Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46

Thread: Pentium Vs Amd

  1. #31
    Yes, yes, now let's clear up a couple of things. For one thing, only the Pentium "M" has 1 megabyte of level 2 cache. All other pentiums have 512 kilobytes of level two cache, or less.

    Second, if you have been following the news, you will see that Intel is actually using AMD's strategy with the M series chips; "the clock speed is not the sole indicator of performance of the processor" is an AMD refrain.

    The best AMD chip is the Barton line. The reason why it can compete with Pentium in the first place is because of not only having 512 kb of level two cache, the Barton also has 128 kb of level one cache. All of this cache implies slower clock speeds give excellent performance.

    The Pentium is a better performing chip, nobody will argue about that.

    But if you take at look at AMD's budget and how well they do with it, it is astounding. We owe AMD for a lot. I remember when AMD was whooping Intel's a*s. You see that is amazing when you think about it. AMD has less than 1/10 of the R&D unit that Intel has and the fact that they are so competitive gives you a hint about their efficiency. I tip my hat to AMD, although I am an Intel user. B)

  2. Software & Hardware   -   #32
    Originally posted by Lamsey@30 July 2003 - 23:52
    over four times the price for only 1.5 times the performance? I don't think so.
    hmmm...don't think this is quite accurate...

    didn't you just say that clock speed wasn't the best measure of performance?
    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>BLAH</span>

    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Wayne Rooney - A thug and a thief</span>

  3. Software & Hardware   -   #33
    Ex-member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,450
    Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+31 July 2003 - 00:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 31 July 2003 - 00:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lamsey@30 July 2003 - 23:52
    over four times the price for only 1.5 times the performance? I don&#39;t think so.
    hmmm...don&#39;t think this is quite accurate...

    didn&#39;t you just say that clock speed wasn&#39;t the best measure of performance? [/b][/quote]
    read my post again.

  4. Software & Hardware   -   #34
    Originally posted by Lamsey@31 July 2003 - 00:55
    read my post again.
    i was simply mentioning that the performance of a 3000+ cpu isn&#39;t necessarily 1.5 times that of a 2000+
    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>BLAH</span>

    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Wayne Rooney - A thug and a thief</span>

  5. Software & Hardware   -   #35
    Ex-member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    5,450
    Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+31 July 2003 - 01:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 31 July 2003 - 01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lamsey@31 July 2003 - 00:55
    read my post again.
    i was simply mentioning that the performance of a 3000+ cpu isn&#39;t necessarily 1.5 times that of a 2000+ [/b][/quote]
    It&#39;s as near as dammit.

    Forgive me for not going and looking up benchmarks, then posting that it is actually 1.466666666666666667 times faster.


    (that&#39;s not a real statistic btw)

  6. Software & Hardware   -   #36
    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>BLAH</span>

    <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Wayne Rooney - A thug and a thief</span>

  7. Software & Hardware   -   #37

    Intel all the way. If you got the pockets for it.

  8. Software & Hardware   -   #38
    Keikan's Avatar ........
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Edmonton (Not Enfield)
    Age
    34
    Posts
    3,743
    Originally posted by mogadishu@30 July 2003 - 15:46
    Who actually needs a 3.0 ghz? The AMD is much much cheaper and is quite fast..
    You will want 3ghz if you don&#39;t want to upgrade that soon.
    Ohh noo!!! I make dribbles!!!

  9. Software & Hardware   -   #39
    Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Belle Vernon, PA, USA
    Posts
    638
    Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@30 July 2003 - 21:07
    I dont think 3200+ is 2.2 Ghz...give it a LITTLE more credit then that..even though i dont like amd much lol
    Geez. Do a little research, would you... High-Flying: AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Squares Off Against Intel P4 3 GHz -> Comparing All Athlon XP CPUs

    For those who need to be enlightened about AMD&#39;s model numbering: AMD Athlon™ XP Processor Benchmarking and Model Numbering Methodology (pdf).

  10. Software & Hardware   -   #40
    Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Belle Vernon, PA, USA
    Posts
    638
    Originally posted by 3rd gen noob@31 July 2003 - 02:00
    http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-22.html

    http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-23.html

    http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/..._charts-24.html

    oh, well

    i suppose a difference of 3000 in 3d mark isn&#39;t really that much

    I&#39;d say the Athlon XP 3000+ holds its own pretty damn well for being nearly a full GHz "slower" than the top P4. In fact, it actually beats the P4 3.06 GHz chip in UT2k3.

    Intel really should be ashamed...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •