Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by HondaF1, May 28, 2004.
Hi. What is teh AMD equivalent of the Intel Pentium 4 chip?
1. try using the search button first... this topic has been discussed many times before...
from what i hear, the rule is... add 1350 mhz to the amd speed and that's equivalent to a p4 speed.
so a 2.0 ghz amd processor should be equal to a 3350 mhz p4..
this is just a rough estimate and by no means something that is a definite rule...
take what i say very lightly ... k thanks
Hey Shimmishim may I ask why you are only running your Mobile at 2600+? Is it because thats as far as it could go or you are going for a burn in type thing before upping the speed? Thank you!
his cpu is a 2600+ (1.83 ghz) OC'd to 2600 MHZ. around 800 MHZ overclock. that's pretty good.
Depends on what you mean "equivalent". there's the Athlon XP and the Athlon 64 (well, and the Opteron, but no one really buys one). The Athlon 64 is better and more expensive, the Athlon XP is dirt cheap but not quite as fast.
They are both worthy competitors to the P4 when it comes to games, video encoding still goes to the P4 though.
Not even close. It can't be a set number. Otherwise a 1 Mhz AthlonXP would = 1351 Mhz P4. It's a percentage which is about 40-65% depending on chip. Some examples.
A Barton is about 40% faster than a P4 at same clock therefore:
Barton 3200 (2.2 x 1.40) = About a 3.1 Ghz P4
A 1mb cached A64 is about 65% faster than a P4 at same clock therefore:
A64 3200 (2.0 x 1.65) = about a 3.3 Ghz P4
eh... close enough 2.0 ghz amd = 3.3 ghz p4.... hehehe...
like i said, take what i say lightly.. it's only what i heard...
and i am running my 2500+ @ 2.6 ghz because i'm waiting to get a prommy mounting kit so i can run the beast at 2.8+ ghz...
for what model/family?
Ya that 1350 figure works pretty well for the a64 at that speed. But does'nt work so well for the Tbreds or Bartons nor higher speed A64's where the number will grow.
I think AMD was using a formula for AMD XP cpus, maybe:
((actual speed) x 1.5) - (a factor for fsb and cache)
133 fsb and 256k L2 ..... subtract 500
166 fsb and 512k L2 ..... subtract 200
200 fsb and 512k L2 ..... subtract 100
(1466mhz x 1.5) - 500 = 1699 ie AMDXP 1700+ TBred Core
(1833mhz x 1.5) - 200 = 2550 ie AMDXP 2500+ Barton Core
(2200mhz x 1.5) - 100 = 3200 ie AMDXP 3200+ Barton Core
I think it is a fairly accurate approximation at lower speeds, but not the higher ones. AMD gives the higher fsb and L2 cache too much benefit in my opinion.
I think something like:
((actual speed) x 1.5) - (factor fsb + factor L2 cache size) is more accurate in the broad scheme.
256k ....... 300
512k ....... 200
133 fsb ...... 200
166 fsb ...... 150
200 fsb ...... 100
(1466mhz x 1.5) - (200 + 300) = 1700 for a 1700+
(1833mhz x 1.5) - (150 + 200) = 2400 for a 2500+
(2200mhz x 1.5) - (100 + 200) = 3000 for a 3200+
Just my opinion, but I think it closer approximates benchmark results.
in short, dollar for dollar, AMD owns intel
I assume in this thread we are talking about the "real slim shady" aka PIV Northwood with quad pumped 200Mhz bus. When introduced those barton and t-bread number were/are highly exagerated. The only accurate PR ratings are from the 1MB cahced A64's now. But I like your shema better because it does account of Cache and FSB benefits the AMD line offers. But again adding and subtracting do not work bacause it does'nt account for different speeds. A mulitplier would serve better and preserve linear relationships at different speeds.
(AMD x 1.5) * ( X for FSB + Y for Cache) = Z
I don't want to start a flame thread here because I use both AMD and Intel but apparently you don't do much MultiMedia Encoding. A 2.8GHz P4 that'll run @ 3.5+GHz runs appx $160US and AMD can't own it for the price. MHz vs MHz then AMD may seem like a better buy because of their ratings, it's just to bad that Socket A won't hit 3GHz on Air.