Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
I've been told that you can't compare the the speeds of AMD and Intel because they are different architectures. Meaning, AMD 2GHz does not equal Intel 2GHz. Is this statement true?
If so, what's the formula? AMD XGHz = Intel 2GHz and vice versa. I'm not concerned about 2GHz specifically, I'm just looking for some sort of conversion equation.
Thanks in advance,
Mick
0 
Most people say AMD's perform a little bit higher, but that's the jist of it. They market their cpu's as 2400 to tell you it's relative to a 2.4GHz by Intel.
0
the amd model number tells you the intel equivalent. That's from their benchmark tests.
It's like comparing apples and oranges. Both do the same job, but they go about it differently, which is why AMD's use lower clock speeds. And you can't compare computers with different architectures using measurments such as MIPS, MFLOPS, etc...they have different instruction sets, so the instruction counts differ. Time is an ok measurement, since that's what we're mostly concerned about
0
Intel having higher benchmark isn't necessary true since they're the one's who sponsored many of the benchmarks and in turn giving them the advantage of scoring higher. In forums like these where many of us know about computer would prefer AMD because we know what is acutally going on. However, the popular brand out there for those who just want a PC is Intel. All they know is Intel because its marketing is much bigger than AMD.
Successfull marketing = more $$ and so they can sponsor more programs for their own advantage.
The detail I won't know, but since they have different instruction sets I do believe that those benchmark who had been sponsored by Intel benefits its instructions.
Also understand that AMD's are competing with Intel processors with generally a lower clock speed while not loosing the race in many cases.
I was thinking a good example that is usually not being compared is the MAC's G4 and G3 processors. They have very low clock rates compared to Intel and even AMD these days. Yet, the performance from them is astounding.
Maybe a G4 1.1g = 2.3 Intel Anyone have info on this?
0
here we go again, another AMD Vs. Intel geek battle...First of all, its just a preference, i use both AMD Cpu's and Intel CPU's...i prefer INtel for doing office applications and server performance, but i prefer my AMD chip for gaming and moding...
and yah..AMD's chips are "named" AMD Athlon XP 2100+ which means..thats...while the chip is only 1.733 ghz, it is comparable to a 2.1 ghz chip from intel...thats why AMD switched to the "alternate" naming system...so that people know their whatever ghz processor is just as good as Intel's whatever ghz processor. And as far as benchmarks go..don't listen to em...benchmarks are MACHINE SPECIFIC...so you can ran an intel 1.8 ghz processor in your machine, and on your mobo with your ram, and your harddrive and video card...and you can go to another machien with a nother mobo and different ram and a different hard drive and the results (duh) will be completly different...so like i said...its all a preference...
0
We really have to stay away from this topic, AMD vs. Intel, pepsi vs coke, McDonald Vs. Burger King, colgate Vs. close up etc.. etc. UTTLAMA's and Amourek's answers are not different at all, if you know how to read, I don't see why somebody should get offended, . Tyson explained it all though.
I don't drink soda, I prefer beer, anyone??
0
Actually......
XP 2000+ competes right up with a P4 2.4 Ghz. On sandrasoft, my 2000+ actually beats a P4 2.4 Ghz. Thats a difference of almost 800 Mhz and $100.
If you look at how many IPC's(instructions per clock cycle) each of the processors get, it works out that way too:
AMD XP gets 9
P4 gets 61.667 * 9 = 15
2.4 * 6 = 14.4AMD has the edge in processors, but intel has their high FSB speeds. If you want to fork out extra money for about the same processor performance, get an intel.
I would choose AMD for the performance and their overclocking ability. Heat really isn't as bad as most people think it is.
0
I didn't mean to tick people off with the question. I just wondered why an AMD chip labeled 2400+ actually clocked at around 2.0GHz and what that meant compared to Intel.
Looks like the answer was staring me in the face all along...it's labeled 2400+ because that's what it equates to on the Intel side.
Thanks to those that don't get ticked because everyone doesn't know as much as they do!!
0
I'm sorry but where are you guys going with this HELLO the p4 is better the only reason that AMD with lower ghz can get higher preformence is because it runs in 32 bit (or pipeline whatever) and the p4 has a deeper pipeline of 64 whith makes it slower BUT you get get more cpu speed with the 64 bit design (so intel will just make there processers faster unlike amd which is max out at +2800 with the 32 bit design) Plus modure program such as newer window OS's are probaly going to use the 64 bit so the p4 would work better in the long run and the only reason they lock the muliplier is because so scam artist (like some on ebay) don't sale overclock processers to the computer illliterat.(sorry spelling sucks) Plus if you like overclocking but don't have money to burn stick with the p4 it has heat protection build in!!not in the MB which really does not work all the time!!!
But if your want semi-performence and are going to get a new computer in two years go for the amd which you can get a lot cheaper.P.S. my (sound's like) o-pen-yun is that oem processer's for the reguler buyer suck. Go retail boxed YEAH!!!
0
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the P4 is a 32-bit processor.
Didn't you mean the P4 pipelines are 20-stage, the XP pipelines are 11-stage, so the XP pipelines take less time to replenish?
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
