why are AMD chips rated with a seemingly lower GHz number vs. intel chips. An AMD 2800 is about the same price as an Intel 2.8ghz but the AMD is listed with a lower ghz than 2.8... thanks...
AMD vs. INTEL
- Thread starter etherealgrifter
- Start date
lotus503
Diamond Member
- Feb 12, 2005
- 6,502
- 1
- 76
an AMD 2800 is rated to give the same performance as a pentium 2.8 GHz chip. even though it runs at a lower GHz.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2330&p=2 if you look at this article you will see that even a 64 bit 2.0 GHz will out perform an intel 3.8GHz chip. AMD is a better quality chip.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2330&p=2 if you look at this article you will see that even a 64 bit 2.0 GHz will out perform an intel 3.8GHz chip. AMD is a better quality chip.
Babystewie, the 64-bitness has nothing to do with AMD winning in those benchmarks. It's about IPC--Intructions per clock--as well as AMD's On-Die Memory Controller (ODMC).
In short, P4 has more GHz, but due to the way the P4 CPU (and athlon64) is built, these P4 GHz get less work done than the GHz in an athlon64 CPU. Basically, the P4 has a longer pipeline, so it needs te higher GHz just to be able to compete. So while the P4 has a higher clock speed, the athlon64 gets more done for each clock cycle. (basically, read this: http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1956&p=2 )
In games especially, the athlon 64's on ODMC helps a lot by making access to the RAM a lot faster than on a P4.
In short, P4 has more GHz, but due to the way the P4 CPU (and athlon64) is built, these P4 GHz get less work done than the GHz in an athlon64 CPU. Basically, the P4 has a longer pipeline, so it needs te higher GHz just to be able to compete. So while the P4 has a higher clock speed, the athlon64 gets more done for each clock cycle. (basically, read this: http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1956&p=2 )
In games especially, the athlon 64's on ODMC helps a lot by making access to the RAM a lot faster than on a P4.
I think he was merely stating the difference between the 2.0GHz 3000+ Athlon Xp and the 2.0 GHz Athlon 64... i dont think he meant that it was strictly due to it being 64 bt.
Ah, my apologies then. Anyway, the athlon64 is great even in 32-bit, so the 64-bit support is an added bonus (thats what everyone else says anyway 
), although the intel 6xx series has it as well.
), although the intel 6xx series has it as well.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Processor speed doesn't rely purely on the GHz rating anymore - more factors are at play now. Optimizations like MMX, 3DNow, Hyperthreading, and SSE improve processing speed. Operations per second also is a big factor - if you do 4 operations per second, you could theoretically run at 2GHz, and be as fast as a 4GHz proc that only can do 2 operations per second. AMD's processors have tended to do more operations per second, while Intel's had longer pipelines, which meant fewer ops per second, but it also allowed them to scale to higher GHz.
The A64 is much more efficient processor. The p4 often has to start computations over because of branch mispredictions. Basically what jeff7 said
When some one is vague and says 'Intel is better than AMD' at video encoding, I think about how seriously pwned a p4 vs my dual Opteron would be.
jamesbond007
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2000
- 5,280
- 0
- 71
Originally posted by: screech
Ah, my apologies then. Anyway, the athlon64 is great even in 32-bit, so the 64-bit support is an added bonus (thats what everyone else says anyway
All Intel Prescotts with stepping E0 and above have the EM64T instruction set built into them.
:: hugs his E0 3.4GHz :: :heart:
The short answer to the question is that AMD's chips work smarter, while Intel's chips work harder.
Intel's Pentium 4 chips are designed to run at ever-higher frequencies, using this gigaherz to improve performance. Basically, they're using brute force to gain performance, much as DEC did with the Alpha. The downside of this is that a chip with this in mind does less per clock cycle.
AMD's Athlon 64 chips are designed with clock efficiency in mind, trying to get a lot of work done on each clock cycle. The funny thing about the A64 is that its design is in some ways less efficient than than older Athlon XP, so as to be able to gain performance through gigaherz.
Neither of these (smart versus brute force) is theoretically really better than the other. The issue currently, however, is that Intel's faster chips are also much hotter -- and that poses issues.
Intel's Pentium 4 chips are designed to run at ever-higher frequencies, using this gigaherz to improve performance. Basically, they're using brute force to gain performance, much as DEC did with the Alpha. The downside of this is that a chip with this in mind does less per clock cycle.
AMD's Athlon 64 chips are designed with clock efficiency in mind, trying to get a lot of work done on each clock cycle. The funny thing about the A64 is that its design is in some ways less efficient than than older Athlon XP, so as to be able to gain performance through gigaherz.
Neither of these (smart versus brute force) is theoretically really better than the other. The issue currently, however, is that Intel's faster chips are also much hotter -- and that poses issues.
OP- A few years ago, AMD realized that their architecture was not going to be keeping up with Intel in GHz speed. As many have said, GHz isn't the only way to measure speed of a CPU, however it is what many people recognize. For marketing purposes mainly, AMD started naming CPU's with number instead of publishing the clockspeeds. Intel recently followed suit because they are not going to be making much if any gain in clockspeed and don't want to appear "stalled" at 3.8 GHz.
An analogy to a car would be this: If one car is turning 4500 RPM's and another is turning 6000 RPM's, which one is going faster? ----Impossible to tell, but you know which motor is spinning faster. In this analogy, AMD turns less RPM's, but has a gear ratio that allows them to make just as much speed while the motor spins slower. Intel has the inverse system.
An analogy to a car would be this: If one car is turning 4500 RPM's and another is turning 6000 RPM's, which one is going faster? ----Impossible to tell, but you know which motor is spinning faster. In this analogy, AMD turns less RPM's, but has a gear ratio that allows them to make just as much speed while the motor spins slower. Intel has the inverse system.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter