This is quite confusing, everyone saids AMD XP 3000 runs just as good as P4 3 ghz, but when it's actually speed is only 2.1ghz. anyone care to explain to a newbie?
I'm confused..how is AMD XP3000 equivalent to a P4 3ghz when it's actually speed is 2.1ghz?
- Thread starter Solodays
- Start date
performance != frequency
performance ~= frequency * IPC
athlon has a higher IPC lower frequency
a P4 has higher frequency lower IPC
you can have a celeron 4 ghz that will get spanked by a 3000XP or a 3.0 Ghz P4
just because it is 4 ghz doesnt mean it performs better
performance ~= frequency * IPC
athlon has a higher IPC lower frequency
a P4 has higher frequency lower IPC
you can have a celeron 4 ghz that will get spanked by a 3000XP or a 3.0 Ghz P4
just because it is 4 ghz doesnt mean it performs better
jacktesterson
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 5,493
- 3
- 81
Ok first off
This is not the case. The XP 3000 is not as fast as the 3.0GHz. It was orginally set to give a comparison to the 533 MHz FSB P4's....(XP 1700 like a P4 1.7)...this was underrated though, as the XP 1700 was quite a bit faster.
The days of greatest frequencies is over. AMD simply gets "comparable" speed from lower clocked processors than the P4. AMD changed the name so that people would still buy it. If you went to a store and Saw a AMD Athlon 2.1 GHz, or a XP 3000...which would you buy when that P4 3.0 Ghz is sitting right beside it? Its a marketing scheme to try to get the everyday Joes to not just buy the Intel because of the bigger numbers.
Personally I'm an AMD fan. Altho there XP3000 is not as fast as a 3.0GHz, its comparable...and that being, its only 2.1 GHz....Why does Intel need 3.0GHz to acheive comparable performance.? I dunno..all I know is you cant look at frequency speeds anymore to compare the two.
I think its cool AMD sells a much cheaper, much lower frequency chip that gets comparable performance to Intels high rated (frequecny) chips that cost a lot more.
Hope I helped
This is not the case. The XP 3000 is not as fast as the 3.0GHz. It was orginally set to give a comparison to the 533 MHz FSB P4's....(XP 1700 like a P4 1.7)...this was underrated though, as the XP 1700 was quite a bit faster.
The days of greatest frequencies is over. AMD simply gets "comparable" speed from lower clocked processors than the P4. AMD changed the name so that people would still buy it. If you went to a store and Saw a AMD Athlon 2.1 GHz, or a XP 3000...which would you buy when that P4 3.0 Ghz is sitting right beside it? Its a marketing scheme to try to get the everyday Joes to not just buy the Intel because of the bigger numbers.
Personally I'm an AMD fan. Altho there XP3000 is not as fast as a 3.0GHz, its comparable...and that being, its only 2.1 GHz....Why does Intel need 3.0GHz to acheive comparable performance.? I dunno..all I know is you cant look at frequency speeds anymore to compare the two.
I think its cool AMD sells a much cheaper, much lower frequency chip that gets comparable performance to Intels high rated (frequecny) chips that cost a lot more.
Hope I helped
The rating system is a marketing ploy used by AMD to fool the average, uninitiated buyer. They walk into best buy to get themselves a new computer and they equate the 3000+ XP directly to the PIV 3 ghz. Uninformed consumers would consider the 2.1 ghz axp to be much slower than the 3 ghz p4 because the only basis for comparison they have are the raw numbers, so AMD spins it a bit (not that it's not warranted.)
jacktesterson
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 5,493
- 3
- 81
The XP 3000 is not that much slower...not to that extent...in Anandtech's review, the XP3000 is faster for everyday general use applications, and in Windows. Its mostly media thriving/gaming where the Intel is the fastest....but who cares if your running quake 3 at 280 FPS rather than 330? Its all in your head...you cant see a difference. In a yr or 2 you'll upgrade anyways so why not get the cheaper Athlon?
jacktesterson
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 5,493
- 3
- 81
no...the XP3000 is around the 2.4C to 2.6C P4 in performance, and sometimes gets close to the 3.0C (one or two tests only)
because it's that good?
or at least that's what AMD marketing's trying to sell
I'm not buying these marketing BS stuffs. (although I've XP1700+)
or at least that's what AMD marketing's trying to sell
I'm not buying these marketing BS stuffs. (although I've XP1700+)
I didn't mean to imply that it was. I meant to say that were the two marketed under their respective clock speeds, the athlon would appear slower to the uninformed consumer...with this naming system, amd gains equal footing with intel in the eyes of the average computer buyer.
The 3000+ was for the most part on par with the upcoming 3.0ghz p4 Intel released a new stepping which changed the landscape. You can't really expect AMD to rename all the models now. They will probably just make the change going forward.
This also can cause confusion for intel customers as well. How do you think the guy who buys the 2.4ghz p4 instead of the 2.4C p4 feels. they are both 2.4ghz, but the latter is faster, and signicantly so in memory bandwidth dependent applications.
Intel is getting hit by their own marketing. New chips that they are putting out have advances that make them far faster than the slight mghz increases make them appear to be. This is due to things such as multi-threading and other chip features.
AMD's response to intels mghz-based selling was to rename their (mghz-slower) chips in a way that showed them more comparably to intel.
It was an attempt to show users that their product was similar despit mghz diffs.
bottom line is go look at the benchmarks to see how chips are performing versus each other. odds are that they are very similar.
Plus there are many other aspecxts to the computer to attain speed. Mother board might be even more important to the ultimate speed of the computer.
AMD's response to intels mghz-based selling was to rename their (mghz-slower) chips in a way that showed them more comparably to intel.
It was an attempt to show users that their product was similar despit mghz diffs.
bottom line is go look at the benchmarks to see how chips are performing versus each other. odds are that they are very similar.
Plus there are many other aspecxts to the computer to attain speed. Mother board might be even more important to the ultimate speed of the computer.
I liken it to a car.
The P4 is like a 4 cylinder running at 5000 RPM.
The Athlon is like a V8 running at 4000 RPM.
As for benchmarks...in a lot of cases, Intel wins benchmarks that are like measuring the height of the fins.
The P4 is like a 4 cylinder running at 5000 RPM.
The Athlon is like a V8 running at 4000 RPM.
As for benchmarks...in a lot of cases, Intel wins benchmarks that are like measuring the height of the fins.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,945
- 4,535
- 126
AMD:
3 * 5 = 15
Intel:
5 * 3 = 15
AMD fan:
Look how much better the AMD is since it starts with a lowly 3 and makes it all the way to 15! Intel sucks. AMD is far more efficient.
Intel fan:
The Intel is much better, look it starts with 5 not the lowly 3 that AMD starts with! AMD sucks. Intel has far higher numbers to begin with so efficiency doesn't matter.
Me:
They are both 15. Who cares what the first number is or even the second? Only the final result matters. I feel the 2.1 GHz 3000+ XP is roughly the equivalent of the 2.8 GHz P4. But that is my opinion. I'll let you choose your own opinion. Yes 5 * 5 = 25 is better than both. But neither company can do it, so don't try to argue it.
3 * 5 = 15
Intel:
5 * 3 = 15
AMD fan:
Look how much better the AMD is since it starts with a lowly 3 and makes it all the way to 15! Intel sucks. AMD is far more efficient.
Intel fan:
The Intel is much better, look it starts with 5 not the lowly 3 that AMD starts with! AMD sucks. Intel has far higher numbers to begin with so efficiency doesn't matter.
Me:
They are both 15. Who cares what the first number is or even the second? Only the final result matters. I feel the 2.1 GHz 3000+ XP is roughly the equivalent of the 2.8 GHz P4. But that is my opinion. I'll let you choose your own opinion. Yes 5 * 5 = 25 is better than both. But neither company can do it, so don't try to argue it.
Aren't they based on t-bird's? Meaning a 1600+ (1.4ghz) would be equal to a 1.6 t-bird. I really don't think AMD ever said they were based on p4's.
I can't believe people are posting to this, there are many articles on this site here for reading that answer this very question even with pretty charts! Is it an ego thing?
RE:"Here's a chart for you"
Sysmark? That's Bapco. Do you know Intel and Bapco share the same street address?
Hummm...
Mac
Sysmark? That's Bapco. Do you know Intel and Bapco share the same street address?
Hummm...
Mac
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,945
- 4,535
- 126
I've shown over and over again that it is a comparison to Intel processors. My main point boils down to this example:
You have a processor that runs identical to the competition's 1 GHz processor and you name it the 1000* CPU. Suddenly you make an improvement and it now runs at 1357.8* speed. Marketing won't allow you to call it 1357.8*. You need to use a more rounded number. Do you round down to 1300*? Do you round up to 1400*? Why? Most people round to the nearest number - which would be 1400*, but isn't that unethical to round up? But what if the competition has a 1.4 GHz processor that is exactly tied in speed with your 1357.8* processor. Now is it ethical to name it the 1400*?
I could go on and on - each time making things more complicated (like they are in reality). As the examples get more and more complicated the most ethical number to round to is your competition's number. (Imagine 5 tests with results of 1357.8*, 1292.6*, 1850.4*, and 1402.3*, now which number do you use...) As soon as you round multiple benchmark numbers into one number - it is no longer based on the Tbird.
Then of course you have AMD repeatedly comparing the ABCD+ processor to Intel's A.B P4 processor. The implications alone are enough to let you know it is meant to be compared to the P4.
DULLARD, the comparison has NEVER been to an Intel processor. Its always been to a TBIRD. AMD even has outside audit validate their testing. Remember, early P4s had high megahertz but REALLY performed like cr@p. Back when the PR #s first came along, the comparison to TBIRD was pretty valid IMHO. Today, that BIRD is long gone and PR #'s are pretty meaningless, nobody really knows how the theoretical TBIRD running at 3ghz would actually perform. Nuff sed !!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter