Trying to get my head around this one....

jjmax

I've been an Intel man always.
But this new machine is using an AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.2ghz.
This cost €195.
I could have got an Intel 3.2ghz processor for the same money, but all indicators were that AMD was the way to go.
Why is or is my 2.2ghz AMD cpu better than an Intel 3.2ghz CPU?
And ow does this add up?
Before anyone says it, I've googled, yahood, lycosed, and asked jeeves, but can't get a straight answer.

Mutant_Fruit

the answer is both Yes and No.

AMD64's are a LOT more efficient with their megahertz. They use it far more efficiently, meaning that roughly, the chips perform equally even though the pentium has 1ghz extra raw speed.

To be more exact, AMD's generally perform better in games, giving high FPS, and Intels are generally better for encoding video/audio. If you encode in DivX, Pentiums are the way forward, however if you encode using XviD, AMD's actually perform better iirc. So intels lead in MPEG4 encoding isn't as clear-cut.

Personally, i'd go with AMD64, as it does future proof your computer slightly, what with its ability to run 64bit os's.

jjmax

cheers

Gilgamesh

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

the answer is both Yes and No.

AMD64's are a LOT more efficient with their megahertz. They use it far more efficiently, meaning that roughly, the chips perform equally even though the pentium has 1ghz extra raw speed.

To be more exact, AMD's generally perform better in games, giving high FPS, and Intels are generally better for encoding video/audio. If you encode in DivX, Pentiums are the way forward, however if you encode using XviD, AMD's actually perform better iirc. So intels lead in MPEG4 encoding isn't as clear-cut.

Personally, i'd go with AMD64, as it does future proof your computer slightly, what with its ability to run 64bit os's.

this is one of those questions that will egnit the thread.
64bit...... WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT WITH 64BITS???

especially at this time, there isn't even a decent OS out which supports it, nevermind games.
tons of people are still debating if it is still currently worth, (at this time) to even consider going 64 bit, causes tons more programming requirements, and, let's face it, most of the companies work closer together with what Intel does than AMD.
Hense why Dell, and nearly all the mentionable companies, use Intel chips.
Don't get me wrong, the FX chips are really good, and superior in some aspects to the Pentium iVs, but not because they support 64 Bits,
it's because the memory controller is in the Processor itself, so it does not cause a bottleneck in data transfer.
AMD has always had thermal problems, that why they looked for a different way to improve their performance, even Intel has reached their limits now, and clearly stated that it is not worth pushing the MHz, that is why the Dual core processor will be their next step, and yes, they will be supoprting 64bit with them, but it will still take time until it is worth it.
In my ecperience, after two years Max, a processor becomes inferior, no matter how 'futureproof' it is.
It just won't keep up.
I would always advise, buy the best you can get now, and then keep it, just making minor updates now and then, like graphics card and such, but when it comes to processors, you won't have a chance.

Dempsey

Nothing in computers or technology is future proof. AMD have 64bit chips out how long and still no proper 64 bit support in software. Anyone that bought a A64 when they first came out, heard all this futureproof crap and meanwhile the A64 has gotten alot better and even changed socket size while they still have to use 32 bit software

Gilgamesh

Dempsey wrote:

Nothing in computers or technology is future proof. AMD have 64bit chips out how long and still no proper 64 bit support in software. Anyone that bought a A64 when they first came out, heard all this futureproof crap and meanwhile the A64 has gotten alot better and even changed socket size while they still have to use 32 bit software

Amen to that

(positive Rep)

Thordon

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT WITH 64BITS???

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think 32 bit architecture is limited to 4 gigs of memory, which is not that far off considering the rate of expansion in computers.

Capt'n Midnight

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

the answer is both Yes and No.

AMD64's are a LOT more efficient with their megahertz. They use it far more efficiently, meaning that roughly, the chips perform equally even though the pentium has 1ghz extra raw speed.

Another example is the Pentium M vs. Pentium 4,
By stripping out all the power hungry circuits and using lots of sneaky tricks the Pentium M number crunches faster than a P4 for most things at lower MHz. Of course there are some processes where the P4 blows it away but I can live with that if my laptop can get 4.5 hours on battery.

Much more important is the code/programs you use. There used to be an argument about 286's vs. 386's - if both run at 16Mhz which do you choose ?
The answer was that if your programs were written for 286's either would run at the same speed - but the 286 would process 386 instructions at exactly 0 Hz. Nowadays most software will run on lower i386 or better - so the running at 0Hz is not so much of a problem , just some of it makes more efficient use of new processor instructions , but usually the SW lags a generation behind the HW.

Anyway no point in worrying about minor differences in the processor unless you have already have surplus memory

Re 64 bit OS's - two choices, you can save your money and when the apps are available and properly 64 bit you can then spend it on a 64 bit license (windows et al) or spend the same amount of cash on a resonable 64 bit motherboard and CPU. [ note: M$ can be misleading - when Word on win 95 was touted as multitasking, all it meant was that you could background print - big swing ]

zAbbo

especially at this time, there isn't even a decent OS out which supports it, nevermind games.

there isnt a Windows OS you mean

hmmmm?

Dempsey

I think microsoft are waiting for intel to get 64-bit chips some way ready then dell get to sell em both and they all make another fortune, while AMD makes enough to keep them in business.

Gilgamesh

Thordon wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think 32 bit architecture is limited to 4 gigs of memory, which is not that far off considering the rate of expansion in computers.

I own't correct you on this one, as you are quite right.
the thing is, a home PC doesn't need any more than 4 Gigs, (personally I have 2 gigs in my machine, and have never run enough apps to get even near having to max this amount out.

Only servers would currently benefit from 64bit, which they are in most cases.
Plus the Mobos for AMD 64 have way too small memory banks to support more than $- 6 Gigabytes at the moment, and until there are boards (or even Memory) big enough for this, the processor will be obsolete.

Linux is the only OS which can truly run 64 Bit at the moment. But you have to compile the system to the processor so that it is effective. Plus, there are not many games which are converted, and emulating isn't my way to go, as you loose the performance you shoul dbe gaining.

As the AMD64 was designed to be the 'ultimate' gaming processor, the 64bits are a farse imo.

you don't and can't currently use it

Khannie

Gilgamesh wrote:

As the AMD64 was designed to be the 'ultimate' gaming processor, the 64bits are a farse imo.

Harsh, but true, to an extent.

Historically, there has been a lag between hardware coming forward and software supporting it. In the case of 16->32 bit on windows, you were looking at years. Windows95 was the first consumer attempt at 32bits from MS (32bit NT had been around for some time before that). The switch to 64bit will be relatively fast by comparisson.

There are a lot of people that require 64bits though. That's where sun has made their money (and this is now being taken over by the AMD64 architecture on linux x86_64). Sparc and Solaris have been 64bit for a good while now. My work sun box had a gig of ram in it four years ago. My opeteron box at my desk has 8 gigs. Granted, I'm in a minority, the home user wont need upwards of four gigs for a while to come, but when they do, it'll be good that there's no hardware bottleneck in place for them preventing them upgrading their memory.

AMD64's currently sell because they provide good bang for buck. People may like the "future proof" aspect of it, but most of them will never use it.

</essay>

Gilgamesh wrote:

you don't and can't currently use it

Not true. I use it every day

Also, I think when a release quality XP64 hits shelves, people are gonna jump on it for any performance improvements it offers, even at < 4 gigs.

ViperVenoM

well ill tell you why I bought a 64bit cpu

im an AMD man...id like my AMDs i wanted something faster than the top XP..so what other choice did i have? i didnt buy a 64 bit cpu to "use the 64bit" i bought it because it was my only option to have a faster AMD cpu i already had an xp clocked higher than the xp3200+ and this cpu is a bigggg jump...your ok with intel they keep making faster and faster 32 bits..i know AMD have the semprons nowww but..i had bought this before id even heard of a sempron

so yeh..i dont need any of the features the 64 bit can offer..like more than 4gb of ram...64 bit OS...etc etc..i prob will stick with xp pro throughout this cpu anyway :rolleyes:

Dempsey

ViperVenoM wrote:

i know AMD have the semprons nowww but..i had bought this before id even heard of a sempron

Semprons are a fairly recent development ain't they? After A64 went 939 wasn't it?

Capt'n Midnight

Gilgamesh wrote:

the thing is, a home PC doesn't need any more than 4 Gigs, (personally I have 2 gigs in my machine, and have never run enough apps to get even near having to max this amount out.

The first affordable home computer

with its 1K RAM the ZX80 could only contain very short programs. Sinclair swiftly began manufacturing memory extensions that could be plugged into the back of the computer. Initially these were modules with 1 to 3K RAM, depending on the amount of money the consumer wanted to spend.

In less than 25 years the amount of memory used by home computers has gone up one million times - the 4GB limit of today was analagous to the 4KB limit of 1980 before you could buy larger ram packs.

hefty_langer

Originally Posted by Thordon
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think 32 bit architecture is limited to 4 gigs of memory, which is not that far off considering the rate of expansion in computers.

As a rule of thumb with computer maufacturers, the amout of memory in the average home desktop PC doubles in size every 6months...
..At the moment the standard is between 512Mb - 1 Gig so by that rationale we are looking at 12-18 months before we hit the 4 Gig limit - at this stage intel will have gotten it's act together with their 64bit processors.

Ave

hefty_langer wrote:

As a rule of thumb with computer maufacturers, the amout of memory in the average home desktop PC doubles in size every 6months...
..At the moment the standard is between 512Mb - 1 Gig so by that rationale we are looking at 12-18 months before we hit the 4 Gig limit - at this stage intel will have gotten it's act together with their 64bit processors.

That seems pretty outdated.

After 2000 it's slowed down a hell of a lot.