PM5K Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 This one is for my brother: I have found an AMD T-Bird (Socket A) 266 MHz Processor for 107 and an AMD XP (1.47GHz) Processor for 125. Which is the better deal and can anyone tell me the major diffrences between the T-Bird and the XP. TIA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H. Veteran Posted March 6, 2002 Veteran Share Posted March 6, 2002 the XP chips run cooler and better. You'll get butter performance in games and video encoding because the XP chip adds instructions for SSE 2 which is in the Pentium chips. The T-bird only has SSE (1) and 3DNow and Advanced 3DNow all of which are in the XP chip as well but get the XP chip!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawtai Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 The XP does run cooler, but if you go and look at some benchmarks, a 1.4 ghz xp vs a 1.4 ghz thunderbird, the thunderbird comes out on top. The 1.4 ghz is usually compared to a 1800+ XP I think, and in some benchmarks it wins out, but it's always really close to the 1800+. But I'd go with the XP just for the fact that you don't have to worry AS much about cooling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neowin_hipster Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 Go with the XP. They're pretty cheap anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=NickJ= Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 Originally posted by lawtai The XP does run cooler, but if you go and look at some benchmarks, a 1.4 ghz xp vs a 1.4 ghz thunderbird, the thunderbird comes out on top. The 1.4 ghz is usually compared to a 1800+ XP I think, and in some benchmarks it wins out, but it's always really close to the 1800+. But I'd go with the XP just for the fact that you don't have to worry AS much about cooling. Thats complete rubbish. The 1.47Ghz XP (the 1700+) is so named because it runs at what would have been a 1.7Ghz had they not changed the architecture. Therefore it competes with the likes of a P4 1.7Ghz (whereas a 1.4 Thunderbird runs compared to, guess what, a 1.4). The 1700+ leaves the 1.4Ghz thunderbird for dust in every test, the Thunderbird core is much older. http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/0201.../p42200-11.html http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/0201.../p42200-12.html http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/0201.../p42200-13.html http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/0201.../p42200-14.html Need i say more. The 1700+ is well worth the extra $18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris123NT Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 Nick Stop making fun of the AMD Tbird. U hurt my feelings :( ima go cry now :( LMFAO :p:p:P:P:P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antally Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 Don't Even Think about the T-Bird. The XP Smokes it!! :lick: (or at least beats it by a smudge):D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antally Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 Oh, and the Athlon XP doesn't have SSE-2 it has SSE-1, whilst the T-Bird has no SSE whatsoever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawtai Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 http://www.hardwarepub.com/reviews/xp1800/index.shtml yes the xp does beat the thunderbird, but a thunderbird does keep up and is sometimes faster than an xp processor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtgriffith Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 I would have to go with the XP+ processor. I have a 1.4 T-Bird at home and I love it but I use the Athlon XP 1800+ and better at work and I can tell an obvious difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antally Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 ugh, that comparison of the T-Bird to the XP is really bad, everyone knows that Sisoft Sandra is purely a synthetic benchmark, and means little to nothing in real world performance. Besides how can you compare an overclocked proecessor to one left at stock speed? .adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H. Veteran Posted March 7, 2002 Veteran Share Posted March 7, 2002 Originally posted by antally Oh, and the Athlon XP doesn't have SSE-2 it has SSE-1, whilst the T-Bird has no SSE whatsoever yes it does have SSE2. That's why they compete so well in multimedia applications now against the P4! My T-bird has SSE and the 40 new instructions added to the XP core was SSE2 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomis_nehc Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 Originally posted by SHoTTa35 yes it does have SSE2. That's why they compete so well in multimedia applications now against the P4! My T-bird has SSE and the 40 new instructions added to the XP core was SSE2 :) No it doesn't. Anatally is right. TBird has no SSE instruction at all. The XP has SSE. The next version of AMD chip WILL have SSE2 however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antally Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 I hate to be a dick, but check out http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/0201.../p42200-03.html no sse 2 in the XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H. Veteran Posted March 7, 2002 Veteran Share Posted March 7, 2002 oops.. oh yeah.. i got MMX and SSE mixed up.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomis_nehc Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 :) MMX was already implemented back in AMD K6-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=HyperViper= Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 Athlon XP is Faster.Go for it :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=NickJ= Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 Originally posted by lawtai http://www.hardwarepub.com/reviews/xp1800/index.shtml yes the xp does beat the thunderbird, but a thunderbird does keep up and is sometimes faster than an xp processor You've got your wires crossed, we're talking about a standard Athlon (Thunderbird core) running at 1.4Ghz vs. the Athlon XP (Palomino core) running at 1.47Ghz (the 1700+). The XP kicks the Thunderbird's a$$ in every test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuardianAli Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 The Xp is inherently better for a number of reasons. And not ones that were mentioned before. 1.) It is on a smaller die size. While it is still built on .18, it has components that are smaller and thus takes up smaller room and creates less heat and requires less voltage. 2.) It adds SSE , not SSE2 cause intel has not licenced SSE2 to AMD yet. The XP also has 3Dnow!Professional instruction sets that the thunderbird lacks (it has the regular 3dNow!) 3.) I has a slightly different architecture. It incorporates a limited function branch prediction engine and has an improved FPU. Also added native support of MP capability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtgriffith Posted March 8, 2002 Share Posted March 8, 2002 There's only an $18 price difference. Go for the XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PM5K Posted March 8, 2002 Author Share Posted March 8, 2002 Thanks for the info, he got the XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts