2500+ OCed to 2.45ghz vs. Athlon 64 3000+

[tesco]

Jaigandhi was too lazy to post but he wants to know which would perform better in games, etc.
His Athlon XP 2500+ which is OCed to 2.45ghz or an Athlon 64 3000+?

[Spicker]

btw its a 2500+M which is running at 2.45Ghz and the 64bit 3000+ socket 754 which runs at 2.0ghz

[Virtualbody1234]

In 32 bit mode the overclocked 2500+M would be faster.

[S!X]

Jaigandhi was too lazy to post but he wants to know which would perform better in games, etc.
His Athlon XP 2500+ which is OCed to 2.45ghz or an Athlon 64 3000+?
Lazy ass:dry:

[cpt_azad]

lol

[Skiz]

Athlon 64 3000+?This would......right? I thought more mhz = more speed.:unsure:

I dunno. I'll shut up now. 16 yr old ROSSCO knows twice what I know and he's asking so... :lol:

(that wasnt meant to offensive ROSSCO, your OK in my book no matter what they say. :lol: )

[Spicker]

This would......right? I thought more mhz = more speed.:unsure:

I dunno. I'll shut up now. 16 yr old ROSSCO knows twice what I know and he's asking so... :lol:

(that wasnt meant to offensive ROSSCO, your OK in my book no matter what they say. :lol: )
its an amd 3000+ runs at 2.0Ghz and i overclocked my 2500+M to 2.45Ghz so i have more MHz so mine is like a 3500+(i think)

btw its fun being lazy.. :)

btw im getting a 160Gb WD 7200rpm 8mb cache hdd today :D :D so 160+80=240Gb!!!! w00t! too much g1g4ness

[tesco]

This would......right? I thought more mhz = more speed.:unsure:

I dunno. I'll shut up now. 16 yr old ROSSCO knows twice what I know and he's asking so... :lol:

(that wasnt meant to offensive ROSSCO, your OK in my book no matter what they say. :lol: )
hey, i just told him that if it's purely 32bit software they're comparing then it's going to be the 2500+ OCed that will be better. ;)
he wanted to ask though.

[Storm]

This would......right? I thought more mhz = more speed.:unsure:

I dunno. I'll shut up now. 16 yr old ROSSCO knows twice what I know and he's asking so... :lol:

(that wasnt meant to offensive ROSSCO, your OK in my book no matter what they say. :lol: )


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

more MHz DOESNT mean more speed (unless its the same type of chip)!!!!!

why do you think an AMD 2600+ is called an AMD 2600+ and not a 1.95GHz?

[Spicker]

its n00bs w0rld :lol:

im soo l33t someone stole my mhz!!!!111eleven11 :o :o :lol:

[_John_Lennon_]

2500+ would be faster.

[Skiz]

why do you think an AMD 2600+ is called an AMD 2600+ and not a 1.95GHz?
I dont know...why?

[Supernatural]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

No amount of overclocking can bring the XP 2600+ to the level of a 64 3000+.

[Spicker]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

No amount of overclocking can bring the XP 2600+ to the level of a 64 3000+.
my cpu comes below 3.2EE and over 3.4E (know this by sandra)

but the amd 64 is faster....

[Storm]

its n00bs w0rld :lol:

im soo l33t someone stole my mhz!!!!111eleven11 :o :o :lol:

WOW........... 2 whole sentances, and i havent got a clue what you just said......... (well, the second 1 anway)



why do you think an AMD 2600+ is called an AMD 2600+ and not a 1.95GHz?
I dont know...why?

:huh:

cause the GHz arent important

[Supernatural]

:huh:

cause the GHz arent important That's not really why.

[dbs]

That's not really why.
Im an Idiot Like skizo so why exactly don't ghz matter? why do they use them ife they dont matter? Ive read that a 2800+ xp is the same thing as a p4 3.0ghz why is that if the p4 is so much more higher in ghz please explain this to me (by the way im an idiot)

P.S. no offense skizo :)

[Supernatural]

AMD started their numbering scheme back with the Athlon XP. It was supposed to be an estimate of performance relevant to a Pentium 4. Athlon XP 2500+ was, more or less, on the performance level of a Pentium 4 clocked at 2500 Mhz. This was about 3 years ago. CPU performance has become much more complex since then. Athlon XP 3000+, Athlon 64 3000+, and Pentium 4 3.0Ghz B/C/D all perform very differently. Although there are several different factors in terms of CPU performance, you can't just say Ghz isn't important... because it is. AMDs numbering scheme has become so skewed, that's it not a valid comparison to other processors. It can only be used as a sort hierarchy system within it's associated product line.

[lynx]

AMD started their numbering scheme back with the Athlon XP. It was supposed to be an estimate of performance relevant to a Pentium 4. Athlon XP 2500+ was, more or less, on the performance level of a Pentium 4 clocked at 2500 Mhz. This was about 3 years ago. CPU performance has become much more complex since then. Athlon XP 3000+, Athlon 64 3000+, and Pentium 4 3.0Ghz B/C/D all perform very differently. Although there are several different factors in terms of CPU performance, you can't just say Ghz isn't important... because it is. AMDs numbering scheme has become so skewed, that's it not a valid comparison to other processors. It can only be used as a sort hierarchy system within it's associated product line.Not quite true.

The AMD performance index for XP etc is based on the equivalent Athlon processor, which was out at the same time as Pentium 3s. At the same clock speed the Athlon outperformed the P3, but this differential was clawed back by the time 2.4GHz P4s came along. So an Athlon XP 2400+ is the equivalent of an Athlon (not XP) clocked at 2.4GHz. It also happens to be just about equivalent to a P4 clocked at 2.4GHz, although because of design differences it performs faster in some areas and slower in others.

Yes, GHz is important, but it is no good as a comparison guide. An obvious example is that the Athlon XP 2400+ mentioned above actually runs at 2.0GHz yet it performs the same as a P4 @ 2.4GHz. I'm pretty sure that AMD have stuck to this numbering system, but only in 32-bit operation. There is a whole world of extra performance (oops, I nearly put speed there) available when switching to full 64-bit operation.

Extra speed (and I mean speed this time) has it's drawbacks. More speed means more heat, tighter production requirements resulting in more expensive chips, more use of untested near cutting-edge technology. Intel is currently in big trouble as it tries to push for even higher performance, whereas at worst AMD simply has to use some of the sort of technology already in use by Intel, with the teething troubles already resolved.

[Supernatural]

AMD never said it's numbering scheme was a direct comparison to any particular CPU line, neither their own nor Intel's.


AMD Athlon™ XP Product Information

AMD model numbers, based on industry-standard benchmarks on a wide range of popular software, are a simple, accurate representation of relative AMD processor performance.

The model number methodology is designed to help end users simplify their PC purchase decision. The higher the model number, the better the overall software performance on the processor. The "+" at the end of each model number indicates the added performance benefits delivered by AMD's innovative processor designs.http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_3734_11672,00.html

But we all know They used it give consumers a simplified comparison to it's Pentium competition. This way it was more oranges to oranges. If AMD had not used this particular branding, then it would be more apples to oranges. The average consumer would have no idea what to think, and just assume that higher clock speed is better. Some people still believe this, unfortunately, no matter how much has been accomplished by AMD.