How???

[ulty]

When you look at Operating frequencies...

Intel Pentium 4/ 3.0C GHz 800MHz FSB, 512K Cache, Hyper Threading Technology

Operating Frequency: 3.0 GHz

AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 512KB L2 Cache 64-bit Processor

Operating Frequency: 2 Ghz

How can AMD's processor be faster?

I don't totally understand?

 

[Mik3y]

intel's architecture composes of a series of long pipelines whereas amd's composes of short pipelines. this therefore means that it will require a shorter frequency to transmit data and such at the same speed as intel's. numbers arent everything. such as cache also. because of the pentium's longer pipelines, larger numbers in everything benefit it much more then it does for amd. ie. 200mhz for amd owns 200mhz for intel. because the larger cache really helps intel in performance, it will cost a lot more to manufacture their cpu's. another example would be a macintosh. they are kind of like amd in where their operating frequency is much lower then intel's, but it manages to beat intel on many things also. a duel G5 system, operating at 2.5, is about equivalent or near in performance to opteron 250.

 

[ulty]

Thanks for the explanation, so an AMD 64 3000+ would be faster than Intel 4 3.0/3.2C GHz ??

 

[DaveSimmons]

intel is a 1 oz thimble, AMD is an 8 oz cup -- which scoops more water out of a bucket in 10 scoops?

intel is 5' tall, AMD is 6' -- who walks farther with each step?

If you want a more technical description, ArsTechnica.com has some good CPU internals articles.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: ulty
Thanks for the explanation, so an AMD 64 3000+ would be faster than Intel 4 3.0/3.2C GHz ??

Read benchmarks on the main AnandTech website, the speed of AMD vs. intel varies by task.

 

[Mik3y]

well, by its name, it should be about equivalent, but amd's athlon 64 still surpasses the performance of the pentiums by a bit. this means that a 3000+ is about comparable to the p4 at 3.0-3.1Ghz. the athlon 64 beats the pentium in nearly every field besides encoding/decoding. its pure speed nearly makes up for intel's hyperthreading also. but because amd has shorter pipelines, fast date input and output are benefited by this. gaming would be an excellant example since they are typically fast paced and etc, making the athlon's better for gaming. also, all i know is that the longer pipelines benefit encoding/decoding, so this is where intel has its specialty.

 

[ulty]

Originally posted by: Mik3y
well, by its name, it should be about equivalent, but amd's athlon 64 still surpasses the performance of the pentiums by a bit. this means that a 3000+ is about comparable to the p4 at 3.0-3.1Ghz. the athlon 64 beats the pentium in nearly every field besides encoding/decoding. its pure speed nearly makes up for intel's hyperthreading also. but because amd has shorter pipelines, fast date input and output are benefited by this. gaming would be an excellant example since they are typically fast paste and etc, making the athlon's better for gaming. also, all i know is that the longer pipelines benefit encoding/decoding, so this is where intel has its specialty.

Thanks for that explanation, that is exactly what I'm looking for, however, I have one more!

Is it true that some software doesn't work well with 64-bit processors?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Is it true that some software doesn't work well with 64-bit processors?

No. AMD A64 and intel's new P4s with 64 bit support both run regular 32-bit software like Windows perfectly.

For now you can completely ignore the A64's 64-bit support and use it as a fast, 100% compatible 32-bit processor.

 

[Regs]

We need more people like you to ask this same question. Because a lot apparently only get sold by numbers. Mik3y did an excellent job explaining in simple terms. Even though this may not include you, but AMD's shorter pipeline proves also to be better in server based tasks with the help of its new onboard memory controller which offers many other benefits as well.

AMD can do more per clock (1Mhz as you could say) then Intels. So basiclly it's like saying you get more value per AMD dollar than you would with Intels Dollar.

And AMD 64 Bit CPU's were actually made to be both very fast in 32 bit mode and 64 bit mode (yet to be really seen). So you can't go wrong either way. AMD 64 is really just a 32 bit CPU with 64 bit support. So it wouldnt make much sense why some software wouldnt work just the same with them.

 

[mysticfm]

Originally posted by: ulty
Is it true that some software doesn't work well with 64-bit processors?

Not in my experience thus far. I've got a large variety of different types of software that I have been installing on my new A64 3000+ system ("The Beast", see sig for specs), including 3D & 2D games, 3D & 2D graphics software, software development environments, office and database software, audio and video editing software, and many other things. So far every last item on the list is performing wonderfully on my new machine.

Also, I haven't read anything in online reviews of the A64 series that suggests it to be anything less than a terrific platform for 32 bit software.

- David

 

[ulty]

Alright, final question...

I plan on doing:

web design
graphics
gaming
LOTS of multitasking (I normaly have quite a few windows open, atm I only have 9)

Would an AMD 64 3000+ be better than an Intel 3.2C GHz? or should I go to AMD 64 3200+?

Thanks for this help so far, you guys/gals are great.


On an AMD 64 would everything load 'with the snap of the finger' or 'before you click on it'

Basically asking will this be FAST

 

[ulty]

Originally posted by: mysticfm

Originally posted by: ulty
Is it true that some software doesn't work well with 64-bit processors?

Not in my experience thus far. I've got a large variety of different types of software that I have been installing on my new A64 3000+ system ("The Beast", see sig for specs), including 3D & 2D games, 3D & 2D graphics software, software development environments, office and database software, audio and video editing software, and many other things. So far every last item on the list is performing wonderfully on my new machine.

Also, I haven't read anything in online reviews of the A64 series that suggests it to be anything less than a terrific platform for 32 bit software.

- David

When I click the link, it says the rig cannot be found...

 

[mysticfm]

Originally posted by: ulty
Would an AMD 64 3000+ be better than an Intel 3.2C GHz? or should I go to AMD 64 3200+?

I do all of the things you listed. As long as you make sure you have enough RAM to handle the multiple applications, I think you'd be quite happy with the 3000+. The 3200+ doesn't really give you that much more power, not enough for the additional cost ... the 3000+ in particular offers a very attractive balance of price and performance right now. (Maybe the 3200+ or even the 3400+ will occupy that point a few months down the road ... who knows?)

On an AMD 64 would everything load 'with the snap of the finger' or 'before you click on it'
Basically asking will this be FAST

Let's put it this way ... I do most of the same things on my system that you have listed, and thus far I am DELIRIOUSLY happy with the snappy performance of my A3000+.

 

[Mik3y]

well, wtih intel's hyperthreading, it allows for a much smoother multi-tasking capability. with amd's hypertransport, data transfer between the cpu and memory and such is increased, meaning that amd tend's to get the job done quickly and then move on, whereas intel, with its hyperthreading, allows it to act almost like 2 cpus, but not necessarily. depending on wut programs or windows your are keeping open at a time, amd or intel will do. if it is just windows, then amd is fine for it all, but if its programs and apps you are keeping opened and running, then i think the P4 will be better off for you, but then again, u plan on running games, graphics, and web design, whihc is not bad for amd at all. i guess it just depends on what you want. i, for one, would choose amd, but when deciding on getting a cpu, you should note that a 3000+ is about the same price as a p4 3.0C and etc. also, if you decide on getting the P4, get the northwood, for they are faster then the newer prescotts by an estimate of 200Mhz if the core speed is below 3.5GHz.

 

[dennisjai215]

well if u multitask alot it is wise to go with a P4 with hyper threading

 

[mysticfm]

Originally posted by: ulty
When I click the link, it says the rig cannot be found...

So I see ... thanks for pointing that out to me. Looks like Anandtech switched to using ASP.NET pages sometime in the last couple of days. Anyway. the links should be fixed now.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: mysticfm

Originally posted by: ulty
When I click the link, it says the rig cannot be found...

So I see ... thanks for pointing that out to me. Looks like Anandtech switched to using ASP.NET pages sometime in the last couple of days. Anyway. the links should be fixed now.

nope, link still bad. btw, does mine work properly? lately, i've been only able to view my own links, but i couldnt view anyone elses.

 

[mysticfm]

Originally posted by: Mik3y

Originally posted by: mysticfm
So I see ... thanks for pointing that out to me. Looks like Anandtech switched to using ASP.NET pages sometime in the last couple of days. Anyway. the links should be fixed now.

nope, link still bad. btw, does mine work properly? lately, i've been only able to view my own links, but i couldnt view anyone elses.

Try refreshing the page ... it sure seems to work for me now. And yours are broken, too. In fact just about all of them in this thread are broken. Like I said, the pages seem to use an .aspx extension now, and the old .html extension that everyone apparently has been using no longer works.

 

[Mik3y]

ya, urs is still broken to me and i can still see mine. maybe we should post this in forum issues?

 

[mysticfm]

Yep, think we do need to ask about it. I just tried replacing your path with aspx and it still didn't work, so it's not as simple a fix as I thought.

 

[Mik3y]

ya, i just checked the forum issues and its been posted for some time already. hopefully it'll be fixed soon.

 

[ulty]

Yes, your rigs are still not showing up...

So conclusion....

AMD or Intel?

 

[Mik3y]

my vote goes for the athlon 64.

 

[ulty]

Originally posted by: Mik3y
my vote goes for the athlon 64.

How about this one?


3200+ (282 - retail)
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-483&depa=0


3000+ (223 - retail)
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-424&depa=0

$59 isn't worth .2 GHz more when you could overclock the 3000+

If I had a good heatsink, would the 3000+ be overclockable (alot)

I know a guy who overclocked his 1700+ to 2.3 GHz

Would I be capable of more?

 

[Regs]

An A64 CPU is a much more powerful core than a XP core. Once again, don't let just the clock speed confuse you.

The A64 has an onboard memory controller. Which means it takes a lot less time searching for data in your systems memory. Plus a better branch predictor and other core advancements. Pretty much means it can do even more per clock cycle then a XP.

This also means you need a motherboard that supports the A64.