If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
AMD CPU's
Pearlf wrote:
This will undoubtedly be a very stupid question, but... here goes. From what I've read, an AMD cpu like the Athlon XP 2400+ actually runs at a clockspeed slower than 2.4GHz. However, I also understand that the AMD cpu mentioned is considered the "equivalent" of an Intel P4 2.4GHz, which runs at a clockspeed of 2.4GHz. How is this possible? It does more work per clock tick. From what I've read, the reason for this is that the AMD cpu can do more processes in one clock cycle compared to the Intel cpu. I don't know how valid that statement is. IMO, if this is true, the AMD cpu gives you more bang for your buck. Anyhow, can anyone explain the concept to me? Different chip architectures can do different amounts of work per clock tick. In other words, MHz is not a good comparison of speed between different models of CPU. An Athlon XP can do more work per clock cycle than an older "Thunderbird" Athlon. That's where the "XP" rating comes from. An Athlon XP 2400+ is given that rating because it has a performance level equivalent to a Thunderbird Athlon if it were running at 2400MHz. (It just so happens that the XP rating is a pretty close comparison to a P4's MHz rating) But just because an Athlon does more per clock cycle, that does not inherently mean that the Athlon gives you more bang for the buck. (though AMD usually is the more cost effective option). Compare prices and compare benchmarks for the relevant applications that you'll be using. Make your decision from there. -WD |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Will Dormann" wrote in message . .. Pearlf wrote: snip Different chip architectures can do different amounts of work per clock tick. In other words, MHz is not a good comparison of speed between different models of CPU. An Athlon XP can do more work per clock cycle than an older "Thunderbird" Athlon. That's where the "XP" rating comes from. An Athlon XP 2400+ is given that rating because it has a performance level equivalent to a Thunderbird Athlon if it were running at 2400MHz. (It just so happens that the XP rating is a pretty close comparison to a P4's MHz rating) From benchmarks I've seen at Tom's Hardware, it seems the XP's rating is not a good comparison to the P4 MHz rating when looking at 3D performance. That contradicts the "Overall 3D gaming" benchmarks offered on AMD's website, and the latter is audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. I would appreciate it if you could recommmend some good websites where I can find impartial benchmarks. I will mainly use the intended pc for DTP (word processing, photo editing), internet browsing, writing discs and gaming. IMO, any system with sufficient RAM and good processor will be able to take care of the main things I intend to do (DTP), so I focus more on the gaming side. But just because an Athlon does more per clock cycle, that does not inherently mean that the Athlon gives you more bang for the buck. (though AMD usually is the more cost effective option). Compare prices and compare benchmarks for the relevant applications that you'll be using. Make your decision from there. -WD Thanks for the information. Found a white paper on AMD's website addressing the matter. Would make things much easier if there was some universal index to benchmark performance. Pearlf |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Pearlf wrote:
Thanks for the information. Found a white paper on AMD's website addressing the matter. Would make things much easier if there was some universal index to benchmark performance. In an ideal world, yes, that'd make it very easy. But unfortunately some processors excel in some areas, but are not so great in others. So to give a generic, all-encompasing number rating to a processor isn't quite practical. For an overly simplified example, say Processor #1 has twice the floating point performance of Processor #2, but the integer performance is half that of Processor #2. How would you give it a rating? At the time that the Athlon XP processors were new, the XP rating closely matched the Pentium 4 numbers. (And thus the confusion over what the rating actually meant). I haven't been following too closely, but lately I think there's a bit of a difference in the numbers. (giving the advangate to the P4) First check out prices for the CPU and what you can afford. SharkyExtreme.com has always had a weekly CPU price list. Then do some google searches for benchmarks of those CPUs and the particular applications you plan on using. Tomshardware.com is known for comparing a broad range of hardware at one time. Their reputation isn't always squeaky-clean, though. Anandtech.com might be one to check out. -WD |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How come AMD cpus don't have thermal shutdown protection ?? | Orbital Defence | Overclocking AMD Processors | 14 | September 11th 04 08:38 AM |
Anyone got some links for info about amd Dual core cpus :) | Paul Mathews | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | June 17th 04 06:08 PM |
Quad Cpu Mobo with Dual Core CPUS how fast would that be ? | Dennis E Strausser Jr | Overclocking | 1 | June 16th 04 03:52 AM |
Quad Cpu Mobo with Dual Core CPUS how fast would that be ? | Dennis E Strausser Jr | Overclocking AMD Processors | 1 | June 16th 04 03:52 AM |
Valid Points 101: 2x P4 Xeons + Hyperthreading + Windows XP Professional / W2K / NT4 / *Nix (long post!) | Duncan, Eric A. | General | 7 | February 3rd 04 05:06 PM |