• 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.

Convincing these guys that

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
i guess a little kid who takes 2 steps per second covers as much ground as an adult who takes 2 steps per second

use that analogy....AMD's processors cover more ground per step than Intel's.....a kid has to take more steps per second (walk faster) than an adult to "keep up"

and if your friends blindly think that clockspeed alone determines performance, tell them to buy a celeron...cuz u can get a 2.8 GHz celeron for dirt cheap. then laugh as their computer performs like sh*t and yours flies

btw....drop that stick of PC2100 and just run with the stick of PC3200...you're killing performance by running with an asynchronous memory bus and clocked low....go with the synchronized 200 MHz memory bus
 
i was once told it was based on the old thunderbird cpu, ie: a 2500+ would perform the same as a tbird had it been running @ 2.5ghz
 
Originally posted by: acejj26
i guess a little kid who takes 2 steps per second covers as much ground as an adult who takes 2 steps per second

use that analogy....AMD's processors cover more ground per step than Intel's.....a kid has to take more steps per second (walk faster) than an adult to "keep up"

and if your friends blindly think that clockspeed alone determines performance, tell them to buy a celeron...cuz u can get a 2.8 GHz celeron for dirt cheap. then laugh as their computer performs like sh*t and yours flies

btw....drop that stick of PC2100 and just run with the stick of PC3200...you're killing performance by running with an asynchronous memory bus and clocked low....go with the synchronized 200 MHz memory bus
Click to expand...

see the thing is I only have 512mb ram wich is 2 sticks, If i take the 256mb 2100 ram out, I'll havel ower performance right? unless I upgrade to another tick that is also 3200 wich I plan to do soon.
 
lets just say this, the AMD and Intel both clocked at the same speed, the AMD will always come out on top... a 1.8GHz (XP2500+) will pummel a P4 1.8GHz.

thats why they have the PR rating scheme, no point in comparing the 2 CPU's side by side.... ALSO they don't make a CPU fast enough in MHz to compete against a 3GHz P4 anyways, so hense the PR system... (performance rating.)
 
Just to go back to the original topic of the thread...what is the exact question you are trying to prove?

Bottom line is an XP 2500+ would NOT perform as well as a hypothetical P4 at 2.5ghz

The XP performs at a level a lot higher than its clockspeed, but you can compare it at stock speeds to the above.

But then again an XP 2500+ would perform better than a hypothetical 2.5ghz celeron.

The CPU's core depends a lot on how it actually uses that clockspeed it has.
 
Originally posted by: AzWeThinkWeis
Originally posted by: Nebor
How did you manage to overclock your computer? 😕
Click to expand...

I already said, i upped the fsb to 200mhz and locked my RAM cause I have 2 sticks one is 3200 and the other is 2100, so I locked both at the speed of the 2100 wich is 133mhz so I won't kill it, then I upped the vcore because if I let it stay at 1.5v I would be unstable so I upped it to 1.75 to give it more power and make it more stable. 2500+ - 3200+
Click to expand...

impressive 😉
 
Originally posted by: AzWeThinkWeis
my friend whom has taught me alot, told me that 2500+ are really 2.5ghz p4 terms, I'm pretty sure this is correct but I don't know why, I have a Barton Core 2500+ and I OCed it to 3200+ so right now I am running at 3.2ghz right?
Click to expand...
No, it is not running at 3.2GHz, it is running at 2.2GHz (I think). However it should perform (more or less) like a 3.2GHz P4.
"There is no "AMD Terms" and "Intel Terms"
A Ghz value is an exact value, doesnt make a difference which company made it."
Click to expand...
This statement is correct. The clock rate is how fast the clock is physically changing state. Every time the clock switches the processor can do some work. An Athlon does more work per clock than the P4, this is why a lower clocked Athlon can perform similar to a higher clocked P4.

It is entirely possible that the people on the other forum are taking issue with your terminology, not with you saying that a lower clocked Athlon can perform as fast as a P4.
 
Originally posted by: ath50
Just to go back to the original topic of the thread...what is the exact question you are trying to prove?

Bottom line is an XP 2500+ would NOT perform as well as a hypothetical P4 at 2.5ghz

The XP performs at a level a lot higher than its clockspeed, but you can compare it at stock speeds to the above.

But then again an XP 2500+ would perform better than a hypothetical 2.5ghz celeron.

The CPU's core depends a lot on how it actually uses that clockspeed it has.
Click to expand...

partially true. For the 533Mhz FSB P4s, the 2500+ is comparable to a theoretical 2.5Ghz P4 . But when we talk about he P4C, that is when the 2500+ is more comparable to a 2.4Ghz P4c 😉



And whereever that forum is...just link them here or something and show the graphs mechBgon posted. Whoever you are arguing with seems like they are idiots and noobs themselves.
 
Originally posted by: XplosiV
"There is no "AMD Terms" and "Intel Terms"
Click to expand...
< that is correct. GHZ is the measurement of speed for a CPU. If an intel 2500 works at 1.83ghz and an intel works at 2.2ghz, then the amd can not be faster. However taking into account the AMD when plugged into a board, the FSB of the board its in, speed of ram and cashe, all influance the performance of the processor, so although an Intel clocks faster, the amd might perform better evan though it clocks slower. - In one of these posts i'll make the right point lol - Anyway, an AMD 1.83 ( 2500 ) will never out clock an intel 2.2, but it can perform better depending on the overall system specs
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put it quite that way...The "speed" of a CPU is MHz*IPC (instructions per clock). AMD has a higher IPC than P4, so a 1.83GHz Athlon can well be faster than a 2.2GHz P4. Especially in arithmetic, AMD has a really powerful FPU.
 
Originally posted by: AzWeThinkWeis
so what you guys are saying is that an AMD 3200 does not equal 3.2ghz, but performs like if not better than a 3.2ghz intel?
Click to expand...

We have a winner ! YES !!!! Show these noobs the benchmarks in the tab above that says "CPU". And IPC is only one factor. The Barton series has more cache than its predicessor, but the IPC is the same. There are other factors, but have them read in "highly technical" for more... Oh wait, they can't comprehend IPC, so nevermind......
 
Originally posted by: AzWeThinkWeis
so what you guys are saying is that an AMD 3200 does not equal 3.2ghz, but performs like if not better than a 3.2ghz intel?
Click to expand...

You have the idea. However, with the new Intel Pentium 4s with an 800mhz FSB (and 1mb L2 cache in Prescott's case) perform better than AMD's Athlon XP (but not Athlon 64). An Athlon XP 3200+ performs around a 2.8C-3C.
 
Gawd, if clock speed was everything, just imagine how bad Macintosh users would be screwed... Well, I guess they are in some sort of way though. 😀
 
Tell those 'other' people to come see this thread or actually read articles on Amd's naming convention of their Athlon XP processors.
 
Originally posted by: AzWeThinkWeis
WOOHOO CONGRATULATIONS I HAVE ABSOLUTELY WON NOTHING! hehe
Click to expand...

Are you incapable of understanding what you read? Let me phrase this as simply as I can...

Athlon = More Work Done
Intel = Work Done Faster

Here is the hard part.

Athlon XP 2500+ = 9IPC x 1833Mhz = 16479 Instructions Per Second
Pentium 5 2.5Ghz = 6IPC x 2500Mhz = 15000 Instructions Per Second

Granted a lot of factors affect this so don't hold by it as concrete.
 
Here is the hard part.

Athlon XP 2500+ = 9IPC x 1833Mhz = 16479 Instructions Per Second
Pentium 5 2.5Ghz = 6IPC x 2500Mhz = 15000 Instructions Per Second

Granted a lot of factors affect this so don't hold by it as concrete.
Click to expand...

Wow AMD is going to whomp intel the next round 😉
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Just tell them to buy a P4 1.8ghz if they don't think the 1.83ghz 2500+ AMD chip will be faster. Then get them to run pifast and compare that to the score on the AMD 2500+. At that point they will experience an epiphany and will begin to cry because they wasted their money. At that point you can say "I told you so". 😛
Click to expand...

LOL. So cruel...
 
Originally posted by: SSibalNom
i was once told it was based on the old thunderbird cpu, ie: a 2500+ would perform the same as a tbird had it been running @ 2.5ghz
Click to expand...

i was under the same impression. i think that was how the pr started, but since everyone was comparing it to p4, they changed the marketing and directly compare them now.

i want to say i read it in one of the pc mags, but thats been a while ago so...
 
If your friend needs more info as to why there is "less work performed with more CPU cycles" in regards to Intels, have him do a google search for "Hyper Pipelined Technology". This should explain why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top