Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Technology (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-technology/)
-   -   AMD/Intel GHz conversion? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-technology/90104-amd-intel-ghz-conversion.html)

todd 06-02-2005 11:25 AM

AMD/Intel GHz conversion?
 
Is there like a rule, pattern, equation, or something that lets you find out what the Intel GHz speed equivilant of an AMD chip, or vice versa?

Does it have anything to do with the name of the AMD chip?
For example, is the Athlon 64 3800 a 3.8 GHz in Pentium terms?

This is something i've always been confused about, and would like to understand. I also just built a new system and got the Athlon 64 4000+. I chose this processor basically beause it looked fast. It ranked in the top 3 of all of the benchmark tests I looked at, and was perfect for my price range. I'm just curious to know what the Pentium equivilant of this chip (runs 2.4 GHz in AMD terms) would be as far as frequency speed goes. My previously stated 'name theory' doesn't work too well in this case, because I find it extremely hard to believe that this chip would be a 4.0, seeing as it was only $460.

I don't know much at all about the hard core mechanics of how processors work underneath their name and frequency speed.

soccerchamp76 06-02-2005 12:08 PM

The naming scheme has always been friendly to Intel recently because of the clock speed advantage they had. AMD countered using the system 2800+, etc. This means, that if a processor has a rating of 4000+, it should have the speed equivalent to that of a 4.0GHz Pentium 4.
The reasoning being the difference in the way the processors are made, the front side busses, the cache size, and other items.

I could be wrong, but the general consensus for processors is that AMD processors are better "processor bang-for-you-buck" than Intel processors. AMD excels in gamign situations while Intel excels in multimedia capabilities (due to the clock speed).
If you do video editing, a P4 would be helpful. If you do hardcore gaming, a AMD FX-55 would be helpful. If you are an everyday consumer, a AMD 64 3500+(or other number) would be best.
^- my .02


P.S. I have a Pentium 4 3.2GHz Prescott processor in my computer that I built and I love every aspect of it except for the heat....goddamn hot Prescotts.

jvwgtr 06-02-2005 12:08 PM

The AMD naming scheme is supposed to help you compareits performance level to an Intel. You're correct: the 4000+ should perform like an Intel 4.0 ghz processor.

The "actual" clock speed of the AMD CPU is much less than 4ghz, because of its internal architecture.
In simplified terms, the AMD CPU can do in about 12 steps what the Intel processor needs 20-something steps to do. So an Intel processor would have to work many times faster (higher clock speed) to complete the same task, because it takes more steps to arrive at the same conclusion.

That's why AMD adopted their naming scheme, so it would be easier to figure out that a 3800+ would give you the same performance of a 3.8ghz Intel, even though the actual speed would be 2.6ghz or something.

And yes, they're that much cheaper than Intel, which makes them a very popular choice. If you can get the same performance at slower clock speeds (less heat, less power consumption) for less money...it makes sense, right?

MikeSty 06-02-2005 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvwgtr
If you can get the same performance at slower clock speeds (less heat, less power consumption) for less money...it makes sense, right?

Or even better performance :) I've got a prescott at 3.0ghz ( I clock it up occasionally), and damn it gets hot! I can keep it under 40*C now (idle), which isn't too bad.

Intel putting DRM on-chip scares me so I don't think I'm going to buy Intel for some time...

cyrnel 06-02-2005 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeSty
Intel putting DRM on-chip scares me so I don't think I'm going to buy Intel for some time...

No kidding. You have to wonder how this will affect their marketing to enthusiasts for both the Pentium D's and chipsets. Watch for Award/AMI to release chipsets to disable the feature entirely.

Reminds me of their on-chip serial number fiasco in the late 90's.

Slavakion 06-02-2005 01:51 PM

Weren't chip manufacturers thinking of switching to some ridiculous new naming scheme involving categories? It was something equivalent to car makes, like the "S3 class chip" or something. I'll see if I can find something about it.

soccerchamp76 06-02-2005 03:12 PM

You are referring to the current naming scheme of the Intel chips.
The 3xx series are the Celeron's and lower power processors. The 5xx series are the normal desktop processors and the 7xx series were the Intel Centrino processors for laptops. The 6xx series introduced 64-bit computing and the 8xx series introduced dual-core processing.
AMD is continuing their name scheme even with their dual-core chips, which are going to be released at 4200+, 4400+, 4600+, and 4800+ for the most expensive dualcore chip. The 4200+ and 4400+ run at the same clock speed but the latter has twice as much L2 cache. The same goes for the 4600+ and 4800+.

todd 06-02-2005 04:52 PM

Your explanation helped a lot, jvwgtr. I get it now, thanks a lot guys.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360