proccessor speed vs. actual proccessor

  • Thread starter Thread starter shackrock
  • Start date Start date
S

shackrock

New member
options:

AMD ATHLON 64 3000+ - prolly runs at like 2Ghz...if that...

Intel Celeron D Processor 336 (2.80GHz)

Intel Pentium 4 517 (2.9GHz)


I see absolutely no reason to get the Celeron, but it is an option. ha....
 
You can't judge a processor by the M/Ghz. Processing speed is only part of the total equation. You want to look at L1 and L2 cache as well.
 
i think that i read somewhere that AMD catorgorizes its cpu's acording to the comparable cpu's from intel. example intel cpu at 2.8 ghz would be an athalon 64 2800+ even though it runs at 2 ghz. so if this is the way they do it, the athalon 3000+ is being compared to a 3 ghz intel processor.
 
Be sure to look at the Front Side Bus performance also. This is where the work gets done. The fastest processors only WAIT faster until the bus cycle is complete. The can twiddle their thumbs awfully fast, but still have to wait on the bus transfers.

Ignore the Celeron series. They are a budget, stripped down version of a Pentium, and perform accordingly.

I prefer AMD/64, but if you want Intel, look into the Duo-Core processors. I have the T2300 in my new Dell Inspiron 6400 laptop. It has the fast FSB and fast memory bus speeds. Read the fine print carefully.

If you are a Sonar 5 user, check with Cakewalk to see if the 64-bit register functions and extended floating point precision will work on an AMD/64 running standard 32-bit WinXP. I suspect it will. You will find native 64-bit processing in hardware is a whole new world.
 
Dude I have a 3000+ and my friend has a Pentium D dual core 2.8 Ghz and mine out preforms him even though he has twice the ram I do. AMD out performs Pentium cheaper. that 3000+ you have is actually compared to a Pentium 3.0Ghz. 3000+ 3.0Ghz thats how AMD works, their architecture is better. And they run cooler which means less fan noise. Now i'm not completely putting down Pentium because MAC must have went with them for a reason, I just don't know what it is yet. But for now AMD is king until pentium stops being greedy and starts getting back in the game.
 
bgavin said:
Be sure to look at the Front Side Bus performance also. This is where the work gets done. The fastest processors only WAIT faster until the bus cycle is complete. The can twiddle their thumbs awfully fast, but still have to wait on the bus transfers.

Ignore the Celeron series. They are a budget, stripped down version of a Pentium, and perform accordingly.

I prefer AMD/64, but if you want Intel, look into the Duo-Core processors. I have the T2300 in my new Dell Inspiron 6400 laptop. It has the fast FSB and fast memory bus speeds. Read the fine print carefully.

If you are a Sonar 5 user, check with Cakewalk to see if the 64-bit register functions and extended floating point precision will work on an AMD/64 running standard 32-bit WinXP. I suspect it will. You will find native 64-bit processing in hardware is a whole new world.
Click to expand...

Front side bus isn't always the thing you look at either unless your looking at only Pentium or only AMD, Because Pentium runs at 1066Ghz highest right now but with the cost of smaller CPU pipeline and no Memory controller. AMD only runs at 200Ghz FSB but has an integrated memory controller and larger pipeline.
 
pepsifx357 said:
Front side bus isn't always the thing you look at either unless your looking at only Pentium or only AMD, Because Pentium runs at 1066Ghz highest right now but with the cost of smaller CPU pipeline and no Memory controller. AMD only runs at 200Ghz FSB but has an integrated memory controller and larger pipeline.
Click to expand...

A larger pipeline isn't generally a good thing. It can allow you to clock the chip higher, but with significantly diminishing returns as you do so.

Your FSB numbers are off by a factor of a thousand. Our planet doesn't have chips running at 1 THz yet.

It's almost silly to call the AMD design a 200 MHz FSB, since communication with the on-die memory controller is not on the same bus as communication with peripherals, etc. So effectively, it has multiple FSBs.

IMHO, if you compare anything close to the top of the line from both companies, it's all a huge apples and oranges comparison unless you test your particular workload on the two CPUs.
 
pepsifx357 said:
Dude I have a 3000+ and my friend has a Pentium D dual core 2.8 Ghz and mine out preforms him even though he has twice the ram I do. AMD out performs Pentium cheaper. that 3000+ you have is actually compared to a Pentium 3.0Ghz. 3000+ 3.0Ghz thats how AMD works, their architecture is better. And they run cooler which means less fan noise. Now i'm not completely putting down Pentium because MAC must have went with them for a reason, I just don't know what it is yet. But for now AMD is king until pentium stops being greedy and starts getting back in the game.
Click to expand...

Apple isn't using Pentium-based CPUs. The new Macs use Pentium-M-derived Core Solo/Duo processors. They are entirely different beasts altogether; the Core series is derived from much lower power laptop chip designs.
 
My AMD 3700+ Socket 939, clocks around 2.2ghz. My buds Pentium 4 640 (3.2 ghz I think) is slower than mine! I laugh at him all the time! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top