Printable View
I have a few questions. First off why are most/all AMD processors under 3ghz? Most of intel is over 3ghz correct..? Is it rated differently somehow :confused: I know there a lot of debate on which is better but these things arent adding up for me :blush: . Also what are the differences between an Intel P4 3ghz 64 bit, and a AMD 3200+ XP 2.19 Ghz 32 bit processor? Any help would be apreciated lol.
Me like amd. :wave:
It's useless trying to measure the effective speed of a CPU in hertz, right now it is purely marketing. AMD processors allow more machine instructions per second using less clock cycles than Intel. Increasing the number of cycles per second does not necessarily increase the performance of a CPU. AMD recognise this and rather than increase the number of cycles per second, they concentrate on using less cycles per machine instruction.
For arguments sake, if AMD used 4 cycles to add two integers, and Intel used 5, AMD would be 20% faster to add integers. This effectively means that an AMD running at 400MHz could add just as fast as an Intel running at 500MHz.
Wakaru?
So basicly an AMD runs for eficiant? An Intel with over 3ghz doesnt mean its faster than an AMD with 2.4 ghz? Thanks that started to clear it up :)
Yeah pretty much. Intel's architecture apparently does not leave much room for improvement, and the improvement it does leave room for isn't very nice to work with. Because AMD originally copied Intel's architecture starting from the ground up, they could cut out what Intel left in when going from 386 to 486 etc, if you know what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaRubby
Yep, my AMD Athlon64 3000+ (1.8Ghz) performs faster in most cases than a friends Intel P4 2.8GHz (all other hardware is similar to each other). The 64bit vs 32bit is probably irrelevant, as we both use 32bit OS & software.Quote:
So basicly an AMD runs for eficiant? An Intel with over 3ghz doesnt mean its faster than an AMD with 2.4 ghz?
I'm not an expert, but Dreamlax's comments sound right - they are similar to articles I have read from various reliable sources.
Ok thanks guys I have an AMD 3200 xp + or something like that, is that a pretty good processer? It runs at 2.19 ghz, but when i overclock the computer freezes. Right now its at 2.26ghz and running fine. Is there an Intel that is pretty much equal to mine? If so can I get a comparision chart or an opinon?
Stick with the AMD matey. As mentioned the Intel processors can be a bit flaky and reliability is not their strong point.
Besides, new chips are now being developed which will replace the x386 architecture so perhaps it would be wise to wait a while?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4242447.stm
Yes and no. New chips are being developed, but I doubt they will replace the x86 architecture. There is far too much proprietary software written solely for this architecture. Even though Windows was once available for Alpha architecture, it's main optimisations lie with the x86 architecture. I could almost guarantee Microsoft would pull something unconstitutional in this event.
Then again, with the addition of multi-core chips, perhaps most of the existing 386 instructions will be gone in a matter of generations.
Thanks guys Ill probably stick with AMD every seems to like them better :)
*points at username*
:thumb:
I remember a thread like this... :cool:
Dreamlax you seem to know a lot about cpu architecture so i will ask you this. Did AMD create and entirely new architecture with the Opteron? I watched an interesting movie over at Sun's site on some of the new hardware comming out like their Java Workstation (which runs Opteron cpu's). They talked about how the cpu is so efficent because it is able to achieve a low cache miss rate. Anyway i could have sworn that i heard someone say somthing was radically different with AMD's top cpu. Thanks.