Can these benchmarks be right!?

[Lazy8s]

Ok, so I was looking at getting a new processor this summer. I am running an intel 2.4ghz HT and I am hoping to get a descent boost to my graphics performance. I know, I know upgrade my card but according to my PC statistics I'm using about 600mb of my 1gig of memory but my processor is running close to 95% all the time.

This is partly because I am running Ventrillo, Team Speak (voice servers) AIM, World of Warcraft and sometimes my web cam all at the same time. Of course I could shut down a program or two but what fun is that?

So I looked at the bench marks on THG to see if the 3.0 would be worth the $200+. Much to my suprise the benchmarks here:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html?modelx=33&model1=68&model2=18&chart=26
show the Athalon 64 Newcastle 2.4ghz chip actually outperforms the 3.4ghz P4EE!!!! How in the WORLD does a processor that is 1ghz less do that? I knew they were fast but c'mon! Will I really get a bigger bang for my buck just by getting the athalon 64 chip the same ghz as the one I have now than a P4 chip 1ghz faster?

If so I might actually spend the money, sux I'd have to get a new mobo but I guess it would be a good excuse and heck...I might hit up Win 64 as well...

 

[TankGuys]

Yes, it really is possible.

Depending on the application, the Athlon chips tend to out-perform thier Intel counterparts. This is just about universally true if you compare them clock-for-clock.

Your choice of processor depends a lot on what you want to spend, and what you use it for. For what you said, you would probobaly be well off to go the AMD route.

 

[ryanv12]

with all those apps you run, you might benefit from a dual core processor

and yes, Pentium 4 EE's are a joke. I'd go with an A64

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Please use the search function because this has been answered many times before. Intel and AMD use different architectures that work differently. The frequency of the processor is not the only determinant of its performance. Think of AMD as a 9 lane highway (I know that it isn't correct due to X86 stuff but it is just an example) with cars going at 55 mile per hour in each lane. Now think of an Intel (Prescott) as a 6 lane highway with cars going at 85 miles per hour. More cars for AMD but slower speed equals less cars for Intel at faster speed.

The AMD model numbers are close enough to the corresponding Intel numbers that it is reasonably accurate. (Video encoding usually a little better on single core Intel and gaming better on the AMD) It all balances out more or less in the end.

Edit: So yes, an 2.4 4000+/FX-53 is usually considered faster than the 3.4EE Intel

 

[Lazy8s]

Like I said I did some reading/research (READ: Searched the forums and Google) and read they were faster than the even clock counterpart (I.E. 2.4ghs 64 is faster than 2.4ghs Prescott) but I had no idea the gap was so incredibly large.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
Like I said I did some reading/research (READ: Searched the forums and Google) and read they were faster than the even clock counterpart (I.E. 2.4ghs 64 is faster than 2.4ghs Prescott) but I had no idea the gap was so incredibly large.

You could not have done much research to still have been misinformed enough to think Intel has huge performance leads on the AMD64 such as 3.6 versus 2.4 being way faster.

Now you know why the 2.4 AMD64 as I stated above is rated a 4000+

Equally clocked the AMD64 would stomp the Intel into the ground.

 

[Lazy8s]

Hehe I should have done better research. My problem was I saw Intel compared to Intel and then AMD compared to AMD. I had never seen such a vast number of processors side by side.

Same with the nvidia and ATI cards. Seing the same chips compared is one thing but when you compare the 6800 to the ATIs it really puts it into perspective.

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
Like I said I did some reading/research (READ: Searched the forums and Google) and read they were faster than the even clock counterpart (I.E. 2.4ghs 64 is faster than 2.4ghs Prescott) but I had no idea the gap was so incredibly large.

It was a serious problem on the earlier prescotts but it has been changed. Current prescotts are faster than their northwood counterparts at the same speed. However they do lag behind A64s at the same PR speed.