Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: AMD / Intel Clocking Methods

  1. #1
    Damnatory's Avatar OTL BT Rep: +6BT Rep +6
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,270
    I was wondering... I know that an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ states that it is a 1.8Ghz processor, however, it would be considered comparable to a 3.0Ghz Intel processor, based on the 3000+ part.

    My question is directed at the AMD Turion 64 ML-32 processor which also states it's a 1.8Ghz processor, would this also be comparable to a 3.0Ghz Intel processor, just without a number behind it to compare with like the athlons?
    Last edited by Damnatory; 02-21-2006 at 11:14 AM.

  2. Software & Hardware   -   #2
    clocker's Avatar Shovel Ready
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    15,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Damnatory
    I was wondering... I know that an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ states that it is a 1.8Ghz processor, however, it would be considered comparable to a 3.0Ghz Intel processor, based on the 3000+ part.
    No, that's NOT how it works.
    AMD has never labeled their chips to reflect a comparison to Intel.
    Read this.


    My question is directed at the AMD Turion 64 ML-32 processor which also states it's a 1.8Ghz processor, would this also be comparable to a 3.0Ghz Intel processor, just without a number behind it to compare with like the athlons?
    See above.
    "I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg

  3. Software & Hardware   -   #3
    Damnatory's Avatar OTL BT Rep: +6BT Rep +6
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,270
    Athlon XP 1800+
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mainelli, PCWorld.com
    "Compare that number to the speed of a Pentium 4. It means it's as fast as a 1800-MHz P4."
    That is what I mean. Not that it was meant to reflect a comparison to intel, but the athlons were named in a manner that would help people understand their clock speeds since they're 1.8GHz is loads faster than a Intel 1.8GHz, but a 1800+ is comparable in speed, but still outperforms. Though the 1800+ doesn't exactly mean 1800MHz, it still gives a rough estimate.

    Thats why I was wondering if the Turion 64 ML-32 was following the same manner, or if they had a new way of expressing their speed.

    I suppose a better question would then be; what desktop Athlon processor would the Mobile Turion 64 ML-32 most compare too?

  4. Software & Hardware   -   #4
    The ML-32 1s a 1.8ghz with a 512mb L2 cache so it would compare to the Sempron or XP version with the same specs but the ML-32 is a mobile processor designed for notebooks and therefore uses only 25watts of power and that makes compairing it to a desktop processor difficult. Low wattage means low heat which translates into high overclock potential when a good cooling system is used. All that concidered and the fact that AMD claims it doesn't use its naming scheme to compair to Intel procs its funny that this one is comparable to a 3.2ghz intel mobil (ML-32 / 3.2ghz). I think it comes down to AMD using an integrated memory controller on there chips and Intel does not.

  5. Software & Hardware   -   #5
    Damnatory's Avatar OTL BT Rep: +6BT Rep +6
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Appzalien
    All that concidered and the fact that AMD claims it doesn't use its naming scheme to compair to Intel procs its funny that this one is comparable to a 3.2ghz intel mobil (ML-32 / 3.2ghz).
    Thank you very much, you understood what I meant. ML-32 translating to roughly 3.2GHz is exactly what I was getting at. Trying to figure out if they were using another naming method like the 3200+ etc...

    I appreciate the help guys.

    @Clocker, thanks for the article, helped to clear up a little confusion for me as well.

  6. Software & Hardware   -   #6
    Snee's Avatar Error xɐʇuʎs BT Rep: +1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    on something.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    22,677
    I've been running delphi at uni and at home lately.

    The comp at uni is a 3 gigsihurts P4, a pretty recent one I think, same ram, same os, not as tweaked as mine, but doesn't load up a few processes I've got running for my mouse and my gfx card, and it has no antivirus running, so I'd say they are about equal when it comes to eating resources.

    My 'puter at home is a rather dated mobile XP-chip, running at 2.2 Ghz.


    Thing is, my computer compiles anything I've thrown at it so far noticeably faster than the one at uni. What takes an instant here, takes a few seconds at uni, sometimes.

    I'm guessing it has to do with the uni techs being 'tards, tho'.

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
  •