Pentium4 Vs. Athlon

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

I would like to move from P4 to Athlon because of power consumption
requirements. What would be a comparable AMD counterpart of a hyper
threaded p4 3.0 GHz. I understand that the clock speeds cannot be
compared  but I'm looking for an AMD similar in performance as of a P4
3.0 (630 processor)

Any reply would be appreciated.

Re: Pentium4 Vs. Athlon

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Never heard about Core 2 Duo ???

Re: Pentium4 Vs. Athlon

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Looking at a lower price too. Thanks.

Re: Pentium4 Vs. Athlon wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

try this

Re: Pentium4 Vs. Athlon

Exactly what I was looking for :-) Many thanks.

My application is Linux / apache / mysql / PHP


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Pentium4 Vs. Athlon wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

As you'd expect, the P.R. rating system says an AMD part with a P.R. of
3000+ or so, should equal an Intel P4 at 3GHz. So this just confirms

Sandra Integer - P4 630 3.0GHz single core equals Venice 3200+ 2GHz single core
Dual core equivalents would be Windsor X2 3800+ or 4000+, as those run at
a 2GHz core as well.

You can then go over to, and find an X2 AM2, with the same
clock speed and amount of cache per core, select a dual, and when single
threaded, you'd end up with the same performance. So, a dual with 2Ghz core
and 512KB L2 per core gives choices like this - the 35W one appears to be
imaginary, or maybe Dell/HP/Gateway buy all of them or something.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 2Ghz core 512KB x2 cache 89W ADA3800CUBOX

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 2Ghz core 512KB x2 cache 65W ADO3800CUBOX (can't get
35W one)

The next one up, would be a 4200+ at 2.2GHz, at about $17 more.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 2.2Ghz core 512KB x2 cache 65W ADO4200CUBOX

The reason I'm not shopping for a single core, is with the single core,
you have only one processor showing in Windows. The P4 with Hyperthreading
shows two virtual cores. To get the same smoothness, I selected a dual
core AMD. The idea then is, you get the same minimum performance single
threaded, as the P4. And when you run Photoshop, you get more of an

If you prefer a more "apples to apples" comparison, you could compare some
recent Pentium D products to the AMD AM2 dual cores. The equivalent choice
will depend on the benchmark you choose, from the ones they ran:

A Pentium D 925 is a dual core that runs at 3GHz.

In this article, you can compare a 925 dual core at 3GHz to the socket AM2 dual

What I'd like to know, is if anyone has actually seen one of the 35W ones.
Or is it "soft-launch FUD" ?

This is a single core, that runs at 45W, and might look better on
paper, than the 65W duals. This might not give you quite as smooth
a desktop as a dual, but it saves power, in terms of the max that
can be drawn.

AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Lima 2.2GHz 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 ADH3500DEBOX 45W

Hope that gives you some ideas - everyone has a different idea as
to what would be a fair comparison.


Re: Pentium4 Vs. Athlon

On 16 Apr, 07:51, wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think nowadays the P4 is rather old.. but so is its competitor AMD
Athlon XP.

The equivalent to the P4 3GHz, is the AMD Athlon XP 3000+

The 3000+ on the Athlon is not GHz. It's a "performance rating" which
people kind of know sort of means/meant pentium rating !

I do'nt know what effect factoring in the hyperthreading has in
relation to comparing P4 to AMD Athlon 64 XP.

People have mentioned the AMD Athlon 64 X2. It competes with the
Pentium D(a processor with 2 cores).  It's reasonably priced, one
speed of that processor may be cheap on newegg. I noticed that trend
with some other components too.

I did build alot of Athlon XP and P4 systems.. But the MBRDs for those
are old, I've had a few die recently.  You may be ok if you can get
hold of an unused one. (if i did buy second hand old mbrds for my
comps I won't do it again!)

Somebody mentioned to me that components since 2000 tend to only last
a couple of years.  May be true.. My friend's P3 450Mhz is still

There is a weird processor called "Pentium Dual Core". It probably
beats that one too.  I recall googling and finding that Intel dropped
the pentium brand after the Pentium D, introducing stuff like the
Intel Core Solo and Core Duo.  Maybe even the Core2 duo too. But
somewhere along the line they made a rubbish version of i tihink the
core duo, and gave it the pentium name and called it "dual core" and a
core like T2060.   I'm guessing that the AMD Athlon X2 XP beats that
one too.  I've noticed the dell site call the Pentium Dual Core a
"Pentium D" which given what I've read, is probably wrong.

Going off topic a little bit..

I haven't looked at how the AMD Athlon 64 X2 compares in speed/temp
with the Core Duo. But it's certainly beaten by the Core 2 Duo
(probably in both speed and temp). Core 2 Duo has different possible
cores. ULV is a good keyword to find a core Core 2 Duo core of low
temp, may give substantially lower temps.  I hope they remove  the
need for a fan!

Re: Pentium4 Vs. Athlon

On 16 Apr, 12:57, "" <snip>
Quoted text here. Click to load it

should read code or name. Not core  . Typo.


Re: Pentium4 Vs. Athlon

On 15 Apr 2007 23:51:58 -0700, wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

As always, when comparing two different CPU architectures
(or even more, in the case of single vs dual core, too) the
relevant factor has to be what your most demanding or most
common applications are.  There is no universal answer

I don't see why you want to arbitrarily hit the same
performance level as a P4/3GHz either, wouldn't it seem more
applicable to target a certain heat level->power
consumption, local availability if outside the US, or of
course price?

Site Timeline