1554104

Processors

November 9th, 2004 09:56 PM

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!

1554128

Re: Processors

November 9th, 2004 10:37 PM

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

1554135

Re: Processors

November 9th, 2004 10:44 PM

Peh...
AMD pwns Pentium.

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

1560387

Re: Processors

Force Recon

November 13th, 2004 01:35 AM

Wish there was AMD in Bangladesh.

1566259

Re: Processors

November 15th, 2004 12:50 PM

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.

1566274

Re: Processors

November 15th, 2004 12:55 PM

^^^

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

1594617

Re: Processors

November 27th, 2004 09:38 AM

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

1594719

Re: Processors

November 27th, 2004 10:32 AM

Ever used a 3.4E Prescott?

1594964

Re: Processors

November 27th, 2004 12:29 PM

I have one.

1595166

Re: Processors

November 27th, 2004 01:59 PM

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.