AMD equals Intel ?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by hollywoodpc, Feb 24, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hollywoodpc

    hollywoodpc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,325
    Ok . I know that Intel and AMD both calculate their own way on how fast they are . But , be that as it may . If 3.0 in gigs is equal to 3000 in megs , what the Hell does the 3000 + or 3800 + or 4000 + blahblahblah mean when AMD ALSO has a gig listing ? Why not use one or the other ? Both seems idiotic . Intel could list as 3.0 3000 + but , they do not . Very curious . What is up with AMD ? Thanks
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2006
  2. sweater

    sweater Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,674
    Location:
    Philippines, the Political Dynasty Capital of the
    This also interests me...what really are their differences. :rolleyes: o_O
     
  3. puff-m-d

    puff-m-d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    4,451
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    This is the way I understand it and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. Intel lists their CPUs with the actual clock speed. For instance a P4 3.0 GHz where the 3.0 GHz is the clock speed. With AMD they classify by their own "Intel equivalent" and then give the clock speed. In this case say you have an AMD Athlon 64 3000 + 1.8 GHz. This means AMD is saying or claiming this particular CPU is the equivalent as far as speed to an Intel 3.0 GHz (3000 MHz = 3.0 GHz) but the actual clock speed is 1.8 GHz. I do not know exactly how AMD comes up with this "Intel equivalent", but if you look at actual tests of any two "equivalent AMD and Intel" CPUs, the Intel CPUs usually perform better than the equivalent AMD.

    I hope this helps and you can understand what I am saying ;) ...
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2006
  4. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    I can't argue this , but I keep reading that AMD machines are superior for gaming.
     
  5. puff-m-d

    puff-m-d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    4,451
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    I hear the same thing. I have also noticed that a lot of the real serious gamers like to overclock and that AMD CPUs are easier to do that with without problems.
     
  6. JimIT

    JimIT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,035
    Location:
    Denton, Texas
    The comparison depends on what you're doing on your computer.

    Here's an interesting interactive comparison at Tom's Hardware.

    HERE
     
  7. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    The AMD Performance Rating is based on the clockspeed of a processor of the previous generation. This means that if an Athlon 64 3000+ is clocked at 1.8GHz, it means that the AMD processor of the previous generation (AMD Athlon XP) would need to be clocked at a speed of 3.0GHz to reach an equivalent speed of this Athlon 64.

    And since the Pentium 4 CPUs are fundamentally and architecturally better than the Athlon XPs, its not a surprise that Intel's 3.0GHz CPUs beat the AMD Athlon 64 3000+ CPUs in many cases.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2006
  8. AshG

    AshG Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    Posts:
    206
    Location:
    East TN
    Unfortunately, Tom's Hardware has had a rather nefarious bent towards Intel in the past; I have trouble accepting their results where processors are concerned even though they are good with their other content. Their CPU comparison chart is based on only one benchmark. That would be like avcomparitive testing using only one virus, but I digress.

    In my experiences, the Athlon family of processors have run cooler and performed more efficiently than their Intel counterparts. With the introduction of the Athlon64 family, AMD's performance took another upturn; the memory controller is based on-die as opposed to being on separate silicon (the northbridge). AMD processors perform more instructions per clock cycle than Intel. Intel processors performs far more clock cycles per second than their AMD counterparts; the higher clock speed results in higher wattage used, higher heat dissipation, and therefor an overall hotter chip.

    AMD's processors tend to work better for gaming because of the number of instructions per clock cycle it handles, plus the lack of memory latency due to the onboard memory controller in the A64/Sempron64 lines. Intel flat-out whips AMD in video production because their processors can handle the single stream of data far faster.

    In layman's terms, it's like trying to move from one house to another. AMD uses a U-Haul, so you can fit a lot more stuff in each run. Intel uses a ferrari (or, with their Hyperthreading ability, two mustangs). Not much cargo space, but it'll run circles around the U-Haul. Think of gaming as moving a couch and video production as moving hundreds of small boxed knicknacks.. Which vehicle is going to be able to handle the couch better? The tiny boxes?

    I'm going to link to several reviews from other sites. Don't take any one site as gospel, look at them all (including the earlier THG link) and decide for yourself.
    Intel Extreme Edition comparison - Athlon64 FX-60 Dual Core comparison - another A64 FX-60 review
     
  9. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Amds official line is http://139.95.253.213/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/?St=92,E=0000000000253013138,K=6517,Sxi=19,Case=obj(3511):

    Amds have traditionally being more effecient architecture, allowing more instructions per cycle to be processed than intel. Intel generally had to go for higher clock rates rather than more effecient design to get performance, both have their pro's and cons, but the biggest thing is higher clock rates require smaller dies that cost more, which is why for a long time (back when the athlon was introduced next to the P3), Althons for ages offered more processing power per £/$. When intel made bigger changes to their cpus (to improve the design rather than just more mhz), around when they launched hyperthread they were able to catch up in the processing power per £/$ stakes.

    When it comes to ratings, amd originally used their plus ratings as intel equivalents, around the k6, p2 time this was true for integer performance, but amd's FPU's were no faster than intels so 3d games, which require lots of FPU processing for the gfx (remember GPU's did'nt exist then), my p166mhz was the same as my flat m8s k6 200 (166mhz).

    When the althon came out the FPU became superior to the intel (matching its integer plus rating approximatly).
     
  10. JimIT

    JimIT Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,035
    Location:
    Denton, Texas
    That's interesting. Many would say Tom's has exhibited exactly the opposite bent! ;)
    Good advice for Tom's, as well. ;)
     
  11. mrhero

    mrhero Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Posts:
    297
    Location:
    Ankara , Turkey
    I want to add some more thing. In the past AMD is known as gamers CPU. For Photoshop, Rendering 3D or enconding Intel was better. But with AMD X2 everthing is changed. Now AMD is the best in gaming with FX series. And the best in Rendering, Enconding with X2 series. And AMD is cheaper than Intel. AMD
    is cooler than Intel. AMD didn't change socket type every month. So who buys Intel? I am really interseted in this.
     
  12. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    Myself, I have had both and have no complaints with either one. I am running Intel at the present but am planning on a new comp. soon and will try the newer AMD this time.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.