>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> Gigahertz War!! Intel vs AMD
Bookmark topic
nickorooster Posts: > 500
Standard? I think its 4... Im not too sure though...
And just to ad to the debate, an Athlon 64 3000+ is 64bit, meaning that the instant XP-64 arrives (middle of this year) it will be even faster compared to the P4-EE. So suck on that you p4 people!
Not that I can say much, I only have a 2400+, but meh, it does the job at 2.1Ghz (Overclocked) better than a P4 2.8 (in most cases). And this is benchmarked stuff here, im not "guessing".
Nick
--
Posted: 2005-03-12 10:47:42
Edit :
Quote
4? i thought id would be like 6 or 7
my PC has got .8 gigahertz
--
Posted: 2005-03-12 10:49:51
Edit :
Quote
Thats 800 mhz.
This message was posted from a T230
--
Posted: 2005-03-12 10:57:53
Edit :
Quote
yer
--
Posted: 2005-03-12 11:03:10
Edit :
Quote
When i bought my p4 3.5 year ago, it ran at 1.5ghz. Since my mother board died, i went in for a replacement. The pathetic AMD sempron could only do the same 1.5ghz. Only thing is i upgraded the ram. So if you ask me, intel still rules, AMD is simply a compromise.
This message was posted from a K500
--
Posted: 2005-03-12 11:21:33
Edit :
Quote
A sempron should e compared to a celeron. Not the pentium series.
This message was posted from a T230
--
Posted: 2005-03-12 11:31:00
Edit :
Quote
I've read that the P4 aren't going to be much faster than 3.something ghz and they're going to develop it by increasing the level 1 cache instead of making the cycles faster.
--
Posted: 2005-03-12 11:59:48
Edit :
Quote
nickorooster Posts: > 500
That makes more sense. And the industry in general was thinking of adopting a new measure of speed. Instead of Ghz or Mhz, they were going to change it to "flops", the same measure that most supercomputers use. Flops give an indication of real speed. So, for example, where an AMD XP 2400+ runs at 2.0Ghz, and a P4 2.4 at 2.4Ghz, flops would ensure that people knew that the AMD outperforms the P4, even with lower clock speeds. Needless to say, Intel kicked up a fuss, and I don't know what happened after that...
Nick
--
Posted: 2005-03-12 12:14:38
Edit :
Quote
I refrain from comment on the grounds that i might just start world war 3...
However, architecturally the AMD processor core is superior to Intel's Pentium architecture. AMD caught Intel of guard with the launch of their Athlon processor and ever since have maintained the performance crown
irrespective of the CPU clock speed. Lets get the facts here:
1) Intel P4's top of the line processor runs significantly hotter than AMD's Athlon(64), so much so that it frequently renders itself unstable. This processor requires serious cooling and with the heat thats dissipated it can cause the ice caps to melt.
2) Intel's power requirements are running out of control and need to be seriously revised. AMD is none the better, however not as extreme as Intel's.
3) The AMD cpu has a built in memory controller, thus reducing the latencies between cache memory and the cpu. This basically means the cpu can access memory faster internally rather than waiting on an external controller. That gives AMD the edge here.
4) Scalability of AMD's aarchitecture is significanlty better than Intel's...a P4 3.8GHz has to work almost 1GHz faster in order to complete a task of the same magnitude whereas the Athlon64 cruises by @ 2.8GHz and even mamages to beat the P4.
This just demonstrates that clock speed is not important anymore...and thus this renders this debate useless!!
Haven't you noticed that Intel is playing catch up to AMD?
Intel wanted the industry to change to 64bit technology overnite, whereas AMD realised that people don't change overnite, rather change occurs gradually and therefore adopted the x86-64 approach (a cpu which runs 32bit and 64bit code) and won that race. Intel then had to catch up to that and only recently started offering a similar cpu.
AMD announced that they were going to have dua core processors up and running before Intel, since the clock speed race meant nothing to them anymore...Intel followed suit...
AMD realises that get more work done per clock cycle is more important than clock speed, thus the dual core approach. You can get more done @ a lower clock rate with dual processors than with one melting the planets polar caps.
I can go on forever, since this subject is another of my favourites, but i won't!
For info regarding my comments, please visit the following websites:
www.tomshardware.com
www.anandtech.com
www.overclockers.com
See i told you i should have shut up!
--
Posted: 2005-03-12 16:08:10
Edit :
Quote
yeah , amd have lead atm in most benches/apps. but i
think its not relevant to talk much about 'gigahurtz' myth coz intel has already decided to give up the ghz war and work on things that give performance. even craig barret apologised in public for cancelling 4ghz prescott .
Quote:AMD announced that they were going to have dua core processors up and running before Intel, since the clock speed race meant nothing to them anymore...Intel followed suit...
intel has also shown dual core smithfield up and running and probably they will launch earlier than amd . in the idf last days , intel has even shown the successor of smithfield , thats presler , running thats made on 65nm process! , so i cant say intel is behind . in fact,i dont think amd can catch intel in the 65nm fabrication too quickly .
Quote:The AMD cpu has a built in memory controller, thus reducing the latencies between cache memory and the cpu. This basically means the cpu can access memory faster internally rather than waiting on an external controller. That gives AMD the edge here
i think its not a weakness of intel not doing it,its for the conveniece and easy upgrades.
but,why are everybody forgetting about pentium m ? its awesome processor . i think if intel had implemneted pentium m architecture to desktops,todays intel postion in desktop would have been amd's.intel's next generation pentium m , yonah (thats with dual core) looks very promising , and even intel demo'd it in idf.
--
Posted: 2005-03-12 18:31:41
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
