Conroe running 400MHz slower than AMD's FX-62 beats it solidly across the board...
Now, my question goes to why not do more work per clock cycle all the time?
Also, its the reason that AMD was able to be faster then Intel with different frequencies.
True in theory, but in order to get that 200MHz, you need to increase FSB, which should have it running ever-so-slightly faster than the 4000+.If one were to overclock the 3700+ by 200MHz, then the two CPUs would perform the same, but at the stock speeds the 4000+ wins.
Reading a bit far into it, but if you run them both at DDR400 (FSB200) at stock speed and then increase the multiplyer by one for the slower CPU then it's same speed, same FSB (surely).True in theory, but in order to get that 200MHz, you need to increase FSB, which should have it running ever-so-slightly faster than the 4000+.
Reading a bit far into it, but if you run them both at DDR400 (FSB200) at stock speed and then increase the multiplyer by one for the slower CPU then it's same speed, same FSB (surely).True in theory, but in order to get that 200MHz, you need to increase FSB, which should have it running ever-so-slightly faster than the 4000+.
The P4 performs less work per clock cycle than AMD and even Conroe CPU's... Also, generally longer pipelines are used to ramp up MHz, but if the pipeline is not needed, or pre-fetch data is wrong, the pipeline must be dumped and re-loaded, wasting clock cycles...
Conroe running 400MHz slower than AMD's FX-62 beats it solidly across the board...
True in theory, but in order to get that 200MHz, you need to increase FSB, which should have it running ever-so-slightly faster than the 4000+.If one were to overclock the 3700+ by 200MHz, then the two CPUs would perform the same, but at the stock speeds the 4000+ wins.