AMD and Intel Hz

[Arnagath]

I have been wondering for long how you compare the AMD processor and Intel processor Hz. I know that AMD works faster but how much?

 

[Crashman]

AMD's numbers are usually similar to Intel's speed. An XP2400+, for example, offers similar performance to a 2.4B. There are some exceptions, the XP3000+ is fairly slower than the P4 3.0C, but for the most part they are similar.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Arnagath]

Ahh so you are saying to compare the numbers on the names (AMD) with the Hz on the Intel. K thanks man.

 

[Crashman]

Yes, and that works fairly well for the XP2400+!!!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[hogfather]

From what I've heard, it holds true up to around the 2600 or so, after that the XP Bartons arent as close. Why did AMD release so many proccessors, when in fact they're so closely - clocked that the different names is barely eligible imo.

XP2000, 512 ddr 2700ram, GF4 MX440, XP Pro

 

[Crashman]

Up until around 2000+, AMD's PR was actually better than Intel's MHz. From around 2000+ to 2600+ it was fairly good, and the XP2800+/3000+/3200+ were slower than their PR, but it's all based on approximations.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Mr_Nuke]

AMD uses this formula:
PERFORMANCE=Work done per clock cycle X Frequency
,wich is the real formula for performance and it is correct. work/cycle is a relative value so you need something to compare it with.
Untill the 2000+ you have the Palmino core, wich has the higest work/cycle.
From 200+ to 2600+ you have the Thorton or Throughbred core wich is not so effective as the Paqlmino core in work/cycle.
From 2600+ and above you have the Barton core, wich guess, is not so effective as the Thorton or Throughbred.
That explains the performace going down compared to Intel, or Intel work/cycle might be also going up, and AMD not keeping up with Intel, but still going up.
Also this formula being correct, AMD is pushing the names up, aware of the performance difference.

 

[Arnagath]

Why do they have to make it so difficult, damn them CPU producers. They should give us an exact value so that we can compare the two in CPU speed without haveing to do benchmarks.

 

[ChipDeath]

Because there is no 'exact value' to give you. How well they compare is based entirely on what you do. e.g. for Gaming tasks the XP line does very well compared to the P4s, but for encoding tasks (e.g. ripping DVDs into DivX format) the P4s do better.

This is why it can only ever be an approximation.

---
Epox 8RDA+ rev1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @205x11 (~2.26Ghz), 1.575Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 420/744

 

[justaguy]

That would only work if they had the same qualities. Since they do the same operations in different ways, the only way to know which is better for a given app is by benchmarking.

Athlon XP 1900 (11x200) 42C (Load w/AX-7 & 8cm Tornado) - MSI K7N2 Delta - Corsair Value PC3200 - Gainward GF3 @ 250/550 - 80Gb WD 8Mb Cache -

 

[Crashman]

Actually the processors got more efficient, but AMD started off giving them 66 XP's for every 100MHz, when the baseline 1500+ was 89MHz for every XP, so the advantage was bound to get less as the XP's went higher. The cores actually got more efficient, but AMD gave them even more XP's because of that.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[TheRod]

It can't be simple that simple!

There is tons of jab a CPU can do, depending on your need and use different CPU will be better for you.

But usually, AMD offers better gaming performance (Intel is not far behind). Intel usually wins in Audio/Video performance (depending on the CODEC, etc...).

Other people think that Intel is better because they offer Hyper-Threading. But I actually haven't seen benchmark that actually benefit of this except when they use Intel optimized software.

To compare CPU, you must consider many factors. It's like choosing a car you must consider price, performance, value, features, comfort, handling, reliabity, etc...

If you need advice before buying a CPU, post here and tell us what you will do with your PC. And be realist, don't tell us you will do DivX encoding if you do this once a year. You must consider day to day use.

--
Lookin' to fill that <font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> shape hole!

 

[Arnagath]

I am not going to buy a new comp at the moment but on the other hand I really want one of those 939 sockets when they are stable and you can get them for the best possible price. I was just wondering if I could compare them in any sort of way with some possible intel 64-bit version. So right now I dont need any real help, but thanks allot for the offer.

But because you asked I am going to use my computer mainly for computer games because that is where I need the speed. Yes I do allot of C++ work and quite a bit of 3D visual modelling. But there I dont really need any speed. It is really only in games you can get really frustrated when you experience high latency. I guess the 939 is for me then, but who knows what intel is cooking? Personaly I dont think they want to give the gaming market away to their competitors.

 

[TheRod]

Socket939 will probably be the way to go, but Socket740 is not bad at all too. There is not much difference in performance between SINGLE and DUAL channel AMD64 CPU.

The main reason why many people will get Socket939 is upgradability/long term investment. Because AMD did not commited to high-speed CPU for Socket740. Their radmap for Socket740 stop at 3700+.

If AMD add higher speed CPU support for Socket740, which I doubt, I will probably consider this platform. The main reason, it will be cheaper than Socket939 and you can fit low-cost 2800+ on it and overclock it! So, I could have good performance today and hope to upgrade to higher high-speed CPU later.

But, I never actually upgrade CPU alone, I end up buyng CPU/MB/RAM when comes time to upgrade. Upgradability is important for people who changes component often, by buying "upgradable friendly" platform they can change CPU, RAM, GPU, HDD with latest technology.

But for guys who upgrade once every 2 year, the platform become obsolete, so even if I bought highly upgradable hardware more than a year ago (nForce2 based MB) I will probably buy MB/CPU/RAM combo for my next upgrade. Because if I want to upgrade today I would have to buy a mobile-Barton + DDR433 memory sticks... I prefer keeping this money and to wait a few months to buy AMD64 CPU / DDR433 and a good MB. This will not cost me much and will last me longer.

--
Lookin' to fill that <font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> shape hole!

 

[Mr_Nuke]

Well, AMD published(don't know if it still does) the performance in 3DMarks, during the triumph of the Palomino core. Some applications (Max Payne for example) had the system requirements also expressed in 3DMarks. remember, these are only relative values!!!