AMD 3000 an insult to Intel???

[NickRuffo]

It's funny that intel has released it's Pentium 4 processor which is supposed to be far superior to AMD T-bird. Basically T-Bird = P3 Hammer should = P4. But AMD T-Bird are keeping up if not beating the P4. This is where I'm confused. The New T-bird is clocked at 2.1 ghz and the P4 is clocked at 3.06 ghz but how is the AMD keeping up and beating the P4 that is almost a whole 1GHZ faster? Is it just that AMD has a far superior chip and is basically showing off right now with look we are at 2 ghz and were even with your 3 ghz. OR is it just that intel really isn't at 3 ghz? I've really feel out of touch with clock speeds and chipsets in the recent years but to me it looks as if AMD is just keeping the t-bird around to say hey are old chip is just as good if not better then your top of the line chip so watch what happens when we release are top of the line chips. But it really surprises me that intel is supposedly about 1GHZ ahead of AMD but still really arent.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: NickRuffo
It's funny that intel has released it's Pentium 4 processor which is supposed to be far superior to AMD T-bird. Basically T-Bird = P3 Hammer should = P4. But AMD T-Bird are keeping up if not beating the P4. This is where I'm confused. The New T-bird is clocked at 2.1 ghz and the P4 is clocked at 3.06 ghz but how is the AMD keeping up and beating the P4 that is almost a whole 1GHZ faster? Is it just that AMD has a far superior chip and is basically showing off right now with look we are at 2 ghz and were even with your 3 ghz. OR is it just that intel really isn't at 3 ghz? I've really feel out of touch with clock speeds and chipsets in the recent years but to me it looks as if AMD is just keeping the t-bird around to say hey are old chip is just as good if not better then your top of the line chip so watch what happens when we release are top of the line chips. But it really surprises me that intel is supposedly about 1GHZ ahead of AMD but still really arent.

I have no idea where to start with this one

 

[NickRuffo]

Originally posted by: BigJ2078

Originally posted by: NickRuffo
It's funny that intel has released it's Pentium 4 processor which is supposed to be far superior to AMD T-bird. Basically T-Bird = P3 Hammer should = P4. But AMD T-Bird are keeping up if not beating the P4. This is where I'm confused. The New T-bird is clocked at 2.1 ghz and the P4 is clocked at 3.06 ghz but how is the AMD keeping up and beating the P4 that is almost a whole 1GHZ faster? Is it just that AMD has a far superior chip and is basically showing off right now with look we are at 2 ghz and were even with your 3 ghz. OR is it just that intel really isn't at 3 ghz? I've really feel out of touch with clock speeds and chipsets in the recent years but to me it looks as if AMD is just keeping the t-bird around to say hey are old chip is just as good if not better then your top of the line chip so watch what happens when we release are top of the line chips. But it really surprises me that intel is supposedly about 1GHZ ahead of AMD but still really arent.

I have no idea where to start with this one

Sorry if it's a little conusing i'm home from work today all doped up from a broken ankle. It looks like an ok post to me but the again. I'm seeing smurfs

 

[tapir]

T-bird does not equal T-bred.

You have a point that AMD has stayed with the same "Socket A" chip type since the days of the PIII, but the core design has been radically revamped twice, going on three times.

Original Athlon - Thunderbird Athlon - Palomino Athlon XP - Thoroughbred Athlon XP - Barton Athlon XP

ALL of these are different cores.
Now compare to the variety of Intel cores.

Original PIII - Coppermine PIII - Tualatin PIII - Willamette P4 - Northwood P4 ((Prescott P4))

The most powerful and common of these being Coppermine and Northwood... but anyways. The point is that you have to look at the core revisions as well as chipset revisions, not just "Pentium x" or "AMD Athlon ____" because there's a lot more to it than that... you could say AMD is still equal to Intel 3GHz at only 2.25GHz, but most consumers care more about the cost: Performance ratio than MHz: Performance.

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: BigJ2078

Originally posted by: NickRuffo
It's funny that intel has released it's Pentium 4 processor which is supposed to be far superior to AMD T-bird. Basically T-Bird = P3 Hammer should = P4. But AMD T-Bird are keeping up if not beating the P4. This is where I'm confused. The New T-bird is clocked at 2.1 ghz and the P4 is clocked at 3.06 ghz but how is the AMD keeping up and beating the P4 that is almost a whole 1GHZ faster? Is it just that AMD has a far superior chip and is basically showing off right now with look we are at 2 ghz and were even with your 3 ghz. OR is it just that intel really isn't at 3 ghz? I've really feel out of touch with clock speeds and chipsets in the recent years but to me it looks as if AMD is just keeping the t-bird around to say hey are old chip is just as good if not better then your top of the line chip so watch what happens when we release are top of the line chips. But it really surprises me that intel is supposedly about 1GHZ ahead of AMD but still really arent.

I have no idea where to start with this one

LOL, he's a forum newbie, don't be rough! This has been discussed A LOT and their are many articles on it, but to summarize, the AMD chip has a higher IPC which thusly makes it run faster.

Oh, and IPC is instructions executed per clock cycle.

Hope thats not TMI for ya!

~Aunix

And welcome to the forums

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: NickRuffo

Originally posted by: BigJ2078

Originally posted by: NickRuffo
It's funny that intel has released it's Pentium 4 processor which is supposed to be far superior to AMD T-bird. Basically T-Bird = P3 Hammer should = P4. But AMD T-Bird are keeping up if not beating the P4. This is where I'm confused. The New T-bird is clocked at 2.1 ghz and the P4 is clocked at 3.06 ghz but how is the AMD keeping up and beating the P4 that is almost a whole 1GHZ faster? Is it just that AMD has a far superior chip and is basically showing off right now with look we are at 2 ghz and were even with your 3 ghz. OR is it just that intel really isn't at 3 ghz? I've really feel out of touch with clock speeds and chipsets in the recent years but to me it looks as if AMD is just keeping the t-bird around to say hey are old chip is just as good if not better then your top of the line chip so watch what happens when we release are top of the line chips. But it really surprises me that intel is supposedly about 1GHZ ahead of AMD but still really arent.

I have no idea where to start with this one

Sorry if it's a little conusing i'm home from work today all doped up from a broken ankle. It looks like an ok post to me but the again. I'm seeing smurfs

Aight, I'll do my best.

There is a completely different architecture in the chips when comparing P4 vs. Athlon. While the Athlon isn't scaling nearly as high, it's a more efficient processor with more IPC (instructions per clock cycle). This allows the Athlon to run at a lower speed while maintaining the performance needed to compete with the higher scaling Pentiums. The P4s on the other hand scale astronomically higher then the Athlons. What it lacks in efficiency it makes up in pure speed. This allows the P4 to perform on par with or above the Athlons. To tell you the truth, it was actually AMD that started the whole crazyness concerning PR ratings and actual mhz. So to say that the P4 might not actually be running at 3ghz is a little silly.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: AunixP35

Originally posted by: BigJ2078

Originally posted by: NickRuffo
It's funny that intel has released it's Pentium 4 processor which is supposed to be far superior to AMD T-bird. Basically T-Bird = P3 Hammer should = P4. But AMD T-Bird are keeping up if not beating the P4. This is where I'm confused. The New T-bird is clocked at 2.1 ghz and the P4 is clocked at 3.06 ghz but how is the AMD keeping up and beating the P4 that is almost a whole 1GHZ faster? Is it just that AMD has a far superior chip and is basically showing off right now with look we are at 2 ghz and were even with your 3 ghz. OR is it just that intel really isn't at 3 ghz? I've really feel out of touch with clock speeds and chipsets in the recent years but to me it looks as if AMD is just keeping the t-bird around to say hey are old chip is just as good if not better then your top of the line chip so watch what happens when we release are top of the line chips. But it really surprises me that intel is supposedly about 1GHZ ahead of AMD but still really arent.

I have no idea where to start with this one

LOL, he's a forum newbie, don't be rough! This has been discussed A LOT and their are many articles on it, but to summarize, the AMD chip has a higher IPC which thusly makes it run faster.

Oh, and IPC is instructions executed per clock cycle.

Hope thats not TMI for ya!

~Aunix

And welcome to the forums

I hate you! While I was typing the exact same thing your talking about, you go and post it! Sorry for being rough on you NickRuffo, I've had a pretty long day myself, and this XP 2100+ system I'm trying to overclock isn't exactly being compliant. Welcome to the forums, knowing you will leave here much more knowledgeable

 

[NickRuffo]

Thanks for the info. I'm just a newbie to the forum I do know my fair share I'm actually a network admin so I've been out of the actual specific's of cpu's for a while. Looking forward to learning more there seem's to be some pretty knowledgeable people on here. Thanks again.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: NickRuffo
Thanks for the info. I'm just a newbie to the forum I do know my fair share I'm actually a network admin so I've been out of the actual specific's of cpu's for a while. Looking forward to learning more there seem's to be some pretty knowledgeable people on here. Thanks again.

Sorry about being harsh on ya Nick. If you have any other questions, feel free to PM me and I'll help you to the best of my ability. And I'm always open to questions about AMD overclocking if that interests you

 

[Noid]

Yah ,,,,welcome Nick ...

Spend some time searching here in these forums. There are tons of threads like "AMD vs Intel' and such.
Lots of good reading while your recovering from your medications.

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: NickRuffo
Thanks for the info. I'm just a newbie to the forum I do know my fair share I'm actually a network admin so I've been out of the actual specific's of cpu's for a while. Looking forward to learning more there seem's to be some pretty knowledgeable people on here. Thanks again.

you sure fooled me.

I hate you! While I was typing the exact same thing your talking about, you go and post it! Sorry for being rough on you NickRuffo, I've had a pretty long day myself, and this XP 2100+ system I'm trying to overclock isn't exactly being compliant. Welcome to the forums, knowing you will leave here much more knowledgeable

Thats too bad! Guess you type too slow!

 

[oldfart]

Since you have some time to do some reading.....

 

[mrman3k]

Nicely said people. Don't go bashing the uninformed unless they refure to accept what is true.

 

[dullard]

Performance = frequency * IPC.

Intel performance: 5*3 = 15
AMD performance: 3*5 = 15

Note: Those are just made up numbers, but it just shows that two different strategies can result in the same performance. Does that make one chip better that the other? No.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: oldfart
Since you have some time to do some reading.....

Yeah... Read that thread. Lots of good info there.

 

[oldfart]

Intel performance: 5*3 = 15
AMD performance: 3*5 = 15

I like that.

I'd say with the 3000+ PR rating, its more like
Intel performance: 5*3 = 15
AMD performance: 3*5 = 14

 

[Creig]

Basically, Intel went the route of going for higher MHz speed on their chips while AMD went for higher performance at a lower MHz. Intel was basically trying to cash in the general public's ignorance of the fact that a lower clocked AMD could actually be higher performance than a higher clocked Intel. So AMD re-released the PR rating system that they'd used back in the days of the K6 processors which named the chips according to how they performed against an equivalent Intel chip. So now Joe Blow public would see an AMD 1800+ and think 1.8GHz when it was actually 1.53GHz (which actually performs like an Intel 1.8Ghz)

 

[ReiAyanami]

AMD retains the best price/performance ratio.

 

[Drsignguy]

I have always known, "you get what you pay for". If you have the money, get Intel, have light pockets, get Amd.



Docs Operations

3DMarks

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Creig
Basically, Intel went the route of going for higher MHz speed on their chips while AMD went for higher performance at a lower MHz. Intel was basically trying to cash in the general public's ignorance of the fact that a lower clocked AMD could actually be higher performance than a higher clocked Intel. So AMD re-released the PR rating system that they'd used back in the days of the K6 processors which named the chips according to how they performed against an equivalent Intel chip. So now Joe Blow public would see an AMD 1800+ and think 1.8GHz when it was actually 1.53GHz (which actually performs like an Intel 1.8Ghz)

You are right in some respects, but a bit off in others. Let me explain.

Intel designed the P4 not as a marketing gig, but as an entirely new CPU architecture. They were getting their butts kicked with the P3 maxing out at 1 GHz while the Athlon went up to 1.2 GHz (and later 1.4 Ghz on the same Thunderbird core). So, awhile back in the P3 days (perhaps earlier, who knows) Intel wanted to come up with a CPU that could ramp up very high in clock speed to compete with AMD and had a lot of headroom (room to increase CPU clockspeed further). One of the "easier" ways to do this was to make a CPU with a longer pipeline. A longer pipeline allows you to reduce the load on the CPU per clock cycle, however at a sacrifice of performance. The high clock speeds of the CPU compensate for this low IPC.

Thus, the P4 was born, with it's (in)famous 20 stage pipeline. Originally it was mocked, since the P4 launch was disastrous, and the original 1.3 - 1.6 GHz chips weren't any faster than the Athlon 1.4 GHz (the whole IPC thing). Nonetheless, the P4 ramped up quickly in speed (as designed) and shattered the 2 GHz barrier, then eventually the 3 GHz barrier. So, their plan to design a very scalable chip worked. As a side benefit of this design, the P4 runs at very high speeds (3.06 GHz now, 3.2 GHz soon) so on paper that looks very fast.

However, AMD didn't just sit by and let Intel come up with the P4 while doing nothing with the Athlon. With a lot of tinkering, AMD managed to get 1.73 GHz out of their Athlon XP on a .18um process (the same process as the P3, which topped out at 1 GHz flat). Subsequently, AMD has released the Thoroughbred stepping (a .13um core, like the P4) and it currently runs at a top speed of 2.25 GHz (2800+). Since AMD is using the older chip architecture with a higher IPC, their chips are very competitive in speed with Intel (so much so that an XP 3000+ and P4 3.06GHz are almost exactly the same speed, on average). So, instead of marketing a "2.25 GHz" AMD Athlon versus a 3+ GHz P4, despite the fact that they are almost the same speed, AMD invented a "PR rating" (performance rating) for the Athlon XP chips to compare them to a similar speed P4. In the end, AMD was very conservative with the rating (at first) and as a result, chips of a certain PR rating Athlon XP are very similar in performance to the Intel chip of same MHz as the AMD PR rating.

So, AMD is behind in raw MHz, not performance. The PR rating works, so to speak.

 

[ShinSa]

All these technical explanation is good but to translate it in good ol english, think about a kid and an adult walking side by side.

When they are both walking at the same speed, the kid has to move his leg faster just to catch up to the adult because the kid has shorter legs.

The kid is Intel and the adult is AMD and each leg stride is a cpu clock cycle..

For example, when they are walking around a stadium at the same speed, the kid might have to take 300,000 steps while the adult only neede to take 200,000 steps to complete a lap.

Bottom line is AMD's clock cycle handles more instructions just like an adult covering more ground per leg stride.

 

[Eug]

the original 1.3 - 1.6 GHz chips weren't any faster than the Athlon 1.4 GHz (the whole IPC thing).

Heh, even my Celeron 1.4 beats a P4 1.6.

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: Eug

the original 1.3 - 1.6 GHz chips weren't any faster than the Athlon 1.4 GHz (the whole IPC thing).

Heh, even my Celeron 1.4 beats a P4 1.6.

hey a p3 at 1.3 is about as fast as a 1.8 P4. Go figure, but dollar for dollar when you factor in rdram(to actually get the p4 to perform worth a darn) and the overpriced motherboards, accept for the really high end you get more bang for your buck with the amd offerings. If you want fastest of the fasted spend the $1000 on a 3.06 and all the goodies for a barebones, if you want something more in the working mans ball park a 2100+ system on a kt400 mobo with 512MB pc2700 for a good bit less than $300 is a pretty good way to go.

 

[Zap]

[

AMD re-released the PR rating system that they'd used back in the days of the K6 processors which named the chips according to how they performed against an equivalent Intel chip

AFAIK the K6 series chips (from 166-600) did not use a PR rating. The faster K5 chips (120-166) did, as did the Cyrix 6x86 series chips. Now, did AMD invent the "PR" rating, or did Cyrix? Hmmm... I know Cyrix called their hot-rodded 386 CPUs 486 and even AMD called their fastest 486 a 5x86... when will this crazyness end?

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: AunixP35

Originally posted by: BigJ2078

Originally posted by: NickRuffo
It's funny that intel has released it's Pentium 4 processor which is supposed to be far superior to AMD T-bird. Basically T-Bird = P3 Hammer should = P4. But AMD T-Bird are keeping up if not beating the P4. This is where I'm confused. The New T-bird is clocked at 2.1 ghz and the P4 is clocked at 3.06 ghz but how is the AMD keeping up and beating the P4 that is almost a whole 1GHZ faster? Is it just that AMD has a far superior chip and is basically showing off right now with look we are at 2 ghz and were even with your 3 ghz. OR is it just that intel really isn't at 3 ghz? I've really feel out of touch with clock speeds and chipsets in the recent years but to me it looks as if AMD is just keeping the t-bird around to say hey are old chip is just as good if not better then your top of the line chip so watch what happens when we release are top of the line chips. But it really surprises me that intel is supposedly about 1GHZ ahead of AMD but still really arent.

I have no idea where to start with this one

LOL, he's a forum newbie, don't be rough! This has been discussed A LOT and their are many articles on it, but to summarize, the AMD chip has a higher IPC which thusly makes it run faster.

Oh, and IPC is instructions executed per clock cycle.

Hope thats not TMI for ya!

~Aunix

And welcome to the forums

only n00bs say newbie lol...