• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD vs INTEL comparison

N

Nab

Senior member
I'm going to build my first AMD computer. In the past, I've built INtel comps so i want to try something new. I am having trouble though on how to compare the two. When i went to look up AMD chips at Newegg for the AMD XP 2500+, it says the operating frequency is 1.83ghz. Can I use the Operating Frequency given to the AMD chips as comparison with Intel chips? Thanks in advance.

If this is confusing, i'll try and clarify.
 
The PR rating introduced by AMD was to compete Intel in the Mhz war. A barton 2500+ would be the same as running a P4 at 2500Mhz. Thus, the PR rating. At the same frequency, AMD would be faster than the p4 CPUs .
 
AMD runs FSB frequency at 200MHZ and intel runs its FSB frequency at 200MHZ but AMD is 2X=400MHZ and intel 4X=800MHZ.

EDIT: barton 2500+ runs at 2x133=333 FSB
 
Originally posted by: CasTroLTraN
AMD runs FSB frequency at 200MHZ and intel runs its FSB frequency at 200MHZ but AMD is 2X=400MHZ and intel 4X=800MHZ.

EDIT: barton 2500+ runs at 2x133=333 FSB
Click to expand...

What does the FSB have to do with the speed of the chip? 😱
 
It has nothing to do with the speed of the chip, but a lot to do with the overall speed of the system the chip is in. . .
 
amd pr-ratings are faster than a P4 on the original 400mhz fsb, about the same as P4 with the 533fsb, and considerably slower than the P4 with 800fsb, comparing intel clock speed to AMD PR-number (so say 2400+ with 2.4ghz)
 
Originally posted by: sisooktom
It has nothing to do with the speed of the chip, but a lot to do with the overall speed of the system the chip is in. . .
Click to expand...

Exactly -- and when AMD put out the performance ratings, they were comparing TBreds to 133Mhz Pentiums (the "P4A" series). They're actually a bit faster than an 'equal' P4A (133FSB), but slower than an 'equal' P4C (200FSB).
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
amd pr-ratings are faster than a P4 on the original 400mhz fsb, about the same as P4 with the 533fsb, and considerably slower than the P4 with 800fsb, comparing intel clock speed to AMD PR-number (so say 2400+ with 2.4ghz)
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. For the Athlon XP you are right, but the A64 PR system directly correlates to the P4 w/ 800mhz FSB, and the A64 chips beat out the intel setups in many many tests (of course they lose in some also).
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
amd pr-ratings are faster than a P4 on the original 400mhz fsb, about the same as P4 with the 533fsb, and considerably slower than the P4 with 800fsb, comparing intel clock speed to AMD PR-number (so say 2400+ with 2.4ghz)
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. For the Athlon XP you are right, but the A64 PR system directly correlates to the P4 w/ 800mhz FSB, and the A64 chips beat out the intel setups in many many tests (of course they lose in some also).
Click to expand...



I think he was refering to the AXP, but in any case both of you are right. The AXP is very competitive and usually faster than a 400FSB, competitive with a 533FSB and slower by a noticible margin than a 800FSB.

And as for the A64 its based around the 800FSB and is usually just as fast if not faster.
 
NAB, for the most part the AMD PR rating is very close or equal to the INTEL GHZ. It doesnt really matter though. As in all cases just do the research. In the time you take to make additional posts in this thread you can easily look on this very website at the articles on CPUS...... It shows all the performance in nice little colorful easy to read graphs. If you rely on people in here on a subject such as this you are very likely to get false information as usually one person like INTEL or AMD more then the other.


Just look at the performace in the charts and make your own opinion. All the charts are labeled. Higher is better or lower is better so you dont need to be very technical to understand them.. (not trying to be rude just not sure were you are with technical knowledge).
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
amd pr-ratings are faster than a P4 on the original 400mhz fsb, about the same as P4 with the 533fsb, and considerably slower than the P4 with 800fsb, comparing intel clock speed to AMD PR-number (so say 2400+ with 2.4ghz)
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. For the Athlon XP you are right, but the A64 PR system directly correlates to the P4 w/ 800mhz FSB, and the A64 chips beat out the intel setups in many many tests (of course they lose in some also).
Click to expand...
Considering that the original poster is talking about the 2500 XP, 3chordcharlie is definitely not "incorrect".
 
Originally posted by: Wingznut
Considering that the original poster is talking about the 2500 XP, 3chordcharlie is definitely not "incorrect".
Click to expand...
I suppose, but he did say "AMD PR", which I assumed meant he was referring to all AMD CPUs. I apologize for saying he was wrong. As someone pointed out, we were both correct. :beer:
 
I guess the main point that i'm not understanding is that I'm not understanding what the FSB is and how it plays a role/effects the cpu.
 
Originally posted by: reverend1313
NAB, for the most part the AMD PR rating is very close or equal to the INTEL GHZ. It doesnt really matter though. As in all cases just do the research. In the time you take to make additional posts in this thread you can easily look on this very website at the articles on CPUS...... It shows all the performance in nice little colorful easy to read graphs. If you rely on people in here on a subject such as this you are very likely to get false information as usually one person like INTEL or AMD more then the other.


Just look at the performace in the charts and make your own opinion. All the charts are labeled. Higher is better or lower is better so you dont need to be very technical to understand them.. (not trying to be rude just not sure were you are with technical knowledge).
Click to expand...

I see articles that reviews the individual chips, but i'm not finding one that is comparing amd vs. intel. Can I get a linky? Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top