentium 4 probably 633 mhz fsb and 768 kb of CAche lol!!
First of all, with any AMD processors in the last 2 years, realiability has not been a major issue for the average regularly clocked CPU user. Secondly, almost any AMD CPU you buy will out perform its Intel counterpart. I've been running a Duron 650, overclocked to 900 with regular cooling, and have never had a stability issue, the heat may run a bit high, although not nearly high enough to comprimise stability, which just goes to show you how much these AMD chips can take. If you're having issues with YOUR AMD cpu, you're doing something wrong.
Look lads I was not looking for a childish ' mine is better than yours debate'. All I wanted to know is which is better and why. When I bought this system It was advertised as out performing a p4 2.2 gig. They said it did more per mega herts than the p4. But you know how miss leading adverts can be. Grow up
OK. First of all, all CPUs have issues. One of the first pentiums couldn't even count correctly. AMDs were also unreliable in the past. The past. I run a 1.6 XP 1900+ and I am very happy of it. I don't know if it's my RAM, or the speed of the CPU itself, or whatever, but, my friend just bought a new Gateway, for almost twice as much as it cost me to build my pc, and his is a P4 1.9 GHZ...I did benchmark tests ( If I had saved it, I would post it... ) and my computer pretty much outran his. Not saying that Intel Pentiums are bad, they aren't, I have another, older machine that I have been using for, uh, over 5 years, and I works fine. ( Yes, I realize it is slow ) AMD is just different from whatever Intel manages to make. Although Pentium processors are somewhat tech ahead of whatever AMD has, it still does not mean that P4 is faster. AMD is pretty much cheap compared to Intel Pentium's prices. Both CPUs do pretty good, and my opinion is that both are pretty much great for the average user, who plays games once in a while, surfs, and does stuffies in MS Office, or whatever he or she has. Then again, thats just what I think. Does anyone think/know/believe/ whatever graphics preformance greatly varies by CPU type?
To answer your question, yes, an Athlon does a little more work for clock cycle than a Pentium 4. Your system is probably comparable to a P4 2.0 GHz system. That's what the 2000+ stands for in Athlon XP 2000+. As far as which chip is bettter, each one has many advantages as well as disadvantages. P4's are super stable but very expensive. Athlons are cheaper, do more work per clock cycle, but the chipsets (mainly VIA) tend to have compatibility issues. Hope this answers your question.