Just dont understand why AMD's GHZ< Intels GHZ

[DigitalDragon]

After i last bought my P4 1.8 GHZ a few years ago, i kind of dropped out of the computer hardware world. Now that i'm looking for a new gaming computer and have been convinced that AMD is the way to go, theres this one thing i just dont get.

Pentium 4 CPU's routinely go from 2.8 GHZ to 3.8GHZ. in contrast, AMD64's hover around the 2 GHZ to 3 GHZ range, yet they cost the same, and AMD's are said to be better than gaming. But if the P4 has such a higher clock speed, shouldnt it stomp the AMD in processing power? Or are there some other factors involved?

 

[Crashman]

Wow, you don't remember that the PIII was faster than the P4? That a PIII 1000EB could beat a P4 1.4 in most applications? What exactly did you know when you made your last purchase?

Intel couldn't make the PIII run any faster on the 180nm process, and didn't have anything smaller yet. So they came up with a big core that didn't work as efficiently, and sold it as the P4. And then they improved the P4, but it never did perform as well as a PIII when the clocks were similar.

AMD stuck with older technology and improved on it. So they didn't need as much clock speed to get their performance increases.

Intel did the same thing to the P3 and created the Pentium-M The Pentium-M 2.13 beats P4 3.2's easily in most applications. And overclocking test shows the P-M works even better with increased bus speeds, beating even the fastest P4 3.8's at a mear 2.5GHz.

That's basically where AMD is. But AMD's improvements were different, of course.

<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>

 

[DigitalDragon]

well, i was 12 at the time...

So essentially, i can also buy a Pentium-M for gaming? would it be cheaper or more expensive than a similar AMD 64 or pentium 4?

also, if i'm still going the AMD way a FX¡@is essentially a better version of the 64, am i right? would the trade-off in price be worth it?

 

[Crashman]

Pentium-M's are the BEST gaming processors, Tom's has a couple articles on that from the last 2-3 weeks you should read. But they are INCREDIBLY expensive, and the boards that support them aren't that great.

<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>

 

[endyen]

also, if i'm still going the AMD way a FX¡@is essentially a better version of the 64, am i right? would the trade-off in price be worth it?

Only if you have buckets of money. If you are on a budget, buy the best graphics card you can afford, and get the chip with what's left over. You will not notice much difference in perf between an A64 3200, and an FX chip, but the price difference will get a great graphics card, and a whole lot more fps.

Oh, about your original question. The A64s do about 1.6 times the work, for each clock cycle.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by endyen on 06/27/05 06:04 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[dunklegend]

endyen's recommendation are correct.
Tell us what's your budget and what parts do you want to buy with it and we'll give you some good options.

<font color=green>If you work on a thing long enough to improve it, It will break</font color=green>

 

[Starfishy]

Go A64, the P-M just isn't worth the price.

 

[z2895]

anything over a amd 3000 and nvidia 6800 will work for gaming these days. the easiest explanation of how amd beats intel is this: amd processors can do more work per clock cycle than intel, so even though it has a lower clock rate it can process things faster.

 

[Starfishy]

I agree with you, I have a 3200+ 6800GT rig running, and it runs all the games that I have tried just fine.

 

[apache_lives]

Pentium 3's (and AMD's) do more per clock cycle and run slower in terms of MHz, Pentium 4's do less per clock cycle and in return can be clocked higher in MHz to. Two totally diffrent designs.

On the other hand i think intel made the P4 not because they were stuck with the coppermine 1ghz barrier, but because MHz sells - if you didnt know anything about computers, what sounds faster (at the time of the good ole days) - an Athlon C 1400mhz, or a P4 1800mhz? that i believe is also the reason why AMD introduced the PR ratings like 1500+ and so on, but now there in their own league - the AMD (dualcore) 4800+ is closer to the Intel (P4 D) 3.2ghz - they cannot compare the two anymore.

What would be interesting is a clock per clock comparison of a range of processors - like a Pentium M at 2ghz vs a A64 at 2ghz (both 512k and 1mb models) vs P4 at 2ghz (northwood and underclocked prescotts), athlon XP at 2ghz and the 2000+ model and other speeds compared - DO THAT THG.