Have a question about amd to intel ghz.

[Topweasel]

Th PR rating is based on Performance compaired to A regular Athlon with the Athlon XP and are now based on the Athlon XP for the Athlon64. Their is no direct comparison to the P4 or other Intel CPUs unless you benchmark it yourself. Second that Tomshardware Link was complete and utter BS. I used to think that they weren't biased even when people where shouting up and down about it till their lungs hurt. But after the Stress test I had my doubts with their conclusion and now this Chart is even worse. Notice if its not a game on there then its an encoding app. Where is the Photoshop benches, or Science benches, or rendering benches. Nobody in their right mind would run 20+ beches and only include roughly 2 kinds. Yes we all know that up till the Athlon64 X2 that Intel was better then AMD at encoding (although they don't show SSE3 capable procs due to the age) so why the 6 different encoding benches. AGGGGGGGGHHHHH. /rant over

A this point specially with the X2 non off it really makes sense. They probably should stop using the PR rating and just go to model numbers.

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: C6FT7
Intel is up to 3.8G and AMD 2.6G true (no PR) so you can figure out who is faster.

ever heard of an FX57?

And how the hell is the OP supposed to figure out his question based on what you said?

To the OP: If we are talking about a 2.7Ghz San Diego (SH8-E4 core), which would be right in between a FX55 and FX57 (and for those who don't know, that is NOT an FX56 :roll: ) it would probably be comperable to a 3.8 to 3.9Ghz P4. Basically, no stock Intel product can match the FX57 in single threaded applications (that i know of).

 

[BigCoolJesus]

Yea, the statement that Intel is faster due to higher Clock speed is utter BS.

Thats something a salesman at BestBuy or Circuit City would say just to sell a computer (i love it when they say, "well this computer has a 3.0GHz processor, so it will beat almost anything" thats fine and dandy, but not really true)


The speed is meaningless.
What the CPU can do in one clock cycle is much more important.

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: Topweasel
Th PR rating is based on Performance compaired to A regular Athlon with the Athlon XP and are now based on the Athlon XP for the Athlon64. Their is no direct comparison to the P4 or other Intel CPUs unless you benchmark it yourself. Second that Tomshardware Link was complete and utter BS. I used to think that they weren't biased even when people where shouting up and down about it till their lungs hurt. But after the Stress test I had my doubts with their conclusion and now this Chart is even worse. Notice if its not a game on there then its an encoding app. Where is the Photoshop benches, or Science benches, or rendering benches. Nobody in their right mind would run 20+ beches and only include roughly 2 kinds. Yes we all know that up till the Athlon64 X2 that Intel was better then AMD at encoding (although they don't show SSE3 capable procs due to the age) so why the 6 different encoding benches. AGGGGGGGGHHHHH. /rant over

A this point specially with the X2 non off it really makes sense. They probably should stop using the PR rating and just go to model numbers.

i agree. i don't think i have ever thought of the current PR system in terms of performance, only in terms of the model. I'm not sure if anyone out there would buy an AMD based on the PR rating. They are ultimatly going to look at the clock speed and see that it is much lower than intel and then someone will have to explain the whole thing to them....though i guess it would be the same situation with model numbers. It really sucks that so many people make judgements based on clock speed. :thumbsdown: