GHz question on CPU's

[BriGy86]

like these here

link

it seems the only difference is the Operating Frequency, what physically in a chip determines what that rating will be?

im just curious

 

[mordantmonkey]

AMD's rating number is supposed to be a comparative measure for Intel's operating frequency, since AMD has shorter pipelines and can do the same amount of work in the same amount of time with a lower clockspeed. It's just a marketing tool for consumers to compare performance since clock speed isn't a fair comparison. AMD's rating is a function of clockspeed and cache size and probably some benchmarks, but in the end they are somewhat shooting it out of their ass. not to say it isn't somewhate accurate, but it's not exact either.

edit:
additionally, the rating for the X2 is still based upon comparison to single core intel. so the 4200+ would supposedly be equivalent to a single core intel @4.2GHz, NOT a dual core intel at 4.2GHz. However this number becomes even less relevant because performance will be drastically different for multithreaded programs.
in the end it's best to compare benches from tech sites(like this one ), for the programs which matter to you most. obviously real world performance is a far better indicator than marketing monikers.

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
AMD's rating number is supposed to be a comparative measure for Intel's operating frequency, since AMD has shorter pipelines and can do the same amount of work in the same amount of time with a lower clockspeed. It's just a marketing tool for consumers to compare performance since clock speed isn't a fair comparison. AMD's rating is a function of clockspeed and cache size and probably some benchmarks, but in the end they are somewhat shooting it out of their ass. not to say it isn't somewhate accurate, but it's not exact either.

so it sounds like they just tested the chips after they were made and slapped a rating on them depending on how well they performed?

or could it have to do with the pipelines?
the ones in the 4800+ are shorter?

 

[mordantmonkey]

so it sounds like they just tested the chips after they were made and slapped a rating on them depending on how well they performed?

or could it have to do with the pipelines?
the ones in the 4800+ are shorter?[/quote]

nope they are the exact same core with the same size cache. you could theoretically say they are identical (and they are architecture wise). however one probably performed better during binning and is set and warrantied by AMD to perform at a higher clock speed (2.4 as opposed to 2.2). though the difference in AMD clocks is 200MHz, when this is translated to the "rating number" it equates to 400 more "points".

 

[GML3G0]

It just so happens that the AMD ratings come pretty close to their Intel counterparts, that you would assume that's how they name their processors. That is not the case, however. It's a comparison to their older chips, the Thunderbird namely, not Intel's chips.

Another thing that "helps determine the rating" is L2 cache. For example, the 3500+ and 3700+ operate at the same frequency, but the 3700+ has double the L2 cache.