Amd To Intel

johnplayerblue

Im thinking of buying a new pc! can anyone tell me what an Amd 64 Athlon Processor 3000+ 2.01 GHz is in intel terms pls?
In Other words what would the Amd equate to in Intel terms?

mp3guy

Better

Theres not really terms, but at LEAST a 3.4GHz i'd say

VeVeX

mp3guy wrote:

Better

Theres not really terms, but at LEAST a 3.4GHz i'd say

You are having a laugh, right??

greglo23

try here http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/

zuma

Tomshardware has always been anti-AMD...but thats beyond the point.

AMD's overclock very well and my AMD64 3000+ was easily overclocked from 1800MHz to 2250MHZ(I only stopped as I am using the packaged HSF).

For games go for AMD64 but for Encodeing and such get an Intel.

Amd 64 Athlon Processor 3000+ 2.01 GHz

Above sounds like a 754pin chip as 939pin chips have 3000+ at 1.8GHz.
Get a 939 chip mobo as they are more future proof than 754's!

mp3guy

VeVeX wrote:

You are having a laugh, right??

i honestly don't know... it was a rough guess.

Ciaran500

I thought the idea was that a 3000+ performed similar to a 3Ghz P4, or did they drop that naming scheme?

mp3guy

i don't know, but a 64-bit 2.0GHz AMD against a 3.4GHz P4....

Stephen

That was the case back when intel marketed their CPU's by clock speed, but even they have abandoned that and call them something like "Intel Pentium 4 660".
The AMD's do more work per clock cycle.

mp3guy

the whole pentium 660 thing never caught on...

Ciaran500

3D Mark 2K1 @ 640x480
Athlon 64 3000+ - 21,075
P4 3.2 GHz - 19,382
Athlon 64 won by 8.7%

3D Mark 2K1 @ 1024x768
Athlon 64 3000+ - 18,924
P4 3.2 GHz - 17,587
Athlon 64 won by 7.6%

Comanche 4 @ 1024x768
Athlon 64 3000+ - 60.63
P4 3.2 GHz - 62.46
P4 won by 3.0%

Quake 3 @ 640x480
Athlon 64 3000+ - 462.2
P4 3.2 GHz - 454.6
Athlon 64 won by 1.7%

Quake 3 @ 1024x768
Athlon 64 3000+ - 389.0
P4 3.2 GHz - 370.2
Athlon 64 won by 5.1%

Serious Sam @ 640x480
Athlon 64 3000+ - 248.6
P4 3.2 GHz - 195.4
Athlon 64 won by 27.2%

Serious Sam @ 1024x768
Athlon 64 3000+ - 161.2
P4 3.2 GHz - 134.6
Athlon 64 won by 19.8%

Return to Castle Wolfenstein @ 1024x768
Athlon 64 3000+ - 139.3
P4 3.2 GHz - 138.0
Athlon 64 won by 0.94%

Real Tournament 2K3 @ 1024x768
Athlon 64 3000+ - 71.28
P4 3.2 GHz - 60.89
Athlon 64 won by 17.1%


Looks like going up again a P4 3.4Ghz is pretty realistic.

duridian

Nowadays AMD 'PR' term is 'Performance Rating' and has nothing whatsoever to do with Intel or its chips. AMD developed their own comparative performance scale relative to the performance of Athlon Thunderbird cores (the 'classic' Socket A chip series from back around the days of 1GHz cpus) as a means of counteracting the misinformed 'megahertz is all that matters' mentality which a lot of people had at the time.
See here , they explain the reasons better.

johnplayerblue

im almost certain im gona go for the amd 64, the pc itself is €1050
it has a nvidia GeForce FX 5200 256MB
512MB RAM
17" flat screen
160gb hd
philips dvd rw
and some useless software as per
a friend of mine has one its a iqon made in ireland and he seems happy enough with it. 1050 is a little on the dear side but unless i build my own and wait for parts and travel to pick them up and what have you i reckon that going in with my cash today ill have it up and running in a few hrs with no hassel?

Laguna

WHOA hold your horses there, if you read some articles on the net (including the AMD homepage), within 6 months we're going to get a major shift from single core processing to dual core, which, fair enough, dual cores already exist as a lucrative and expensive product, but they will drop in price and become better supported by the major application developers taking advantage of the architechture. You're talking in terms of an AMD 64 2.1 being a 3.4 P, well with dual AMD's you'll roughly have 8Ghz at your disposal.
Is it essential that you buy your AMD pc now? I mean if you can hang on at least three months for an announcement from AMD, cos it'd be a shame to fork out 1500 big ones for a PC that will become obsolete faster than a usual PC.

I've always preffered AMD processors anyway, the Intel dual based cores with their smelly northbridge chipset just don't cut it in comparison, I mean, COME ON, a separate chip to enable two chips to communicate, wtf were Intel smoking that day?

Impurity

Laguna wrote:

WHOA hold your horses there, if you read some articles on the net (including the AMD homepage), within 6 months we're going to get a major shift from single core processing to dual core, which, fair enough, dual cores already exist as a lucrative and expensive product, but they will drop in price and become better supported by the major application developers taking advantage of the architechture. You're talking in terms of an AMD 64 2.1 being a 3.4 P, well with dual AMD's you'll roughly have 8Ghz at your disposal.
Is it essential that you buy your AMD pc now? I mean if you can hang on at least three months for an announcement from AMD, cos it'd be a shame to fork out 1500 big ones for a PC that will become obsolete faster than a usual PC.

I've always preffered AMD processors anyway, the Intel dual based cores with their smelly northbridge chipset just don't cut it in comparison, I mean, COME ON, a separate chip to enable two chips to communicate, wtf were Intel smoking that day?

Look at how long 64-bit chips have been around, and there is little advantage of having one.

What makes u think dual core will be any different on the software side of things??

HungryJoey

AMD athlon 64 3000+ 939socket are rated at 1.8 Ghz ( 200Mhz x 9 ) But if you compare the 754 socket 3000+ @ 2Ghz You could compare it to roughly a 3.2-3.4 ghz chip, After all , as said above AMD a64's do do more work on each clock cycle Whee as Intel's do less work / clock cycle but they do clock cycles faster...

If you want gaming and just all around speed, i would 100% back you up on going AMD, They truely are amazing CPU's and a venice core 3000+ will clock you up to 2.5ghz NP on stock HSF once you have Decent RAM though, Thats the only problem with a Multiplier of 9.

Hj

Laguna

Well, current programs create thread/threads of processes and are engineered to only work with one specific processor at a time (as a computer with one processor is still considered to be the norm), for example, if you have a dual core amd and your are running a game (e.g. Far Cry) and an application (e.g. Microsoft Office) the process thread(s) for Far Cry will all be located on one processor, as will the process thread(s) for Office be located on one processor, effectively meaning having a dual core processor set up will not benefit you on an individual piece of software. When software is engineered to utilise dual cores, they will allow the thread(s) to be spread over two processors and therefore be able to fully utilise the dual core elements and improve performance. Phew...

Ciaran500

johnplayerblue wrote:

im almost certain im gona go for the amd 64, the pc itself is €1050
it has a nvidia GeForce FX 5200 256MB
512MB RAM
17" flat screen
160gb hd
philips dvd rw
and some useless software as per
a friend of mine has one its a iqon made in ireland and he seems happy enough with it. 1050 is a little on the dear side but unless i build my own and wait for parts and travel to pick them up and what have you i reckon that going in with my cash today ill have it up and running in a few hrs with no hassel?

If you plan on gaming that FX5200 will be useless to you. The minimum you would be looking for would be a 9800Pro.

If you were to buy a pre built on you should have it running in about 15-20min. Just take it out of the box, plug everything in (all colour coded) and hit the power button.

Jammer

Laguna wrote:

Well, current programs create thread/threads of processes and are engineered to only work with one specific processor at a time (as a computer with one processor is still considered to be the norm), for example, if you have a dual core amd and your are running a game (e.g. Far Cry) and an application (e.g. Microsoft Office) the process thread(s) for Far Cry will all be located on one processor, as will the process thread(s) for Office be located on one processor, effectively meaning having a dual core processor set up will not benefit you on an individual piece of software. When software is engineered to utilise dual cores, they will allow the thread(s) to be spread over two processors and therefore be able to fully utilise the dual core elements and improve performance. Phew...

Yes, and we all write up our spreadsheets whilst switching between Excell and Far Cry...

I know what you mean, but i think its a waste of money now tbh...

greglo23

why not have a look at this. http://komplett.ie/k/ci.asp?sku=10090 the iqon do'nt have a great reputation.

The Real B-man

AMD all the way until intel have a crack at 64 bit cpu's and we will see.

Ciaran500

Its not the 64bit that makes the A64 faster, its just a better design (for games).

TimTim

The Real B-man wrote:

AMD all the way until intel have a crack at 64 bit cpu's and we will see.

Didn't Intel go 64bit first with the Itanium processers? Sure they weren't marketed at home users, but they were there afaik.

MrPinK

TimTim wrote:

Didn't Intel go 64bit first with the Itanium processers? Sure they weren't marketed at home users, but they were there afaik.

Well if we're including any old 64-bit processor like the Itanium and not just x86 processors, then MIPS Technologies got there first 10 years before Intel, followed by Sun, HP and probably others.

Thordon

Laguna wrote:

if you have a dual core amd and your are running a game (e.g. Far Cry) and an application (e.g. Microsoft Office) the process thread(s) for Far Cry will all be located on one processor, as will the process thread(s) for Office be located on one processor

Are you sure about this? I was under the impression that if a process had more than one thread, the threads would be load balanced over multiple CPUs, I imagine servers with 32 processors might not tend to have 32 different processes running in order to take advantage of all their processors (assuming they were dedicated to one task).

Even if the threads are split up, Ive done some game programming, and it seems to be encouraged to use one thread for everything (rendering, IO, logic, networking, etc).

Stephen

Intel have their consumer grade 64-bit P4's available now anyways, B-Man, have a look for EM64T.

/strokes athlon64

jor el

johnplayerblue wrote:

im almost certain im gona go for the amd 64, the pc itself is €1050
it has a nvidia GeForce FX 5200 256MB
512MB RAM
17" flat screen
160gb hd
philips dvd rw
and some useless software as per
a friend of mine has one its a iqon made in ireland and he seems happy enough with it. 1050 is a little on the dear side but unless i build my own and wait for parts and travel to pick them up and what have you i reckon that going in with my cash today ill have it up and running in a few hrs with no hassel?

A little on the dear side? A PC with that spec would be bearly worth €700 in my opinion. TBH the CPU won't make much difference to a system with only 512M RAM and an FX5200 graphics card. Both of these will cripple the system. A GF4 TI4400 would be far better than an FX5200.

If you're not wanting to play games and you don't mind spending that much then it'll be OK I guess, but this is not a gaming PC by any means.

rsynnott

Thordon wrote:

Are you sure about this? I was under the impression that if a process had more than one thread, the threads would be load balanced over multiple CPUs, I imagine servers with 32 processors might not tend to have 32 different processes running in order to take advantage of all their processors (assuming they were dedicated to one task).
.

This is correct, on any modern operating system. However, most games are effectively singe-threaded.