Well, first of all, the P4 has a 20 stage pipeline and the Athlon has a 12 stage pipeline if i recall correctly.
I will begin by appologizing for the misinformation. It seems we both need to check our information, though you made it much more clear that you weren't sure of the actual number of stages in each respective pipeline. I meant to say that I wasn't sure, but that I knew it was more. The actual numbers are 20 and 15 for the P4 and the AXP, respectively. What, exactly, do these extra stages do, you ask? Basically nothing. They just move data around. There are no computations involved. But, since I didn't back up what I said before, I'll go to the trouble this time. First of all, from
Geek.com, it proves that the P4 has 2 extra stages for no other reason than to move data around on the chip. From the Pabster's site
here, it reaffirms what I was saying. It reads as follows:
The reason for the longer pipeline is Intel's wish of Pentium 4 to deliver highest clock rates. The smaller or shorter each pipeline stage, the fewer transistors or 'gates' it needs and the faster it is able to run. However, there is also one big disadvantage to long pipelines. As soon as it turns out at the end of the pipeline that the software will branch to an address that was not predicted, the whole pipeline needs to be flushed and refilled. The longer the pipeline the more 'in-flight' instructions will be lost and the longer it takes until the pipeline is filled again.
As I said before, Intel knew that adding useless stages to the pipeline would make for less IPCs, but went for it anyway. Why? Because Intel isn't worried about making the most innovations, they're worried about how many chips they can sell, again, IMHO. They knew that even if the processors didn't get the most IPCs, they'd be able to push it as having the higher number to the morons of the world (ie. the 80% of people that do no real research before buying a computer). In fact, they're in litigation with a class action lawsuit filed against them that claims (correctly) that Intel marketed their P4 as being faster than the P3, while in actuality, clock for clock, they were designed specifically do be slower, but have more clocks. I know, some won't believe me, so here a link from the
INQwell. Thank god for AMD's PR ratings as they're the only way that AMD can compete for the "dumba$$" market segment.
Speaking of which, AMD, on the other hand, has commited itself, not only with its XPs, but with the Hammers as well, to actually ramping up performance rather than blindly increasing clock speeds. I'm not saying that Intel hasn't worked towards more performance - clearly Intel is at the top of the performance rankings right now - but they don't put much real thought into their processors. How else do you explain the fact that a company with an R & D department the size of a small country has a processor that has a piece-o-sh!t branch predictor? Of course I'm exagerating, but even though Intel could clearly spend some time to opitmizing it, taking less of a hit in performance because of less "flushes and refills," they don't.
I know that I already sound like I'm terribly biased towards AMD, and maybe I am. But as I said before, you'll all be sorry if AMD goes down the tubes. Intel's already lazy researchers will just get laid off, while it lays back and watches the cash roll in. I know that sounds like a little too much fire and brimstone, but if you don't think that it's anything but the truth, you're sadly mistaken. What's even worse is, the only one with enough power and enough need for faster processors is Microsoft. Linux doesn't need faster processors, it just needs more software support. However, Microsoft products could potentially last forever, as long as they stop trying to slow down computers by adding "fluf" to systems, such as the Longhorn's new entirely 3D GUI. Then they market it as a "must have" and Intel will work just hard enough to supply it with power. It will work with Microsoft to optimize one for the other so that they can: 1) convince people that they need the new software and hardware, and 2) get a firmer grasp on the entire market by making people that use Microsoft "need" (in marketing speak) Intel processors to run it. A lot of conjecture, but just try and come up with a spot where my logical guesses falls off. I dare you (that should really bring the flamers out!).
But, in spite of all of that, I am the LAST person to say that you should buy AMD just for AMD's sake, because that's not the point at all. The fact is, for the user that just wants a cheap computer - a HUGE part of the market - AMD is exactly what they want. I will mention one caveat to that: that is on an AMD mobo and NOT a VIA mobo. These home users don't need the extra performance a VIA gives them at the cost of the reliability of an AMD chipset. But you mention one true point:
How you can possibly say Intel designed for clockspeed and AMD designed for "real speed" baffels me considering the nearly identically priced 2.53GHz P4 and XP2600+ have nearly identical performance.
You're right, and actually, the 2600+, 2400+ (both preorder), and 2.53GHz P4 are priced at $300, $200, and $240, respectively, according to Pricewatch.com. So the top of the line AMD is slightly over-priced (though it wouldn't be too bad if you add in the cost of RDRAM or the slight performance hit when using the same DDR as the AXP would use. Now look down the line. The 2400+ is only $4 more than the 2.4GHz P4 (before shipping), while the real benefits start at the 2200+ ($141) vs. the 2.2GHz ($191), and only get better from there. To me and many other well-informed and price-conscious buyers, AMD is simply the best choice. The problem is, AMD doesn't have the marketing money that Intel does, so many aren't convinced of its abilities. That's why I post like I do in an effort to persuade some who might not know as much that stumble upon a review realize that, while currently P4s hold the performance crown, the premium people have to pay for that isn't worth it in many people's eyes. So I want Intel and AMD to continue to struggle against each other, and I want reviewers to be as informative as possible. There, I've said it agian.
You bring up good points, and truly the P4 is the only REAL processor (not some white paper p.o.s.) with speeds above 2.2GHz.
)
Facebook
Twitter