Agree with most of the stuff below, but there is one difference between the Intel and AMD chips you might find important. We put a fair amount of effort into the Pentium 4 to have it self-monitor its temp. If it gets too hot, the processor throttles its own performance until it has cooled down. The idea is that if a fan fails, or the cooling vents are blocked, it's better for the machine to keep running than to take a chance on the CPU becoming permanently damaged. Reading Tom's HW page, I get the distinct impression AMD did not provide this same facility.
-BobC -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Toomim Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] OT CPU Fans Tom Browne wrote: > The 0.13s dissipate much less heat than the widely available AMDs... > >>According to these specs, my athlon XP 1600+ has a typical power >>consumption of 56.3W. A 1.6G pentium 4 has a spec of 60.8W. > > Why compare to the old pre-0.13 chips? > > Celeron 1.2A is rated at 30W.... P4 1.6A is rated at 38.7W. Yeah, well my point is not that you can find a pentium that is cooler than an athlon if you compare certain models of chips across particular generations of manufacturing -- it's that blanket statements like "athlons are hotter than pentiums" aren't true. When *I* bought my CPU, there weren't any 0.13 chips, and the AthlonXP was genuinely cooler than the P4! Intel has moved to a new process that gives them better power specs, but soon enough AMD will do the same and then their chips will be cooler instead, and then the cycle will repeat again...
