Athlon Processors...

HairyDwarf · February 2005

Im curious. Say theres a AMD Athlon XP Processor 3000. Does that mean it's 3.0 GHz fast? How does that work?

DerfelCadarn · February 2005

Well the older XPs rated speed sometimes didnt equal the P4s. However, with the newer Althon 64s, they are as fast as or faster than Intel's P4s at the rated speed. In simple terms, the Althons have a lower clock speeds then Pentium 4 processors have. However, the Althons make it up with having shorter pipelines( around 16 compared 20s) meaning they can process more information per clock cycle. Although the P4 might be able to do the clock cycle faster, the AMD can do more info per cycle. AMDs second advange is that the memory controller is on the cpu compared to the P4s which is on the motherboard. The memory controller runs at the faster CPU speed instead of the slower motherboard speed. So in the end, a AMD 64 running at 2.2 is as fast or faster than a P4 at 3.4. Intel depends on pure ghz speed while the Althon depends are effeicenty. Hope this helps

HairyDwarf · February 2005

So you mean a 2800 is like 2.8

and 2600 is like 2.6? Not comparing it to pentiums

DerfelCadarn · February 2005

No, a 2800+ acttually runs at 1.8ghz. The rating 2600,2800,3000 actually refer to the performance compared to the P4 running at that speed. So a Althon 2800+(running at 1.8) compares to a Intel P4 running at 2.8ghz. Since, AMDs only real competition is Intel, thats how the numbers refer. No other company besides intel has processors over 2.8. Keep in mind, dont judge processors by pure ghz speed, effecienty is now more important.

Tomo2109 · February 2005

actually the 2800+ runs at 2.08ghz and the 3000+ at 2.17ghz

Atomicus · February 2005

When an AMD processor say "AMD Athlon XP 3000+" it is comparing it to a P4 3.0GHz. The efficenicy of the AMD is just as good as the P4 even though the AMD runs at slower speeds. The AMD is more capable of being overclocked that way also. I have a link to AMD website if you click on my sig.

Misleading · February 2005

it has been my general experience that the AMD processors are in no way "just as good" as the P4. the sacrifice of speed in no way compensates for the minimal benifit of overclocking.

jeep21243 · February 2005

Originally posted by Misleading

it has been my general experience that the AMD processors are in no way "just as good" as the P4. the sacrifice of speed in no way compensates for the minimal benifit of overclocking.

this post is misleading. while the P4 chips do rate at higher clocks that is not necessarily their true rating of power. the pentium line chips decrease the size of the bus lines on the chip to increase their overall clock, and while this increase a single floating point operation it does little to enchance the actual pc power for multiple operation, ie. multi tasking. while "hyper threading" boasts to increase multi tasking the on chip script for these processes is not actually supported by windows xp and must be utilized by independant programs and is thus heavily negated for normal use. you will see when the Itanium line by intel is released (their 64 bit chip) they are borrowing heavily from AMD, they are lowering their clocks on the chips and increasing their buffers so the chip will be able to handle more operations p/second. Also, with the newest line of intel chips experienced a nasty electron leak on the chip which intel, as far as i know, hasnt compensated for, which resulted in some nasty drag on the processors behalf.

all in all id take an AMD any day, which is what i run. knowing what i know id never really use an intel chip unless i got it for beyond dirt cheap.

Originally posted by Atomicus
When an AMD processor say "AMD Athlon XP 3000+" it is comparing it to a P4 3.0GHz. The efficenicy of the AMD is just as good as the P4 even though the AMD runs at slower speeds. The AMD is more capable of being overclocked that way also. I have a link to AMD website if you click on my sig.

ill use this comment because its important to know that no chip is "safely" overclockable. sure you can jack enough fans on it to stop it from melting, but the life span of your chip is estimated to drop by as much as 40% in the long run by overclocking it.

Also, Atomicus, you realize with your setup you should be using 3200 DDR ram right? im really suprised you havent had some nasty problems using such low clock ram on your system. btw im using the same proc and mb, is a real nice setup with the 64 bit edition of windows.

hope this helps, cheers.

Atomicus · February 2005

yes i know my memory needs an upgrade but shelling out 300 bucks for the 2gb of PC3200 i want is not possible at the moment. I have college expenses, loan payments, and i still need to buy my own car as i am still using my parents. if you want to donate some MO-money to me that be nice

.

MasterChaos · February 2005

MisLeading is making a misleading statement. The number AMD gives its processor ie 3400, means that the AMD processor performs equally to a 3.4gHz Intel processor.

As someone said before the biggest difference is where the memory controller is placed. AMD has its controller on the chip, thus it runs at processor speed. Just look at the numbers. AMD memory controller for a 3400 has a clock speed of 2.8 (dont quote that number but its close). A 3.4gHz intel memory controller is on the motherboard and has a clock speed of 400mHz. If you do the math, the AMD memory controller is 7 TIMES faster then the Intel controller.

The end result is this. AMD processors are better at running game data then an Intel. Intel processors are better at running Office programs, HTML editors, GIS programs, and programs that have a lot more options then games. Its all based on options. In a game you have the option of moving, or using a skill. The processor actually tries to think ahead and stores probable choices in RAM. In GIS programs you have a lot more options of what your next command will be. You can select an editing tool, settings, layers, Zoom In/Out, draw, erase, and on and on. Intel having its controller off-chip means that it can be larger then the AMD controller on chip, but it is slower. A GIS program will fill up and sometimes overflow an AMD on chip memory with the options processing. That is why and Intel processor is better for GIS et al type programs, but AMD runs games faster because of the clock speed of the memory controller.

If all of that didnt make any sense here is the short version. Intel processors are better for office computing and AMD processors are better for games. I am a gamer, I use AMD processors. My wife is a GIS programmer, and she uses an Intel processor at work. Hope that helps, that is if you mind isnt numb.

DerfelCadarn · February 2005

Originally posted by Tomo2109
actually the 2800+ runs at 2.08ghz and the 3000+ at 2.17ghz

Im talking about the Althon 64s, they are the newest line and are far superior to there XP precessors.

Smelly_Armor · February 2005

I won't beat the technical mumbo jumbo to death since it has already been stated by others. I will just say that both Intel and AMD are making good processors right now, and the best thing to consider if one is looking to build or buy a new pc is what they will be using their system for. For gaming systems and/or systems that people will use for general pc use ie word processing, surfing the net, email, ect, I recommend an AMD Athlon64 or FX system. Thats not to say that Intels aren't good at playing games, but it is that the AMD Athlon64 and FX systems are better at it.

For video work and encoding, CAD apps and heavy graphical and image rendoring, I recommend Intel P4 systems. The HyperThreading technology on the Intels give them a big advantage in these areas and they typically are better at multi-tasking when doing this type of work as well over the AMDs. Again, that is not to say that the AMD cpus can't do the work, but that the Intel cpus are better at it completeing the work faster and being more effiencientt at it as well.

The main difference between the Athlon64s and P4s besides the Athlons working at a lower clock frequency, typically running cooler and using less power, and haveing different architectures, is that the Athlon64s aren't limited by a FSB as they use Hyper Transport Technology and as stated by others, the memory controller is on the cpu and not the motherboard chipset. AthlonXPs on the older socket A platform do have the memory controller on the chipset. Here is a good site that explains and talks about Hypertransport Tech, http://www.hypertransport.org/tech/index.cfm .

Depending on which Athlon64 motherboard and platform you get, on some boards like the s754 K8V SE Deluxe, the HyperTransport it is 800mhz upstream and downstream for a total of 1600mhz. On others it is 1000mhz up and down for 2000mhz. Hope that helps.

Howdy, Stranger!

Athlon Processors...

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Athlon Processors...

Comments