Intel Pentium 4 2.2 GHz and AthlonXP 2000+ in the test: The battle of the titans

Intel Pentium 4 2.2 GHz and AthlonXP 2000+ in the test: The battle of the titans


One can certainly say that the Pentium 4 is the fastest with 2.2 GHz Processor of our five candidates. But the Athlon XP 2000+ doesn’t have to hide, but can hold up against it, especially in older applications. You shouldn't forget that we used the two fastest test environments for this article and here the Pentium 4 with itsfaster Rambus platform of course benefits. It is superior to the DDR system of the Athlon XP, especially in memory-intensive applications, due to the higher bandwidth. But the Pentium 4 can also call it the fastest and, in our opinion, most stable platform. In return, the buyer has to dig deeper into their pockets for both the processor and the board. The fact that the Pentium 4 with the i850 is currently the most stable, fastest and also a very good platform in other aspects such as IRQ distribution is not least due to the fact that the chipset was developed directly by Intel. How big the difference between a Pentium 4 system with Rambus and a DDR-RAM system is, we will examine in more detail in further articles.

So that the Pentium 4 clearly sets itself apart from the Athlon XP, one thing must definitely not be missing: The right support for SSE2. If this is the case, the Pentium 4 has almost won the race. In this case, even the otherwise slower Pentium4 2.0A can come in front of the Athlon XP 2000+.

However, if the SSE2 support is not given or has only been implemented inadequately, our tests have clearly shown, that the Athlon XP 2000+ can also be faster than the 2.2 GHz Pentium 4. This is particularly due to the fact that the Athlon XP can execute more instructions per clock (Instructions per Clock, IPC) and therefore also with lower ones Clock can keep up with a much faster clocked Pentium 4. Due to its architecture, the Pentium 4 has to be clocked higher in order to process the same number of instructions in the same time. Of course, Intel has the advantage that it is possible to advance into GHz regions that AMD cannot yet.

Intel is therefore more dependent than AMD on the support of the software manufacturers at the moment. Latelybut if the number of software optimized for SSE2 is steadily increasing and should AMD also put its hammer on SSE2, nothing stands in the way of the long-term breakthrough of this instruction set.

It is also interesting that this is from AMD, of course The performance rating that is not designed for the Pentium 4 can usually be transferred fairly well to it. Sometimes the Athlon XP would even surpass this specification. But again, it is not designed by AMD as a comparison to Intel CPUs, but is intended to illustrate its own superiority over the normal Athlon, but AMD has to put up with the comparison with a Pentium 4. Since many buyers only pay attention to the MHz number, a performance rating naturally also has far better sales opportunities. Many would prefer an Athlon XP 2000+ to an Athlon XP 1666MHz, even if it means no difference apart from the name. Certainly a well thought-out step by the marketing department at AMD to reduce the optical speed advantage of the Pentium 4 for uninformed buyers who only make their purchase according to the MHz specification.

But let's take a quick look on the current prices of our test candidates:

Prices for the purchase of 1000 pieces
Intel Pentium 4 price AMD Athlon XP price 1800 MHz (Willamette) 193 $ 1533 MHz (1800 +) 188 $ 1900 MHz (Willamette) 241 $ 1600 MHz (1900+) 231 $ 2000A MHz 364 $ 1666 MHz (2000+) 339 $ 2200 MHz 562 $

AMD certainly still offers the best price/performance ratio, even if prices in the past were either due to price reductions at Intel or price increases in the course of the introduction of the Athlon XP AMD approached more and more en.

The game of who has the fastest processorbut should not be fought for a long time. AMD just presented the new Athlon XP 2100+ and Intel countered at the beginning of April with the Pentium4 2400.

It should only get really exciting again when Intel uses the 133 MHz (533 QDR) FSB and AMD switched to 0.13 µm. Both already promise to elicit new performance from the processors.

As always, our forum is responsible for questions.

This article was interesting, helpful or both? The editorial team is happy about any support from ComputerBase Pro and deactivated ad blockers. More on the topic of Ads on ComputerBase .