Comparing Amd Vs Intel

[superuser]

Hey Answer this please

Please look at the following table and tell me the truth.

Processor Frequency L2 Cache

Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0 GHz 1 MB
Athlon 64 3400+ 2.4 GHz 512 KB
Athlon 64 FX-53 2.4 Ghz 1 MB
Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6 Ghz 1 MB

Intel P 4 3.4 3.4 Ghz 1 MB
Intel P 4 3.4 3.2 Ghz 1 MB
Intel P 4 3.0 3.0 Ghz 1 MB

It is clear from above that the Processor Frequency of the P 4 remains much higher than all the Amd Athlon processors? Intrestingly it is even higher than the the Athlon FX 53 and 55.Don't you agree that one should consider all these thing before taking a correct decision?

Dosen't the 1 Ghz frequency difference between Intel P 4 3.4 and Amd Athlon 64 3400+ gives the edge to the P 4 3.4?

 

[Rajesh_K]

No it is not. First of all AMD Athlon64 CPU's are capable of 64bit, not just 32 bit processors. If you look at benchmarks, a 2Ghz AMD64 processor competes with a 3.2Ghz Intel. In actuallity, the FX-55 AMD64 processor is currently the FASTEST processor on the market. AMD has proven the clockspeed, no longer means you have fastest processor. AMD64 cpu's also incorperate a memory controller on the cpu, which removes bottlenecks in bandwith compared to the P4, also AMD64 htt tech decreases bottlenecks, giving you a superior system.

With all this being said, I am sure if you search the forums there is a thread on this already. As people here seem anal about creating duplicate threads.

 

[AlienTech]

>>AMD has proven the clockspeed, no longer means you have fastest processor. <<

This has always been true. The way AMD speeded up their old processors was by reducing the number of clock cycles used in an instruction execution compared to others. AMD innovations are always almost all in house while Intel gets it buying it from others. Of course by now Intel owns pretty much every other CPU manufacturer out there except AMD and Power PC.

 

[demoninside]

I guess there is nothing left to say
AMD rock man.

 

[swatkat]

CLock speed is not the final benchmark for the performance.Now Intel also changed it's processor nomenclatures from clock speed to some numbering system that is sure to confuse consumers.

 

[imgame]

Hey Answer this please

Please look at the following table and tell me the truth.

Processor Frequency L2 Cache

Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0 GHz 1 MB
Athlon 64 3400+ 2.4 GHz 512 KB
Athlon 64 FX-53 2.4 Ghz 1 MB
Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6 Ghz 1 MB

Intel P 4 3.4 3.4 Ghz 1 MB
Intel P 4 3.4 3.2 Ghz 1 MB
Intel P 4 3.0 3.0 Ghz 1 MB


It is clear from above that the Processor Frequency of the P 4 remains much higher than all the Amd Athlon processors? Intrestingly it is even higher than the the Athlon FX 53 and 55.Don't you agree that one should consider all these thing before taking a correct decision?

Dosen't the 1 Ghz frequency difference between Intel P 4 3.4
and Amd Athlon 64 3400+ gives the edge to the P 4 3.4?

Time and again people are confused with the frequency illusion creation by intel ....though people should understand what is reality behind this hype created by intel .......best way to clear ur mind is to read the White paper given by AMD on their website ...here is link :

*www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_t...docs/processor_performance_whitepaper_v12.pdf

if u find it difficult to understand ....here is the simple deal ....i will try to elborate it a little

performance is given by the product of IPC (instructions per clock or as better said in the white paper as work done per cycle ) and frequency i.e,

performance = IPC * Frequency (*=multiplication)

initialy due to architectural difficulties it was not possible to increace or decreace IPC .........IPC being constant performance was proportional to frequency.....the higher the frequency the better the performance ....

but due to advancement in technologies and new fabrication processes it was possible to play around with IPC ...while pentum 4 (as white paper suggests ) choose to reduce IPC ...they have to increace frequecny .....for better performance ......but AMD choose with better optimization between two parameters ...and with its innovative "Quatispeed" architecture it was possible to increase both the parameters frequency and IPC .....that was in AMD athlon 4 processor ....but innvotion in the architecure continues ....and latest was 64 bit computing and the IPC and frequecy thing remains ...which made computing more easier and all in all better performance (how 64 bit computing made performance better is another issue and i m not dealing with it here coz u r more concerned with frequency here !)

so we get better performance coz here both IPC and frequency has increased .......unlike intel which running for frequency myth !

 

[pa_ajaykumar]

Ghz is just a number

Mate, The Ghz rating of a processor says that the processor is capable of that many clock cycles in a second. this does not mean that a 3 Ghz need to be faster than a 2 Ghz. It depends on how the clock cycles are utilized than the number of clock cycles. A well optimized 2 Ghz can beat a not so well optimized higher clocked one. I do not even refer to the AMD Processors, but to the Apple Macs Processors. A Power Mac Processor clocked at half the clock speed can beat a P4 Flat in any graphics processing task. so what matters first is the optimizations and technology then the Clock Speed. AMD Processors used to suck ( I am talking about hte K2 and the K3 and Athlon XP series) But AMD has done good work with the Athlon 64 and Athlon Fx Processors. They are far better than the P4. Intel itself is realizing this and now they are changing stratagies. Now they are also going the AMD way. Put more Technology and Optimizations than just trying to increase the clock speeds.

I myself was going to get a P4 3.0 or 3.2 Ghz Processor (My previous 3 Rigs had Intel Processors) for my Gaming Rig. But i ultimately choose a AMD Athlon 64 3000+. I ran the SiSoft Sanra 2004 Benchmark. The scores it returned were far better than the 3 Ghz reference platform. In fact it was comparable to the 3.2 Ghz P4 (not the P4 EE). I had not even overclocked the processor. So this surely proves that the Technology and Optimizations matter not just the clock speed. (And Definitely not the Processor Brand). Who ever is able to Put more functionality optimizations on their processor wins the race.

 

[[flAsh]]

a lot of thing depends upon processor's ISA. the depth of pipeline, its width, memory bottlenecks, die size and many other instructions like 3dnow!, powernow!, HyperThreading. Mind it the pipelines of Prescott r deep but not wide due to which there die size is small and they have higher clock speeds 2 eleminate errors while data is pipelines, the transistor density increases as soon as u decrease die size resulting in power loss and increase in temperature. Amd 64 ones have shollow pipelines and a little big die size due to transistor density is less and loss of power is less and that's why there temperature is lower than prescott. HT does wonders in case of intel but its part is negligible due to the shallow pipelines used in AMD 64, G5/G6 processors due to which there is performance is way higher than Intel ones. Moreover Integerated memory controller also increases AMD performance. But mind it in Multiprocessor boards Intel will perform higher than AMD if ATHLON 64or 64 FX is used but Opteron will get ahead intel once again

 

[Nemesis]

yup...every1 is right...AMD began kicking intel's butt with the athlon...it is no longer clock speed which matters....coz overall, AMD processors give better performance...but they need a bigger market share...a lot of ppl just buy intel coz they r unsure abt AMD...and pa_ajaykumar....u have stolen my username 4 ur siggy...that is a violation of my copyright 2 that name on this forum....







ok there is no violation....just kidding....but pls remove it frm there....