Processors
 

Can someone give me a link to a site that shows AMD to Pentium equivilents, or just tell me? i have an Athlon XP 2100+ and my friend has a Pentium 4 2.0 mhz non hyperthreaded. He says since his processor has more mhz..it's faster. But i hear that some AMDs with lower clock rates are faster than Pentiums with higher clock rates. I want to see who has the faster processor so if mine is, i can rub it in his face. Thx!

Re: Processors
 

something like this i guess but i haven't read it so dont blame me !!
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...0/index.x?pg=1


or this
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/hardware...t/index1.shtml

Re: Processors
 

Peh...
AMD pwns Pentium.

MY AMD 3400+ runs fasyer than any Pentim Chip ive used.

Re: Processors
 

Wish there was AMD in Bangladesh.

Re: Processors
 

Anybody who thinks that megahertz are the only thing you need to consider when looking at processors is exactly the sort of person Intel hope to attract.

The best way of thinking about it is this; Intel go for the easy but messy solution, which is piling on as many numbers as they possibly can and hoping for the best. AMD go for the efficient but complicated solution, which is making sure every drop of performance you can possibly get is squeezed out of every hertz. IPCs, pipelines, cache, bus, you name it, you have to consider it. An Intel processor is like a 1907 Rolls Royce Silver Ghost compared to a 2004 Ford Fiesta. The Roller had a huge 7 litre engine, and managed a great whopping speed of 65mph. A Ford Fiesta has a tiny 1.4 litre engine. But the Fiesta can hit over 100mph, and it can get there much faster. Why? The Fiesta is far, far, far more efficient than the Rolls Royce. Maybe a slightly extreme example, but it gets across the point. If Intel were to bring their efficiency up to AMD's level, then we could compare a 2004 7 litre engine to that 2004 1.4 litre engine... and they'd definitely fly ahead. But as they stand at the moment, an older example is probably most accurate...
When looking at a clock speed, think of it as how many litres a car engine is, and only take it at face value – dig in deeper to get a real idea of what each is capable of. See how many instructions the processor can perform in every cycle, see how many pipelines it has -- find out what makes it tick, not just how fast it ticks.

Intel are after customers, not speed. At the end of the day, their policy works. People look at the big numbers and immediately assume that it's substantially faster than the one with smaller numbers. Which is exactly why AMD has gone and confused everyone with its little numbers (2400+ instead of 2Ghz, for instance). Because people are seemingly incapable of looking beyond the numbers, Intel will sell more. AMD had to adopt the coding system. But, an AMD AthlonXP 2Ghz is capable of processing more instructions per cycle than a 2.4 Ghz Intel, which in most activities will allow them to run neck-and-neck. There are very few activities where a high clock cycle is actually important, but when you consider the price difference between the two brands, this importance really isn't noticeable.

Re: Processors
 

^^^

I got a 2.4ghz p4 running in my comp and it runs good. In a few years when i upgrade i will look into an AMD 64bit processor/mobo.

I think AMD has more transistors per chip than intel does

Re: Processors
 

Intel is faster at video encoding. Amd is faster at gaming.

Re: Processors
 

Ever used a 3.4E Prescott?

Re: Processors
 

I have one.

Re: Processors
 

Yes the Prescott is one hell of a design. It has 1Mb of L2 Cache, double what AMD can offer at that price.

As for the difference, AMD have always offered slower processors, but with better performance in other aspects such as data transfer, CPU Temperatures and Hard Drive communications to name a few.

Like Mr.Matt said - Intel are more widely know so usually attract the Granny looking for the PC to play Minesweeper on or the Parents looking to use Microsoft Money. AMD are less known, but are way better if you ever want high performance. They invested in 64-bit technology a few years ago and because of that have made Intel start franticly planning a 64-bit of their own.

Re: Processors
 

I dunno, to me minesweeper looks an awful lot like Farcry running 60-70fps on Ultra settings these days. I don't doubt the AMDs are well built, they also have a lot of extras that Intels don't. But it doesn't mean they don't have the performance. If you said Celeron, then yeah I would say yeah, Granny. But not the Prescott. Sorry, man.

Re: Processors
 

I'll keep my 1337 32bit p4 for a little while longer.

Now how much of a differnce does Hyper threading or hyper transopt technology make in a processor? About 11 months ago intel was parading HT tech around.
hmmm 3.2ghz prescott going for $225 off newegg...May look at getting one for the summer:naughty:.

Re: Processors
 

I agree that Celerons are a pile of horse fecese.

I never said Intel were bad, just a bit lacking on the performance-front. The reason Prescotts are so cheap is because Intel will be replacing the Pentium 4 soon with their version of 64-bit or a brilliant new 32-bit processor (not likely).

Re: Processors
 

I understand, but what I'm trying to say is, I'm running Intel, and I'm not lacking in performance. It's a misconception that a lot of people have about Intel that if they get a Pentium, they won't perform well. The truth is, if the system is set up right, and parts are matched up(following MB compatability lists, others experiences etc.), the performance is there. Gobs of it.

Re: Processors
 

the story behind celerons.

Intel (cheap loser bastards) made a processor with a cool name, so that it would stand out to the computer idiots. This new chip is an underpowered version of the pentium 4.

so Intel are cheap money-grubbing bastards.

Re: Processors
 

Intels best stuff really is very good, but AMD can still beat it. The Prescott is beaten by the AMD 64-bit FX series on performance, but not on price.

On a budget, I would buy an Intel and still be very pleased with it. The Prescott can handle the likes of Half-Life 2, Rome: Total War and Far Cry with ease. But with a wad of cash, I would buy AMD as they offer the very best performance.

Hey have you even heard of the AMD Sempron processors?

Re: Processors
 

:agreed. I got a good system...for the average user and it runs very good. Boots up in about 45 seconds, which is alot faster than my pII 350mzh:lol:. But for gaming it is crappy:(.

It runs very cool from what i have been reading about processors. Idels at around 90f (31c) and will get up to about 115f(40c) with the stock heatsink/fan.

Re: Processors
 

......and the Duron?

Re: Processors
 

From what I read it is a low cost processor to help lower computer costs and make computers more avavble. Same goes with the duron. If all you need a comp for is internet surfing, typing, photo sharing, and maybe some Counter strike(original version) then that is great.

Re: Processors
 

my gaming computer is awsome for gaming. AMD Athlon 64 3400+ ATI radeon 9800 XT.

i can poump any game up to max graphics and go online lag FREEE.

Re: Processors
 

^^What kind of RAM configuration do you have?

Re: Processors
 

I have a GB of DDR400
heres what it is

Re: Processors
 

Is it dual or single channel? How many slots does it have?

Re: Processors
 

oh my god that is expensive lol but it is lifetime warranty:confused:

Re: Processors
 

AMD doesnt rate its chips using clock speed, it rates according to performance. As Intel is the market leader, their performance ratings are compared to Intel chips. This means that a 2000+ chip is the equivalent of an Intel chip clocked at 2000 mhz, a 4000+ chip is the equivalent of an Intel chip clocked at 4000 mhz, etc.

Re: Processors
 

AMD is way better still i dont care who is the "market leader"