how AMD 64 cpu 2.2 GHZ perform better than p4 @ 3.2GHZ?

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Computer MAn

Originally posted by: magomago
"Wow surfing on your computer is so slow!!!! My P4 definitely does a better job!" And i'm like "I'm about to kill you!"

I have a friend who does the same thing. He's like AMD sucks, my Dell is so much better

who DOESN'T have a friend like that.

 

[barnett25]

Whats worse is that I have an MCSE teacher (and very knowlegeable one at that) who says that he will only use Intel processors because if they overheat they just slow down, where as AMDs just fry them selves. I tried to tell him that this was no longer true (at least I think?) but he really didn't seem to care.:disgust:

 

[Tyrant222]

barn,

no longer true, that guy must be stuck in his late 90s tech knowledge.

yeah i love those guys

 

[barnett25]

Yeah, he also made some comment on AMDs running really hot, and I told him that Athlon 64s run cooler than Pentium 4s, but again it was just facts getting in the way of his opinion.😀

 

[TomKazansky]

it's funny how my xp-m embrassed all my friend's p4 system on gaming becnhmarks. They asked me how I can do and I just tell them....buy an amd.

 

[lenjack]

IIRC, and this may be outdated, the Intel cpu executes 6 instructions per clock cycle, while the Amd cpu executes 9. So, for Intel, 6x3.2G=19.2 billion instructions per clock, and for Amd, 2.2Gx9=19.8 billion instructions per clock.

 

[JasonandBecky]

Well to take this thread as an example. All the fanboy quotes are pro amd. All the pro intel quotes are "yea i got this friend who lives in canada who knows somebodys sister who said amd sucks".


Just something that sticks out. As an outsider I really dont see the intel fanboy trash like I do with the AMD trash the past few months. Simple Intel threads have been invaded more and more by snide ocmments here lately. Kinda sad.

 

[barnett25]

Originally posted by: JasonandBecky
Well to take this thread as an example. All the fanboy quotes are pro amd. All the pro intel quotes are "yea i got this friend who lives in canada who knows somebodys sister who said amd sucks".


Just something that sticks out. As an outsider I really dont see the intel fanboy trash like I do with the AMD trash the past few months. Simple Intel threads have been invaded more and more by snide ocmments here lately. Kinda sad.

I'm not a fanboy (except for Apple😀), but I don't see any benifit to buying Intel (at least when it comes to P4). If there are any I would really like to know.

 

[Zebo]

Topic Title: how AMD 64 cpu 2.2 GHZ perform better than p4 @ 3.2GHZ?

That's the question Intels marketing deparment wants everyone to ask themselves. And it works. We as humans are programmed our whole lives to associate better with high numbers (maybe that's why I suck at golf) anyway, at intel they bascially had 2-5 roads they could go when AMDs Tbird beat intels PIII to 1.0Ghz. Not only was the tbird faster clock for clock than PIII, Intel had an embarressing recall/chip failures trying to rush out 1.13Ghz. The main two ideas were refine PIII's higher IPC for more speed or lengthen the pipe for super clocks so they won't be 2nd again in Mhz race. They choose the later, called the p4, and this marketing gimmick was very succesful due to our pre-programmed unconsious mind. Very smart idea. But caused several Intel engineers to resign in discust at the sloppy dishonest chip.

And they are still at it!!! the Mhz game. The "old" northwood p4 has higher IPC than the latest prescott p4. the performance ratio is about 1.10:1 between the two.

AMD OTOH is getting faster performance each iteration of thier chips. They are going the opposite direction, keeping clocks low while increasing perfromance all the time. A64 is more effecint than "old" barton by 1.25:1. Barton was more effecint than Tbred. And tbred was more effcient than tbird.

Differnet approach.. less power consumption, less heat, less noise and finally better performance from a measly 2.2Ghz🙂 I think AMD is more refined and appreciate thier high effecientcy approach.