Intel Vs. Amd [Archive] - FileSharing Talk

ilw

09-06-2003, 12:47 PM

quotes from last time this went round

What it comes down to is your budget.
AMD is the best bang for buck. Period. 

  clock speed (gigahertz) is not the way to measure the performance of a CPU.

Intel have a higher cache, AMD pose 256-512KB but Intel have 1MB Level 2 cache. Intel clock speeds tend to be higher, I haven't seen an AMD clocked at 3.06GHz. And as well as that Intel have better overclocking facilities, I have seen a 3.06GHz Pentium Xeon overclocked to 3.71GHz, that's 650MHz!

AMD and Intel have different caching systems... what is present in L1 cache in a P4 is also present in L2, whereas in AMD systems they use a system that doesn't allow duplication between caches.

Which is more efficient? Look at AMD's performance per clock cycle and you will see.

For those who need to be enlightened about AMD's model numbering: AMD Athlon™ XP Processor Benchmarking and Model Numbering Methodology (http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25426C_WP_FINAL.pdf) (pdf). 

the 3200 is supposed to compete with the intel of the same rating ie 3.2Ghz , but its definitely behind in performance

yeah at the moment AMD's 2 highest chips are cheaper buy not as good as their Intel equivalents. So bang for buck they're close. Anything below a 3000 and the AMD is almost identical to the Intel, but loads cheaper so u get more for ur money

lynx

09-06-2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by MUSLEMAN+6 September 2003 - 13:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MUSLEMAN @ 6 September 2003 - 13:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@6 September 2003 - 08:01
http://www.amd.com/DAM/data/cordacharts/70649.jpg
and who performed that test??? it would not be amd would it!!!! [/b][/quote]
Of course it was AMD, but it says quite clearly whose tests they were (not AMD's)

I wonder why Intel don't produce any similar charts comparing performance ?

Acecool

09-06-2003, 01:43 PM

My AMD Athlon 1.1 ghz computer 512 ddram is faster than my frineds 2.0 ghz p4 256 ddram

cept for gfx card :-)

That should tell you something

asmithz

09-06-2003, 01:59 PM

You have more ram thats why your computer goes faster not the processcer.

ooo

09-06-2003, 02:07 PM

i just recently made an amd 2400 and an intel 2.4ghz they both seemed fairly similar... minor differences that ppl wont notice

3rd gen noob

09-06-2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Amarjit@6 September 2003 - 11:45
Fastest Over-Clocked CPU
AMD - ??GHz
Intel - 3.71GHz

so is this (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDIy) a joke then?

:blink:

asmithz

09-06-2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by 3rd gen noob+6 September 2003 - 07:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3rd gen noob @ 6 September 2003 - 07:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Amarjit@6 September 2003 - 11:45
Fastest Over-Clocked CPU
AMD - ??GHz
Intel - 3.71GHz

so is this (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDIy) a joke then?

:blink: [/b][/quote]
Look real but illigal becuase there are modifiying it.

3RA1N1AC

09-06-2003, 03:00 PM

ugh... not the clock speed comparisons again... <_<

would you prefer a 3.5ghz Celeron (or a 3.5ghz VIA C3?) over a 3ghz Pentium 4 or Athlon XP 3000? i wouldn't.

yes, the latest P4s are stronger performers than the latest Athlon XPs, but the clock speeds are coincidental to the differences between Intel and AMD chips' performance. clock speed is an invalid performance indicator when comparing two different microchip designs. not that synthetic benchmarks are much better at predicting "real life" performance, but obsessing over clock speed is absolutely the most simplistic and misguided approach to the issue.

also see: comparing clock speeds of ATI vs Nvidia graphics cards to make a claim about the inherent superiority of one or the other = your thread instantly goes down in flames.

aintgottime

09-06-2003, 07:33 PM

overall AMD are better!

RGX

09-06-2003, 08:25 PM

in my experience, AMD out performs P4 in the real world, under everyday conditions, which is what realy counts

I often find lag on games with p4's, even with pretty high clock speeds, wheras AMD chips are rock solid....even with the same amount of memory, same graphics cards in each machine

this could be down to the motherboard but I have a sneaking suspicion its the chips, could well be wrong though, anybody got independant performance comparisons, rather than those by AMD?

BabyGeniuses

09-06-2003, 08:31 PM

The age of 20Ghz processing power has already arrived. It just will be awhile before it becomes suitable for home-usage.
The Windows XP architecture, 64 bit edition, can now support somewhere around 10 CPUs all in a row. It can also support 1 TB of ram, supposedly.
Of course, a (super) computer such as this is extremely unaffordable to any home-user, minus perhaps Richie Rich...
But considering the logical choice for each of the 10 CPUs, you could easily hit 30Ghz of processing power if you wanted...

Snee

09-06-2003, 08:53 PM

I prefer AMD, but they say intel ones runs colder, which means they are harder to fry.

Oh, and scientists have been saying lately that in twenty years comps. will be able to out-think us. :D

Lamsey

09-06-2003, 09:51 PM

The fact remains that AMD offer almost exactly the same performance as Intel at a fraction of the price.

Unless you're the kind of idiot who will happily pay 150% of the price to get 105% of the performance, go with AMD.

_John_Lennon_

09-07-2003, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by Lamsey@6 September 2003 - 16:51
The fact remains that AMD offer almost exactly the same performance as Intel at a fraction of the price.

Unless you're the kind of idiot who will happily pay 150% of the price to get 105% of the performance, go with AMD.
Agreed lamsey, and well put.

abu_has_the_power

09-07-2003, 06:16 AM

but think about this, if u get wat u pay for, y is the p4 so expensive. there's obviously something good about it. in my opinion, amd's r for experienced overclockers, and intels r just fast out of the box, so for hardware noobies like me, the speed matches a overclocked amd. i have a p4 2.4 ghz 800 fsb and i think it has HT. i think it's pretty good. for wat i paid for. i would've gone with an amd, but i'm not an overclocker, and i would likely go nuts when my comp starts to smoke from overheating and overclocking. i'm happy with wat i have. ;)

DWk

09-07-2003, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by SnnY@6 September 2003 - 20:53
I prefer AMD, but they say intel ones runs colder, which means they are harder to fry.

search on kazaa for a video of this...you find one and see that AMD cpu's take less than second after removing the fan that they start frying and smoke starts to come out...

pentium instead takes WAY much more......but if u wanna fry a pc...no need for brands...just remove fans :D

DWk

DWk

09-07-2003, 06:19 AM

oh i forgot....i prefer neither of those...i have an amd on this computer and the other one has a p3...its all good....however you all forgot to mention that AMD 3200+ ISNT 3.2ghz....but about 2.8....while p4 3.2 IS 3.2ghz indeed....my amd 1800+ runs at 1.53.... the 2400+ runs at 1.8...etc....

yea they are cheaper, but you may be disappointed by the results because AMD doesnt put the actual speed on the cpu box :D

DWk

abu_has_the_power

09-07-2003, 06:19 AM

y would u want to fry it? :huh: :huh:

abu_has_the_power

09-07-2003, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by DWk@7 September 2003 - 06:19
oh i forgot....i prefer neither of those...i have an amd on this computer and the other one has a p3...its all good....however you all forgot to mention that AMD 3200+ ISNT 3.2ghz....but about 2.8....while p4 3.2 IS 3.2ghz indeed....my amd 1800+ runs at 1.53.... the 2400+ runs at 1.8...etc....

yea they are cheaper, but you may be disappointed by the results because AMD doesnt put the actual speed on the cpu box :D

DWk
like i said, intels r fast straight out of the box. amd's have to be overclocked, and u have to get all these cooling systems. my friend overclocked his athlonxp 2800 and got his comp all burned up. :lol: he had to replace the mobo and cpu. feel sory for him, and for all inexperienced people who r goin to overclock their amd. i think intels can be overclocked 2, but there won't be much of a point to do that. :lol:

abu_has_the_power

09-07-2003, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Lamsey@6 September 2003 - 21:51
The fact remains that AMD offer almost exactly the same performance as Intel at a fraction of the price.

Unless you're the kind of idiot who will happily pay 150% of the price to get 105% of the performance, go with AMD.
easy for u to say, mr. super hardware guy. people like me don't no sh*t about hardware. sory. but we like it out of the box. besides, if we could, we can overclock p4's if we wanted to. :lol: didn't mean to be mean.

amds r good, but they r for more advanced users. p4's r for the hardware nowledge deprived. :lol:

Cl1mh4224rd

09-07-2003, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@7 September 2003 - 07:16
but think about this, if u get wat u pay for, y is the p4 so expensive. there's obviously something good about it.
Yeah, just like Britney Spears' newest album. It costs a lot (as most CDs do, in my opinion), so there's obviously something good about it, right? <_<

Welcome to the real world, abu... $$$ != quality

adamp2p

09-07-2003, 07:14 AM

Hmmm....I don't know know about where this discussion is going...but I will say this much, as this is a standard topic that seems to really not accomplish much...

The real issue about Intel and AMD is what you can do the most with for less.

If you know where to get a good deal on an Intel Pentium 4 for the same price as an equally performing AMD chip, go for the Intel chip. However, this is rarely the case. Usually it is the opposite and AMD's microprocessors are much cheaper than Intel's chips unless you purchase an Intel based system from a proprietary manufacturer (which is a potential cause of headache...). AMD is generally the solution for the bargain hunting enthusiast...as AMD sells microprocessors with unlocked multipliers and Intel does not...which bothers the Tweaker segment of the market...

But that seems* to be changing.

Intel seems to be conforming to the enthusiast market by making this available (http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/software/dcc/index.htm)

So we will see. But I respect those of you who have the know how to assemble a AMD machine and are able to achieve your goals for significantly cheaper than those of you who paid top dollar for an Intel chip and can't afford a killer graphics card and more RAM...

B)

boyzeee

09-07-2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by DWk+7 September 2003 - 06:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DWk @ 7 September 2003 - 06:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-SnnY@6 September 2003 - 20:53
I prefer AMD, but they say intel ones runs colder, which means they are harder to fry.

search on kazaa for a video of this...you find one and see that AMD cpu's take less than second after removing the fan that they start frying and smoke starts to come out...

pentium instead takes WAY much more......but if u wanna fry a pc...no need for brands...just remove fans :D

DWk[/b][/quote]
AMD Athlon Processors run hotter than intels because they are just ALL overclocked to begin with coz AMD Couldnt or just cant be arsed to make a processor from scratch that will compete with the P4's speed. Its like comparing a BMW 330 3.0 6cylinder and a Ford Fiesta 1.3, They will both do a 100, but which one is more likely to blow up if you keep doin it?..............the bmw of course (lol) It all comes down to money at the end of the day, I run on a XP2.4 and invested some of what i saved on a intel to buy bigger and better cooling but it still runs to darn hot! only time will tell on long term reliability. ;)

nikita69

09-07-2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by adamp2p@7 September 2003 - 07:14
The real issue about Intel and AMD is what you can do the most with for less.
agree,

no offence to anyone, by I'm still using my XT and loving IT. :rolleyes:

lynx

09-07-2003, 09:11 AM

Amd: add 2 numbers together
Loads two numbers and prepares adding unit all at same time.

Intel: add 2 numbers together
Loads two numbers then prepares adding unit.

Obviously doing more things at the same time speeds things up, which means the processor can do the same amount of work wih a lower clock speed. However, doing more things at the same time also means that the processor gets hotter - work is what causes heat, not overclocking.

I hope that is simple enough for those of you who believe that GHz is a true measure or processor power. (It is not an exact example, merely to show the sort of things that go on in a processor).

Intel have been around for a long time, but they have never been particularly good at designing efficient processors, their sheer size has been a large factor in keeping them going, but they manage to stay at the front only by constantly raising the processor speeds. If someone combined Intel processor technology with AMD design technology, the result would wipe the floor with the processors of both Intel and AMD, but cooling such a beast would certainly be something of a headache.

3RA1N1AC

09-07-2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by boyzeee@6 September 2003 - 23:56
AMD Athlon Processors run hotter than intels because they are just ALL overclocked to begin with coz AMD Couldnt or just cant be arsed to make a processor from scratch that will compete with the P4's speed.
btw, this is a complete misunderstanding of what "overclock" means. you, the customer, do not decide what an overclock is. the manufacturer decides. it's as simple as that. they test the chips and decide how high the clock frequency can go while still remaining acceptably cool and stable, and then they rate it for a certain frequency. any clock frequency chosen by the manufacturer cannot be described as an overclock, because the manufacturer has the last word on what counts as a default clock or an overclock.

if YOU raise the frequency above the manufacturer's rating, it's an overclock. why? because the manufacturer says so.

boyzeee

09-07-2003, 09:44 AM

I know what you are saying but what i meant was instead of amd designing new processors they basically increase the clock speed of the ones they got already with the exception of barton, the design of the xp2.0 is basically the same as the 1400 but amd themselves have just overclocked it and still continue to do so.

lynx

09-07-2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by boyzeee@7 September 2003 - 10:44
I know what you are saying but what i meant was instead of amd designing new processors they basically increase the clock speed of the ones they got already with the exception of barton, the design of the xp2.0 is basically the same as the 1400 but amd themselves have just overclocked it and still continue to do so.
Amd raise their clock speeds in exactly the same way that Intel do, by refining the manufacturing process of chips of a certain design, but there comes a point where that design cannot be improved further, so a new model/generation has to be designed to provide further benefits.

The P4 3Ghz is exactly the same chip as the P4 2Ghz, why aren't you complaining about Intel overclocking their chips? Just another poor deluded person who has fallen into Intels Ghz trap.

3RA1N1AC

09-07-2003, 10:16 AM

if a company creates a CPU in 2003 and it only has a difference of a few hundred mhz between their first chip and their final one, and they can't take it any higher before needing to create a completely new design... they should consider it a failure, because research & development is pretty darned expensive, and CPU designs are meant to last for a while.

the reason Intel designed the P4 was not out of the goodness of their hearts, because they wanted to do a favor for their loyal customers, or in the interest of science. they designed the P4 because the P3 ran into a wall. the P3 got to a point where it either was unable to go any faster, or it wasn't performing well enough at its highest clock speeds to justify continuining with it. that's just bad luck for Intel. the P3 didn't have longevity. i don't know how high P4 clock frequencies are supposed to eventually go, but it appears to be a design that will end up dealing very well with extremely high clock speeds.

AMD is not guilty of overclocking, and neither will Intel be when they're still selling P4s that run at 4ghz-5ghz. it's actually a good thing, when they come up with a design that can scale well to significant increases in clock speed. that's just good research & development, and proof that they didn't waste their money on a bad chip design.

boyzeee

09-07-2003, 10:21 AM

"The P4 3Ghz is exactly the same chip as the P4 2Ghz, why aren't you complaining about Intel overclocking their chips? Just another poor deluded person who has fallen into Intels Ghz trap."

wtf? i repair pc's for a living mate so dont preach to me. i cant remember the last time i had a faulty intel based system that it was the processor that was f**ked, usually its other h/ware of config software issues. AMD based systems on the other hand (and ive just checked my book to be definate) i have had 6 xp2.0 systems where chip has died, 4 xp1700, and 1 xp 1800. I have had 20+ amd systems where they keep crashing and freezing due to poor cooling and dirty fans. so what does that tell me? they are running TO DARN HOT BECAUSE OF OVERCLOCKING OR WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT. I said in my first post that i myself run on an amd but have bloody good cooling, they are ok if they are running cool. STFU

lynx

09-07-2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by boyzeee+7 September 2003 - 11:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (boyzeee @ 7 September 2003 - 11:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I have had 20+ amd systems where they keep crashing and freezing due to poor cooling and dirty fans.
[/b]
So poor cooling is to blame.

<!--QuoteBegin-boyzeee
so what does that tell me? they are running TO DARN HOT BECAUSE OF OVERCLOCKING OR WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT.[/quote]
Or is it overclocking ? Can you make up your mind ?

How much does it take to get through to you that WORK creates heat, and obviously that heat has to be removed. AMD chips get hotter for the same clock frequency because they are doing more work - this is not overclocking, it is efficient processor design.

I think you are being a little unfair to blame AMD for the many undersized and incorrectly fitted cooling systems on the market, and most decent motherboards come with overtemperature prevention systems. It is hardly the fault of AMD if people do not set them up correctly or buy boards without this sort of protection. The only area where I would fault AMD is in not providing this sort of protection on-chip in the way that Intel do (which is presumably why you haven't seen many Intel chips which have blown through overheating).

Edit: removed flame, it was causing overheating and could have lead to hyper-threading.

3RA1N1AC

09-07-2003, 10:41 AM

btw, boyzeee, my responses are not meant to be insulting. i'm just trying to explain that it's the goal of both Intel and AMD to create a CPU design that they can continue to refine and speed up for a few years, rather than throw it away and have to design a new one. that's just the most profitable situation for them, if they can raise the clock speeds for a few years and still see significant increases in benchmark scores & such. because eventually there is a point of diminishing returns, for increases in clock speed vs actual processing power... and neither Intel nor AMD wants to see their CPUs cross that point too early.

as far as heat, that is an issue which can be dealt with by making adjustments/improvements to the manufacturing process. it's not a problem inherent to the design. personally, my 2ghz athlon maintains lower temperatures (approx 40C-45C) than my 1ghz athlon did (more than 50C), and the cooler isn't very much larger at all (edit: actually, it's the standard cooler packaged by AMD along with their retail CPUs).

boyzeee

09-07-2003, 11:04 AM

I do know what i am talking about and i am not saying that you dont! my reference to "overclocking or whatever" is from 3RA1N1AC posts refering to my terminology. i said in my first post you get what you pay for and intel do a better job ( in my humble opinion) at making "quality" processors and when i say quality i mean they dont give up on you because of a dirty cooler! I am not blaming AMD for the cooling issues in the pc's i have had in for repair and when i have sent back burnt out processors under warranty they have NEVER questioned it! that in itself speaks volumes to me. I dont doubt the performance of amd's thats why i run on one! the average user isnt going to notice much difference anyway. I actually recommend AMD's when i am building a pc but always install enough cooling to cope. And amd keep intel on there toes which is a good thing. I just think Amd seem (to me) to have pushed it to far with its processors, I mean just how big a cooler will we end up having to use! ;)

boyzeee

09-07-2003, 11:09 AM

lol...just seen ya edit..... peace :D

lynx

09-07-2003, 12:28 PM

A word of warning re overheated AMD cpu's - AMD are now VERY picky about replacing overheated cpu's - my supplier will not replace them if there is the slightest sign that the cpu has been overheated because they know that AMD will NOT replace them. I think this policy has been in place since the advent of the Thoroughbred series, and is being particularly enforced with the Barton series of chips.

I am told that if they are in any doubt whether the processor has been overheated they will run extra tests and will not replace the processor if overheating is proved. So anyone thinking of trying to get away with using minimal cooling should think again - AMD are trying hard to get away from the image that their processors run hot, and I think justifiably so with their latest offerings.

Snee

09-07-2003, 12:41 PM

http://www.chinkii.com/uploads/album/misc/oc.jpg

:D :lol:

DWk

09-07-2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by lynx@7 September 2003 - 10:38
So poor cooling is to blame.
omg...most people that buy computers dont know squat about a cpu, ram, or whatever...and you seem to say that AMD is only being sold to the "advanced user" that could buy a cooling system to USE the computer? for crying out loud man.... get the things str8 b4 u post this...

DWk

DWk

09-07-2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@7 September 2003 - 10:16
i don't know how high P4 clock frequencies are supposed to eventually go, but it appears to be a design that will end up dealing very well with extremely high clock speeds.
i dont think p4 is gonna go higher than 4 or 4.5 since they are putting out these new processors...well not soooo new.... but newest from Intel (Itanium and Xeon)...

good thing bout p4 is the 800mhz fsb, but i bet getting some ram sticks like that must be reaaaaaaaaly expensive :D

EDIT: i forgot to mention Centrino :D

DWk

boyzeee

09-07-2003, 01:32 PM

this topic needs some serious water cooling me thinks! or has it got to much? its either a tad frosty or overheating in here depending on how you look at it ;)

DWk

09-07-2003, 01:40 PM

keke :D

DWk

adamp2p

09-07-2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by SnnY@7 September 2003 - 13:41
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/367722/oc.jpg

:D :lol:
nice shot... :P

Snee

09-07-2003, 07:25 PM

I'm just happy it isn't my own comp. :lol:

Poor guy.

Lamsey

09-07-2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by boyzeee@7 September 2003 - 13:32
this topic needs some serious water cooling me thinks! or has it got to much? its either a tad frosty or overheating in here depending on how you look at it ;)
The problem here is that there are a lot of people in here spouting bullshit about stuff they have no idea about.

Some examples:

in my experience, AMD out performs P4 in the real world, under everyday conditions, which is what realy counts
Wrong. You can't generalise like this, it's all dependent on which chips you're talking about and which conditions they're operating in. It has been proved that the highest-end P4s are marginally faster than their Athlon equivalents.

in my opinion, amd's r for experienced overclockers
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

yea they are cheaper, but you may be disappointed by the results because AMD doesnt put the actual speed on the cpu box
You'll find that they do. AMD are not stupid enough to believe that clock speed defines the processing power of a chip, so they do not encourage this point of view.

like i said, intels r fast straight out of the box. amd's have to be overclocked, and u have to get all these cooling systems.......
i think intels can be overclocked 2, but there won't be much of a point to do that......
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

amds r good, but they r for more advanced users. p4's r for the hardware nowledge deprived.
Procedure for installing an AMD CPU:

lift lever on CPU socket

gently place CPU into socket, taking care to align pins properly

lower lever after checking the CPU is seated correctly

apply thermal paste to die of processor

place cooler on CPU, taking care to align it properly

engage clip on cooler

plug in cooler's power cable

Procedure for correctly installing an Intel CPU:

lift lever on CPU socket

gently place CPU into socket, taking care to align pins properly

lower lever after checking the CPU is seated correctly

apply thermal paste to die of processor

place cooler on CPU, taking care to align it properly

engage clip on cooler

plug in cooler's power cable

AMD Athlon Processors run hotter than intels because they are just ALL overclocked to begin with coz AMD Couldnt or just cant be arsed to make a processor from scratch that will compete with the P4's speed.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I know what you are saying but what i meant was instead of amd designing new processors they basically increase the clock speed of the ones they got already with the exception of barton, the design of the xp2.0 is basically the same as the 1400 but amd themselves have just overclocked it
AMD's Athlon line is one of the longest evolution chains in the CPU world, and they have progressed through many cores along the way, from Thunderbird to Palomino through the three revisions of Thouroughbred up until the Bartons.
So in actual fact they have been revising their CPU architecture a lot.

good thing bout p4 is the 800mhz fsb, but i bet getting some ram sticks like that must be reaaaaaaaaly expensive
For maximum effieciency, most experts agree that your FSB frequency should match your RAM frequency. Thus, the 800MHz FSB does not deliver twice the performance of a 400MHz FSB, since they'll both have to work on 400MHz DDR RAM.

EDIT: i forgot to mention Centrino
:blink: What on earth does Centrino have to do with it?

If you have no idea what you're talking about, that is cool; ask questions and we will happily answer. But don't start spouting crap, 'cos anyone with any knowledge will just tear you apart, and with good reason.

If you want to learn more about hardware, have a look at some hardware sites such as Tom's Hardware Guide (http://www.tomshardware.com), AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com) or better still Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com).

One of the biggest reasons for Intel's continued dominance of the CPU market is due to people being misinformed. If everyone knew how much better value AMD's processors are, Intel would be a dead company.
This thread is a good example of that.

ilw

09-07-2003, 09:24 PM

http://www.ml20.nowinbeta.org/thumbsup.gif Nice one lamsey, I'm glad someone cleared up all the crap that was being sprouted in this thread

lynx

09-07-2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by DWk@7 September 2003 - 14:30
good thing bout p4 is the 800mhz fsb, but i bet getting some ram sticks like that must be reaaaaaaaaly expensive :D
Is it really such a good thing ?

Once again, you have to remember that higher frequencies means higher temperatures, so it is a far better idea if you can find a way of increasing memory speed without raising frequency. This is the reason for ddr memory - twice the data throughput for the same frequency (DDR400 ram actually only runs at 200MHz). Power consumption rises in proportion to the square of the frequency, so (everything else being equal) memory on an 800MHz bus would generate 4 times the heat of the same memory on a 400MHz bus.

Of course, everything else is not equal, the core memory voltage is lowered in order to reduce the power consumption, this would make lower performance memory unstable so higher performance (and therefore, as you have suggested, more expensive) memory has to be used.

The solution is multi-channel memory transfers, so that more than one memory bank is transferring data at the same time. For example 4 banks of memory each running at 200 MHz (DDR400) could be configured to supply data simultaneously giving an aggregate data rate of 1600 MHz. Power consumption would be exactly the same as a single memory bank of 4 times the size running at 200MHz. Conversely, a single bank running at 800MHz (to give a data rate of 1600MHz) would consume 16 times as much power.

This sort of technology is already in use on high-power mainframe comps, and is now starting to appear in pc chipsets (eg Nvidia NForce2). The real way to progress is to do much more within existing frequencies rather that constantly attempt to produce higher and higher frequencies with all the associated problems.

AMD is showing the way in processor design, it's latest 400MHz FSB XP3000+ processor typically uses less power than the 266MHz FSB XP2000+, and only slightly more power consumption when running flat out - you are certainly not going to get those sort of improvements by constantly raising clock speeds.

Edit: and I wish I had seen Lamsey's piece before I wrote all of that.

Lamsey

09-07-2003, 09:34 PM

Nice one lamsey, I'm glad someone cleared up all the crap that was being sprouted in this thread

And I learned the above while doing a project in high school for Advanced Higher Computing; it's not difficult.

Even the more complex stuff I've learned since then like the differences between the caching methods, the ins and outs of Hyperthreading, etc., are not difficult to understand.

edit: @lynx, the latest AMD Athlon XP is actually the Barton-cored 3200+.

lynx

09-07-2003, 09:45 PM

@Lamsey, yes, I know the 3200 is the latest processor, when I refered to the 3000 I was meaning 400MHz FSB was the latest offering. The 3200 processor actually uses more power which is why I didn't quote that one, and there have also been mutterings about the performance of the 3200.

Lamsey

09-07-2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by lynx@7 September 2003 - 21:45
@Lamsey, yes, I know the 3200 is the latest processor, when I refered to the 3000 I was meaning 400MHz FSB was the latest offering. The 3200 processor actually uses more power which is why I didn't quote that one, and there have also been mutterings about the performance of the 3200.
Ah, sorry, misread you there.

The 3200+ is probably over-agressively named; I think 3100+ would be more accurate.

What many people don't realise is that the model numbers are based on the original Athlon's performance. The model number reflects the speed in MHz of an original Athlon.

However, the Intel P4 architecture is developing, while the original Athlon is the same as it always was; the Athlon model ratings, which started out better than equivalent P4 clock ratings, are now falling behind their equivalents.

This is because P4s were originally less efficient clock-for-clock than the original Athlon, but the newer P4s are now more efficent clock-for-clock, hence the apparent inequalties in the model rating system.

However, even taking this into account, 3200+ seems overly agressive for that chip, possibly a product of AMD's problems with matching Intel, due of course to the massively late launch of Hammer, or Athlon64.

Hopefully, model numbers will be less of a problem with Athlon64; I think they're planning on moving to a new rating system.

DWk

09-07-2003, 11:21 PM

i meant the thing about the cpu speed on the box as if they dont say that 1800+ is 1.53ghz.... in the box my processor came it didnt say 1.53ghz...only 1800+... didnt mean that they were "cheating" hehe...

DWk

Somebody1234

09-07-2003, 11:24 PM

It says the the rating and the clock speed on the box.

Lamsey

09-07-2003, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by DWk@7 September 2003 - 23:21
i meant the thing about the cpu speed on the box as if they dont say that 1800+ is 1.53ghz.... in the box my processor came it didnt say 1.53ghz...only 1800+... didnt mean that they were "cheating" hehe...

DWk
Digging.
Hole.
Deeper.

Clock speed alone tells you nothing about the speed of a CPU.

An AMD Athlon XP 3000+ runs at only 2.167 GHz, but it kicks the crap out of an Intel P4 running the same clock speed.

Lose your fascination with clock speed, the frequency of the CPU clock is misleading when comparing two different processor architectures.

_John_Lennon_

09-08-2003, 12:54 AM

Okay, one last time, FOR EVERYONE WHO SAYS AMD DOESNT SHOW THEIR CLOCK SPEED ON THE FREAKING BOX.

http://www.angelfire.com/ex/beatle/Pict0004.JPG

I took that off my 2500 Box.

Now guys, look, my point in this post is this, and its a small one. (All prices from www.newegg.com, great place to buy parts. and great prices)

AMD 1700+ XP = 60 dollars.
AMD 1800+ XP = 62 dollars.

Now, thats if you go AMD, if you got Intel, here are your options, for SIMILAR AMOUNT OF MONEY.

Intel Celeron 1.7 Ghz = 59 Dollars.
Intel Celeron 1.8 Ghz = 61 Dollars.
Pentium III 1 Ghz = 96 Dollars.
Pentium IV 1.8A Ghz = 127 Dollars.

And if you guys doubt this, here is a link

http://www.newegg.com/app/ListProduct.asp?...rtby=22&order=0 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ListProduct.asp?DEPA=1&submit=property&catalog=343&mfrcode=0&propertycodevalue=0,%200,%200,%200,%200,%200,%200,%200&keywords=&minprice=40&maxprice=&description=%20&sortby=22&order=0)

Should work, I think all the queries are saved. And I hope to god none of you Intel fan boys dont try and say, "well there you go, you just proved yourself wrong, that celeron is just as much as the AMD XP." For those of you who are thinking about it, Celerons are the cheap pieces that are in all the really, REALLY low end systems. www.emachines.com

AMD = Best bang for the buck. Like I just did, in your supposed 'real world' situations, dont compare performance, COMPARE THE FREAKING PRICE. I dont know about you guys, but I things get pretty simple in deciding on my proessor if I DONT HAVE THE MONEY FOR ONE OF THE OPTIONS.

I mean honestly guys, first you say, oh well, the 1.8Ghz P4 out performs the 1800+ XP. But, FOR THE 127 DOLLARS, YOU COULD BE AN AMD 2600+ XP. But of course then, you guys try and say "oh, well, you have to pay 80 dollars more than an 1800+. HORRIBLE LOGIC!

3RA1N1AC

09-08-2003, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by DWk@7 September 2003 - 05:30
i dont think p4 is gonna go higher than 4 or 4.5 since they are putting out these new processors...
well, even then, if the P4 stops at 4ghz or 4.5ghz, that would mean that the final P4s ended up being 2ghz+ faster than the very first P4s. i would call that a successful design, if they're able to get so much mileage out of it. and the same goes for the Athlon, imho.

Xanex

09-08-2003, 02:16 AM

Architecture Architecture Architecture

Its all about the Architecture

Can someone give me the temp for a p4 3.06HT Cpu at full maxed out CPU%?

Take a look at the size of the die for the p4 and for the amd athlon line, the p4 has a huge die (ergo muchos more $/£ since u get less outta the wafer and therfore less chips per wafer = more money)

The p4 also has a metal casing to the die, area to transmit heat is greater on a intel than a amd, so amd's do run hotter, they have a smaller die and less area to transmit the heat. i have to have my case opened (since new chip) cos i got a poor case and cooling, and ive got shitty silver thermal paste, if i where to shove my old thunderbird copper base heatsink with some artic silver 3 instead of the oem ( cos the old brace on the copper heatsink is just a bitch to equip) i would lower the temp from 51C to 40 odd C. case closed also.

but as it stands my amd2000+ operates at 44C base and 51C full 100% cpu case open. case closed 51 base and 60C full 100%. 60C for an amd is a stable temp, people are just used to overclockers temps where they try to get their chip as cool as poss'. amds can go as high as 90C b4 they burn out. my mobo has settings to shut it down at certain temps, and the lowest temp is 75C . (chaintech 7njs Ultra 400) which i think has to be one of the best amd mob's around right now.

my old amd t-bird ran at 37C full wack with 100% cpu load and that same old copper based bitch to fit heatsink and artic silver 2 case closed. !!!!!!

and then p4's only stay cooler cos they de-clock themselves when they get hot.

Leave an amd on over nite and it still has the same performance in the morning. leave a p4 overnite and its prolly' dropped the closk by 200mhz to lower the cpu temp to what the manufacturer has deemed "cool"

my 2p

Xan

ilw

09-08-2003, 08:31 AM

Can someone give me the temp for a p4 3.06HT Cpu at full maxed out CPU%? Depends solely on the cooling, there is no figure for this. What u want is the rate of heat output (or consumption) in watts, which i dunno offhand

The p4 also has a metal casing to the die, area to transmit heat is greater on a intel than a amd, so amd's do run hotter, If the heatsink and thermal paste is set up properly then the metal casing makes for poorer cooling not better. but it is true that the smaller die size means lower rate of heat dissipation

and then p4's only stay cooler cos they de-clock themselves when they get hot.

Leave an amd on over nite and it still has the same performance in the morning. leave a p4 overnite and its prolly' dropped the closk by 200mhz to lower the cpu temp to what the manufacturer has deemed "cool" they only lower their operating frequency when the temperature becomes dangerous to the chip (ie 80 degrees or something like that) . A p4 adequately cooled will be the same speed in the morning. If it was reallly poorly cooled it would slow down as u say, an AMD left poorly cooled would simply shut off. (I think the old thing about AMD chips burning out has been addressed and all recent chips shouldn't do that)

Secret Squirrel

09-08-2003, 11:43 PM

Ok u guys can debate "clock time" :lol: and all that other stuff but the hardcore fact is that Intel's stock kicks amd's stock's ass the only reason amd's iz above the 10 dollar mark rite now cuz they announced opteron 64 bit that also runs 32 bit. BTW INTEL HAD 64 BIT BEFORE AMD JUSS THAT THEY DUN RUN 32 BIT LIKE AMD(THere called XEON)

Lamsey

09-08-2003, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by Secret Squirrel@8 September 2003 - 23:43
Ok u guys can debate "clock time" :lol: and all that other stuff but the hardcore fact is that Intel's stock kicks amd's stock's ass the only reason amd's iz above the 10 dollar mark rite now cuz they announced opteron 64 bit that also runs 32 bit. BTW INTEL HAD 64 BIT BEFORE AMD JUSS THAT THEY DUN RUN 32 BIT LIKE AMD(THere called XEON)
Did you see that bit about not posting if you don't know what you're talking about?

No?

Oh well...

lynx

09-08-2003, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Secret Squirrel@9 September 2003 - 00:43
Ok u guys can debate "clock time" :lol: and all that other stuff but the hardcore fact is that Intel's stock kicks amd's stock's ass the only reason amd's iz above the 10 dollar mark rite now cuz they announced opteron 64 bit that also runs 32 bit. BTW INTEL HAD 64 BIT BEFORE AMD JUSS THAT THEY DUN RUN 32 BIT LIKE AMD(THere called XEON)
Just about to correct a couple of errors, then saw Lamsey's post, so never mind.

clocker

09-09-2003, 01:41 AM

I've seen this exact debate on several forums that I visit and it always seems to degenerate into throwing statistics and test numbers back and forth.

What is the real world difference?

I have to assume that this argument is mostly of interest to gamers, as most users aren't pushing their CPUs at 100% for hours on end.
So, is there a real difference between comparable chips when actually playing a game?

3RA1N1AC

09-09-2003, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by clocker@8 September 2003 - 17:41
I've seen this exact debate on several forums that I visit and it always seems to degenerate into throwing statistics and test numbers back and forth.

What is the real world difference?

I have to assume that this argument is mostly of interest to gamers, as most users aren't pushing their CPUs at 100% for hours on end.
So, is there a real difference between comparable chips when actually playing a game?
a lot of the people who get worked up about CPU comparisons are video game players. that is true. sure, if you just check your email, surf the web, download a bit of pr0nz, listen to some mp3s, you're not going to make a modern CPU break a sweat.

but games are not the only things that push CPUs to 100% of their abilities. there are plenty of people who get paid to use computers all day, who would be concerned about CPU comparisons. editing audio, video, creating multimedia/internet content, using photoshop or illustrator, running scientific programs (i admit, this is a bit more rare than the other professional types)... any of that can and will easily use 100% of a CPU's cycles and CPU speed can make a huge difference in how long it takes you to complete your tasks. a lot of people do some of those more creative things at home as part-time work, or just for their own amusement-- faster CPUs do benefit their activities.

as for the effect of CPU speed on games, it depends. the results vary wildly from one game to the next because any modern 3D game depends on the combined speeds of the CPU and the 3D-accelerated video card (designed to remove much of the burden from the CPU, of rendering 3D graphics). some games rely more heavily on the speed of the CPU, some rely more heavily on the speed of the video card. two classic examples are Quake 3 Arena and Unreal Tournament. in these reflex-intensive games, displaying a high rate of frames per second benefits the player by presenting a more accurate, smoothly animated representation of the action, so the player can respond more confidently based on more reliable visual information. Quake 3 Arena's frame rate flies when you play it with a high-end video card and a lower-end CPU-- it is not especially dependent on CPU speed. Unreal Tournament on the other hand benefits to some extent from video card upgrades, but fast CPUs are what really make its frame rate improve.

of course, those two games are a few years old... so there is such a thing as "more than enough computer power" for older games. after you pass a certain threshold, there's really no discernible difference between 110 frames per second or 210 frames per second. but then the next generation of games is released, following the same pattern of hardware-dependence but wanting MORE, rendering last year's best-PC-on-the-block into an outdated piece of junk because it doesn't have enough speed.

clocker

09-09-2003, 03:01 AM

Brainiac,

Thanks for the reply.
Well written.

I realize that there are other apps that can intensively use a CPUs cycles.

I guess my point is that so far all I read here are number comparisons.
Or theoretical debates about the advantages about different archetectures etc.

I think it would be more informative if someone could post something like: " I've played Quake with both setups and I like AMD because..." .

Most of this discussion seems to be pretty blue-sky.

When I was building my first system a couple of weeks ago, I asked the guys at my local comp shop this same question.
They didn't launch into a dissertation about stats or theoretical advantages.
Their reply: "How much money ya got?".

lynx

09-09-2003, 03:03 AM

The very high frame rates of some of the modern games are ridiculous - above about 100 fps (about 50fps for lcd) the refresh rate of the phosphor on the monitor (or lcd pixel) cannot keep up with the frame rate, so anything above that is totally wasted. And in any case, the human eye cannot react at anything like those speeds (actually only about 8 fps), although the frame rate needs to be much faster than the eye to avoid strobing effects.

Game developers should concentrate on getting more detail rather than higher frame rates, or better still make better games based on current processor speeds rather than trying to produce games that stretch pc's further and further. I suspect we are getting past the limit of what is required in terms of frame rate, and getting near to the limit of what is required in terms of picture detail.

I often have periods where my processor is running at 100%, but not so much that I can justify spending a lot of money on the top processor chips. I set myself a budget and find out what sort of performance I can get for that money. I don't care whose tests you use, the answer is always AMD. I've currently got a XP1700+, Sandra tells me that the performance is bettter than a 1.6GHz Pentium and worse than a 1.8Ghz Pentium, but it cost me a lot less than any Intel chip. I'm currently looking to upgrade, the XP2400+ beckons (I think that's the fastest chip I can get for my current M'board), and £63.43 seems a very reasonable price, far better than £132.92 for a 2.4GHz P4.

I think someone was quoting stock prices earlier - all I can say is that if so many people are foolish enough to pay excessive prices for their processor chips, it is hardly surprising that Intel has a high stock valuation.

3RA1N1AC

09-09-2003, 05:42 AM

well, the effect of a CPU's brand on games is relatively intangible. upgrading your CPU may or may not contribute to an increase in frames-per-second, it may or may not make the game run more smoothly. i would not expect a person to be able to identify Intel or AMD (like a Coke vs Pepsi taste test) if they were given a chance to play the same game on two unmarked computers.

in contrast, you upgrade a 3D video card, and you get more frames per second, you can turn up the detail levels, you may be able to enable more special effects that your older card couldn't produce, etc. some people can pretty easily tell which picture is produced by which card, because of certain quirks or characteristics of each brand's display methods. the characteristics and features of the video card are obvious.

but CPUs? i would be incredibly surprised if someone could identify the two brands in a "blind" test, to the point where a preference is justified on performance or stability alone. their brand-exclusive features are entirely speed-related (aside from throttling/idling behavior). both brands perform well, both brands make 100% stable CPUs. CPUs either work or don't work, period-- improper cooling, shoddy motherboards & RAM, etc are completely separate issues. there just is no obvious difference to identify the CPU brand, if you haven't already been told which one you're using. "i play Quake on AMD because AMD makes Quake look better, sound better, feel better." anyone who claims such a thing (about Intel or AMD) is just fooling themselves.

clocker

09-09-2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@8 September 2003 - 23:42
well, the effect of a CPU's brand on games is relatively intangible. upgrading your CPU may or may not contribute to an increase in frames-per-second, it may or may not make the game run more smoothly. i would not expect a person to be able to identify Intel or AMD (like a Coke vs Pepsi taste test) if they were given a chance to play the same game on two unmarked computers.

in contrast, you upgrade a 3D video card, and you get more frames per second, you can turn up the detail levels, you may be able to enable more special effects that your older card couldn't produce, etc. some people can pretty easily tell which picture is produced by which card, because of certain quirks or characteristics of each brand's display methods. the characteristics and features of the video card are obvious.

but CPUs? i would be incredibly surprised if someone could identify the two brands in a "blind" test, to the point where a preference is justified on performance or stability alone. their brand-exclusive features are entirely speed-related (aside from throttling/idling behavior). both brands perform well, both brands make 100% stable CPUs. CPUs either work or don't work, period-- improper cooling, shoddy motherboards & RAM, etc are completely separate issues. there just is no obvious difference to identify the CPU brand, if you haven't already been told which one you're using. "i play Quake on AMD because AMD makes Quake look better, sound better, feel better." anyone who claims such a thing (about Intel or AMD) is just fooling themselves.
So would that make Lamsey's assertion that "it all comes down to money"* valid then?

* paraphrase

ilw

09-09-2003, 07:02 PM

Of course when choosing a chip the money is all important. If youve got tons of money to spare and are just looking to buy the very best and latest system then its all about the top spec chip, otherwise you will want the best chip you can afford (without sacrificing the quality of the other components). Also the point about discussing which chip is faster is not only looking at what could use 100% cpu now, but also how long the chip will be able to cope before its obsolete/can't play hte games being released.

Xanex

09-10-2003, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by ilw@8 September 2003 - 09:31

Depends solely on the cooling, there is no figure for this. What u want is the rate of heat output (or consumption) in watts, which i dunno offhand

Thankyou for that really nice post I enjoyed reading it =)

To clarify: Intel P4 3.06HT with the OEM cooling.

Basically a prebuild that you would buy from any major suckage retail shop eg PC world etc

Thanks

LaVaNaNo

09-21-2003, 04:58 AM

AMD ownz all

Cl1mh4224rd

09-21-2003, 09:48 AM

Assumtions: "Intel" = P4 3.06GHz; "AMD" = AthlonXP 3000+ (2.1GHz)

Cost (from NewEgg.com (http://www.newegg.com/))
Intel: $379.00
AMD: $269.00

AMD is cheaper. (Intel - 0; AMD - 1)

Intel = $0.12/MHz
AMD = $0.13/MHz

Intel squeezes by AMD at $0.01 cheaper per MHz. (Intel - 1; AMD - 1)

(Following info gather from Tom's Hardware Guide (http://www.tomshardware.com/): "Benchmark Marathon: 65 CPUs from 100 MHz to 3066 MHz (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/index.html)")

OpenGL Benchmarks (1024x768 / 32 bit / 85Hz)
Intel: 351.3 FPS
AMD: 311.2 FPS

Intel gives you more FPS. (Intel - 2; AMD - 1)

Intel = $0.92/FPS;
AMD = $0.86/FPS;

AMD offers better price/FPS than Intel. (Intel - 2; AMD - 2)

Intel = 0.11 FPS/MHz
AMD = 0.14 FPS/MHz

AMD offers better FPS per MHz than Intel. (Intel - 2; AMD - 3)

Direct3D Benchmarks (1024x768 / 32 bit / 85Hz)
Intel: 15878
AMD: 15655

Intel squeaks by with a higher score. (Intel - 3; AMD - 3)

Intel = 41.89 pts/$
AMD = 58.20 pts/$

AMD offers more points per dollar. (Intel - 3; AMD - 4)

Intel = 5.07 pts/MHz
AMD = 7.28 pts/MHz

AMD also offers more points per MHz. (Intel - 3; AMD - 5)

Audio/Video Benchmarks (1178 MB Wave / VBR)
Intel: 72 seconds
AMD: 110 seconds

Intel beats AMD when it comes to encoding. (Intel - 4; AMD - 5)

Intel = 0.043 (MB/sec)/dollar
AMD = 0.039 (MB/sec)/dollar

Intel offers slightly faster encoding per dollar (Intel - 5; AMD - 5)

Intel = 0.0052 (MB/sec)/MHz
AMD = 0.0050 (MB/sec)/MHz

Intel also offers slighltly faster encoding per MHz. (Intel - 6; AMD - 5)

Synthetic Benchmarks - CPU (PC Mark 2002) (1280x1024 / 32 bit / 85Hz)
Intel: 7571
AMD: 6646

Intel gives you a higher score. (Intel - 7; AMD - 5)

Intel = 19.98 pts/$
AMD = 24.71 pts/$

AMD offers more points per dollar, however. (Intel - 7; AMD - 6)

Intel = 2.42 pts/MHz
AMD = 3.09 pts/MHz

AMD also offers more pts per MHz. (Intel - 7; AMD - 7)

Synthetic Benchmarks - Memory (PC Mark 2002)
Intel: 8120
AMD: 6853

Again, Intel gives you a higher score. (Intel - 8; AMD - 7)

Intel = 21.42 pts/$
AMD = 21.76 pts/$

Wow, a close one, but again, AMD offers more points per dollar. (Intel - 8; AMD - 8)

Intel = 2.59 pts/MHz
AMD = 3.19 pts/MHz

AMD offers more points per MHz, also. (Intel - 8; AMD - 9)

Applications Benchmarks (File Compression: WinRAR 3.1) (178 MB)
Intel: 53 seconds
AMD: 69 seconds

Intel beats AMD in file compression. (Intel - 9; AMD - 9)

Intel = 0.0087 (MB/sec)/dollar
AMD = 0.0096 (MB/sec)/dollar

AMD offers faster file compression per dollar (Intel - 9; AMD - 10)

Intel = 0.0011 (MB/sec)/MHz
AMD = 0.0012 (MB/sec)/MHz

AMD also offers slightly faster file compression per MHz. (Intel - 9; AMD - 11)

Conclusion:

Overall, AMD just barely beats out Intel. However, if you like big numbers, Intel is the way to go (Intel - 6; AMD - 1). If you're more concerned about bang-for-your-buck, AMD is a must (Intel - 3; AMD - 10).

There you have it...

Lamsey

09-21-2003, 10:02 AM

Oh great, another person who's obessed with clock rates.

That's a very nice post and well thought out, but you really need to lose the clock rate fascination.

Cl1mh4224rd

09-21-2003, 11:43 AM

It's not just about clock speed. It's the performance per advertised clock speed, which AMD clearly wins at. If it was about clock speed, Intel would win hands down.

So, how do you suggest comparing these processors without getting into their clock speeds? I don't see anyone else actually trying figure anything out. Just a lot of meaningless "you're wrong," "no, you're wrong," "you're all wrong" bullshit...

Amarjit

09-21-2003, 11:59 AM

Hey, I'm not saying that Intel's perfect. In term of Front Side Bus Frequency, they are beaten, by IBM, with their G5 processer which has a 1GHz FSB.

Lamsey

09-21-2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Cl1mh4224rd@21 September 2003 - 11:43
So, how do you suggest comparing these processors without getting into their clock speeds? I don't see anyone else actually trying figure anything out. Just a lot of meaningless "you're wrong," "no, you're wrong," "you're all wrong" bullshit...
AMD have a rather useful thing called a model rating. If you actually read my posts above on the subject, you'd see why clock speed is often irrelevant.

Cl1mh4224rd

09-21-2003, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Lamsey@21 September 2003 - 14:46
AMD have a rather useful thing called a model rating. If you actually read my posts above on the subject, you'd see why clock speed is often irrelevant.
I prefer AMD myself, but the model rating is useless. I know you know it's just the comparative clock speed of what an earlier AMD chip design would've been capable of. If Intel also used a model rating like AMD, I'm sure the P4 3.06GHz would be the "Intel 4000+", which means clock speeds are just obfuscated even more, and no other choice but to look at the actual clock speed of the chip.

Seems as though you're trying to say that comparing CPUs is like arguing the existence of God. So, I ask you once again... how do you propose showing comparative CPU performance, without involving clock speed?

I'm not trying to say, "OMG!!11 INteL sPEed > AMd SpeED! iNTEl Win!!111!!" and that a 2GHz Intel chip = a 2GHz AMD chip. If I had done that, then you say I was obsessed with clock speed. Look over my numbers and you'll realize that this about how much performance each chip squeezes out. Granted, FSB is a factor, too, but I wasn't sure how to add that into the comparison (although Intel's 533MHz FSB may have helped in the breakdown, it still wasn't enough to beat out AMD, with only a 400MHz FSB, in most areas).

If you can figure out a way to include FSB, L1 cache, L2 chache, and any other aspect of each chip into the comparisions, I'll gladly redo everything.

lynx

09-21-2003, 09:00 PM

How about just comparing performance, then clock speeds are unimportant. If your computer has a speed of 400Mhz, but it outperforms mine with 20Ghz, are you going to tell me that mine is better in some ways? I don't think so, unless of course mine costs half the price.

That's what it's all about, performance/price. The ONLY exception is when one produces a chip with performance that the other just cannot match.

Edit: it doesn't even matter if one calls it a 5000+ and its performance compares to the oppositions 3000, the cheaper one is better, so even names don't matter.

jbrockz

09-21-2003, 09:11 PM

ok..i may be a little out of sync here since i didn't read this thread from post one...but here goes.

FSB is often more important then clock speed [one reason being you can overclock ;) ]. FSB speeds are the speeds at which the different devices inside the pc communicate and if this is not good enough speed, it serves as a bottleneck to the actual performance of the devices. as for the caches [l1, l2] they are also important bacause they provide info [for lack of a better word] beforehand so whatever device is asking the processor for some processed instruction doesn't have to wait. [noob, so pardon me for not using technical words] example, intel is gonna make special edition P4s with a lot more cache [3mb but not sure].

all in all, cache and fsb dictate the decision over clock speed.