aGorm you misunderstand 3 things. First I meant to say pentium 4 not 5 but my figner went too far right.
Also an AMD 64 1.8ghz does run faster than a pentium 4 EE.
Also AMD and intel processors cant be compared with clockspeeds, hence the reason an AMD processor will have 3200+ btu that doesnt mean it runs at 3.2ghz. This is because AMD cpu's take on more in terms of clock cycles, I'm not sure exactly what the terminology is btu I do know that an AMD at 1ghz performs more instructions per second than an intel pentium at 1ghz. And now that AMD64 is also 64bit unlike the pentium 4 EE at 32 bit (for now anyways as one poster said might change), it becomes muc more capable fo handlign larger numbers which 32 bti processor waste cpu time splitting 64 bit numbers into two sets of 32. Not to mention the doubling in size of cpu registers (depending on how you use those registers that is).
Which cheap video card to play Spring
Moderator: Moderators
Sorry? How can you even begin to belive that? Do you actully have both the processors that your talking about? Have you seen them doing it? NO. I shall explane all: (ps i forgive the pentium 5 thing... i could do that too...)
32:
Amd processors do do more in a clock cycle. Infact, an amd athelon running at 2.2 ghz (a 3200+) has performance in most things equal to taht of a 3 ghz pentium 4. This is so far not the 64 versions... ill reexplane for them in a mo...) I am well aware that an AMD 3200 does not run at 3.2 ghz, cause im not a muppet. I infact, know quite alot about computers. However its not quicker at all tasks, things like encoding (ie repetative tasks... ) intels are better at. AMD's handle gaming better.
64:
The top of the line AMD 64 (but not the fx) runs at 2.6 (i think that was last time i checked) gzh and is rated at 4000+. It is apparently about 1.5 times faster than the 32bit 3200+, but you cant realy belive that. However you can safly take the 3 gzh and say in pentium tearms it should out pace a 4 gzh p4. Of course you cant get a p 4 that good. But then you can get a P4 extream ed, and teher pretty fast to. That is actully faster than a normal pentium at 3.4 ghz as it has a larger chach and a few other bits and bobs. It goes at about 3.6 in normal pentum for speek.
Now your trying to say that a 1.8 ghz AMD will outpace a 3.4 gzh P4 EE
In realative tearms your saying that a "3 ghz AMD" will out run a "3.6 ghz" Pentium. Thats a load of crap.
Simply, yes the fastest AMD is faster than any p4, but the slowest amd 64 is not, i repeat NOT faster than a p4 EE.
Also, your thoughts on 64 bit offering some performance advantage are worng. Only programs writen for 64 bit use it. The AMD 64 basicly is a 32 bit procesor with another bit added on to make it also do 64 bit computing. When runing a 32 bit app the 64 bit stuff does not come into play at all. The reason an AMD 64 out runs the equivilent AMD 32 is due to a larger chach and a refind CPU archtexture and built in memory contoler. Thats why it goes quicker.
Of course, AMD 64's at 1.8 will out run a P4 EE if your running a 64 bit app, that because it wont run on the P4 atall...
aGorm
PS, that might be unclear, so ill reexplane on MSN or somthing if i need to. Or just retypre the post when im not fumming at some 17 year old telling me how computers work.
32:
Amd processors do do more in a clock cycle. Infact, an amd athelon running at 2.2 ghz (a 3200+) has performance in most things equal to taht of a 3 ghz pentium 4. This is so far not the 64 versions... ill reexplane for them in a mo...) I am well aware that an AMD 3200 does not run at 3.2 ghz, cause im not a muppet. I infact, know quite alot about computers. However its not quicker at all tasks, things like encoding (ie repetative tasks... ) intels are better at. AMD's handle gaming better.
64:
The top of the line AMD 64 (but not the fx) runs at 2.6 (i think that was last time i checked) gzh and is rated at 4000+. It is apparently about 1.5 times faster than the 32bit 3200+, but you cant realy belive that. However you can safly take the 3 gzh and say in pentium tearms it should out pace a 4 gzh p4. Of course you cant get a p 4 that good. But then you can get a P4 extream ed, and teher pretty fast to. That is actully faster than a normal pentium at 3.4 ghz as it has a larger chach and a few other bits and bobs. It goes at about 3.6 in normal pentum for speek.
Now your trying to say that a 1.8 ghz AMD will outpace a 3.4 gzh P4 EE
In realative tearms your saying that a "3 ghz AMD" will out run a "3.6 ghz" Pentium. Thats a load of crap.
Simply, yes the fastest AMD is faster than any p4, but the slowest amd 64 is not, i repeat NOT faster than a p4 EE.
Also, your thoughts on 64 bit offering some performance advantage are worng. Only programs writen for 64 bit use it. The AMD 64 basicly is a 32 bit procesor with another bit added on to make it also do 64 bit computing. When runing a 32 bit app the 64 bit stuff does not come into play at all. The reason an AMD 64 out runs the equivilent AMD 32 is due to a larger chach and a refind CPU archtexture and built in memory contoler. Thats why it goes quicker.
Of course, AMD 64's at 1.8 will out run a P4 EE if your running a 64 bit app, that because it wont run on the P4 atall...
aGorm
PS, that might be unclear, so ill reexplane on MSN or somthing if i need to. Or just retypre the post when im not fumming at some 17 year old telling me how computers work.
Oh about the AMD's doing more instuctions a second. This is in laymans terms cause i dont know the word either...
But basicly the AMD has several short pathways, and the Pentium has like one long one. You can Shove loads down the pentiums long on and it will do it quickly (for some reason i cant remember it goes faster the longer it is...) where as the athelon does several at once but slower. Hence the pentium can do the same calculation very fast, but if the calculations are different it has to keep changing what its doing and so it seems slower than the athelon that, although slower on just one calculation, can do several at once and hence dosnt need to keep changing what its doing as much. Roughly. The pathway thing is basicly the routes to teh other end of the CPU (cause of course things go in one side and out the other...)
aGorm
Someone that can find better words can rexplane that pls.
But basicly the AMD has several short pathways, and the Pentium has like one long one. You can Shove loads down the pentiums long on and it will do it quickly (for some reason i cant remember it goes faster the longer it is...) where as the athelon does several at once but slower. Hence the pentium can do the same calculation very fast, but if the calculations are different it has to keep changing what its doing and so it seems slower than the athelon that, although slower on just one calculation, can do several at once and hence dosnt need to keep changing what its doing as much. Roughly. The pathway thing is basicly the routes to teh other end of the CPU (cause of course things go in one side and out the other...)
aGorm
Someone that can find better words can rexplane that pls.
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
Athlon XP 3000+ @2200 is an Athlon XP working at 2200 MHz that is said to be as fast as one of those old Athlons (of the Thunderbird times!?) if it was working at 3000MHz.
An Athlon 64 3000+ working at 32b compared to a pentium4@3GHz varies much considering the task they are doing. Generally, if you do mass transfers of data from a location of RAM to another or mass-simple-integer calculations, the P4 outperforms because of it's FSB and superior CPU cycles. The Athlon has it's other advantages though.
An Athlon 64 3000+ working at 32b, in general, is slightly lacking to a P4 3GHz.
There are many diferences within Athlons 64. There are the ones at 3200+@2GHz with 1MB cache, the ones at 3200+@2,2GHz with 512KB cache, the ones with 3200+@2GHz with 512KB cache but the new socket 939, ..., ..., ...
There was a P4 Extreme Edition (at the 3GHz!?). Now, there are many. Intel was unable to increse the speed of it's processors, and so started improving the architecture. So, now there's coming to market the P4 3200 EE, P4 3400 EE, etc. In fact, i think all new P4s coming out, are at the same speed of the ones from the last year but named EE, if that counts for much...
The Athlons do not have more cach than P4s. There are Athlons 64 with 512KB/1MB. There are P4s with 1/2 MB of cache (i believe none with 512KB...).
CPUs have a pipeline. When doing an instruction, the CPU follows that pipeline which consists of smaller tasks.
The Athlon/P3 have shorter pipelines than the P4.
The Athlon TBird had some 7 and the P3 some 8, i think.
The recent Athlons have pipelines of around 12/13 cycles!?
The first P4 had a pipeline of some 20 and now some 24.
Meaning the 1st P4 spent around 20 CPU cycles to execute an instruction. Meaning also that, since it doesn't do much work each cycle and consequently not heating much, it worked faster. However, the first P4 released (1,4GHz) was much worst than it's old brother, the P3 (1GHz).
Don't trust me much on these values...
An Athlon 64 3000+ working at 32b compared to a pentium4@3GHz varies much considering the task they are doing. Generally, if you do mass transfers of data from a location of RAM to another or mass-simple-integer calculations, the P4 outperforms because of it's FSB and superior CPU cycles. The Athlon has it's other advantages though.
An Athlon 64 3000+ working at 32b, in general, is slightly lacking to a P4 3GHz.
There are many diferences within Athlons 64. There are the ones at 3200+@2GHz with 1MB cache, the ones at 3200+@2,2GHz with 512KB cache, the ones with 3200+@2GHz with 512KB cache but the new socket 939, ..., ..., ...
There was a P4 Extreme Edition (at the 3GHz!?). Now, there are many. Intel was unable to increse the speed of it's processors, and so started improving the architecture. So, now there's coming to market the P4 3200 EE, P4 3400 EE, etc. In fact, i think all new P4s coming out, are at the same speed of the ones from the last year but named EE, if that counts for much...
The Athlons do not have more cach than P4s. There are Athlons 64 with 512KB/1MB. There are P4s with 1/2 MB of cache (i believe none with 512KB...).
CPUs have a pipeline. When doing an instruction, the CPU follows that pipeline which consists of smaller tasks.
The Athlon/P3 have shorter pipelines than the P4.
The Athlon TBird had some 7 and the P3 some 8, i think.
The recent Athlons have pipelines of around 12/13 cycles!?
The first P4 had a pipeline of some 20 and now some 24.
Meaning the 1st P4 spent around 20 CPU cycles to execute an instruction. Meaning also that, since it doesn't do much work each cycle and consequently not heating much, it worked faster. However, the first P4 released (1,4GHz) was much worst than it's old brother, the P3 (1GHz).
Don't trust me much on these values...
Thanks, Glad someone knows what tehre on about. Was at work so my posts were rushed and i was splutering in fury...
Oh, no worries on the cache side of things, as I was comparing athelon 32 to athelon 64, not to pentiums... Although, isn't most of the pentiums cache lvl 3 insted of lvl 2? Cant remember... Never mind.
Alantai here are some benchmarks so you can see:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004101 ... 00-08.html
all of thouse are a good reperentavtive of how things stand.
aGorm
Oh, no worries on the cache side of things, as I was comparing athelon 32 to athelon 64, not to pentiums... Although, isn't most of the pentiums cache lvl 3 insted of lvl 2? Cant remember... Never mind.
Alantai here are some benchmarks so you can see:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004101 ... 00-08.html
all of thouse are a good reperentavtive of how things stand.
aGorm
/What speed deficite? Look, if you explaned what you were saying i might not get so annoyed... It looks like you just said that teh amd 64 is slower than the 32 at 32 bit calculations, but u cant mean that?
And unfortunatly u specified tha the AMD 64 was at 1.8gzh which is not the max. And it looked like you were sayin the best pentium EE from your pharsing.
aGorm
And unfortunatly u specified tha the AMD 64 was at 1.8gzh which is not the max. And it looked like you were sayin the best pentium EE from your pharsing.
aGorm
-
maverick256
- Posts: 115
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 19:41
Yes the AMD 64 in 32 bit mdoe ro 32 bit compatability mode is slower than the 32 bit PENTIUM 4 EE. That is the speed deficit I was talking about the fact that without the 64 bit features beign used it runs slower than a pentium 4 EE. However aGorm fi i wanted to go all out I would have used 4 Opteron cpu's en tandem each with their own memory aswell as the combined throughput of their inbuilt memory controllers. I used the 1.8ghz AMD 64 as an exampel because I know soemone who has one of them.
Aha I didnt knwo thats why they never went to 4ghz, explains why both AMD and Intel are barking up the dual core tree.
Aha I didnt knwo thats why they never went to 4ghz, explains why both AMD and Intel are barking up the dual core tree.
Sorry Alantai you have no lost me compleatly. DID you not state that:
An Athelon 64 at 1.8 is faster than a Pentium 4 EE.
No you infact didn't i know, but thats what it looked like. And its only now that i realise that we have been arguing on the same side for the last 12 hours, only each saying each other is wrong, when were saying the same things. It is infact due to the realy bad english you used. Your sentance was so badly constructed tha ti thought you were saying "An Athelon 64 at 1.8 is faster than a Pentium 4 EE." Unfortunatly you not realising that i had miss read your rather terible wording, read mine out of the context i was useing which formed an argument. About precisly Nothing.
Please please please, I cant speel, but atleast I dont write posts that are so gramaticly incorrect as to twist the meaning of them.
The conclusion (which we would have reached ages ago if not for Alantai poor english...)
All processors are good.
A AMD does more per clock cycle than a pentium.
Pentiums have a faster front side bus and so can talk to memory faster.
AMD 64 have the plus of built in memory controllers and 64 bit (for when apps come out for it)
What a load of stupidty... I cant belive i have argued against my one of my few allies in this forum about sod all...
aGorm
An Athelon 64 at 1.8 is faster than a Pentium 4 EE.
No you infact didn't i know, but thats what it looked like. And its only now that i realise that we have been arguing on the same side for the last 12 hours, only each saying each other is wrong, when were saying the same things. It is infact due to the realy bad english you used. Your sentance was so badly constructed tha ti thought you were saying "An Athelon 64 at 1.8 is faster than a Pentium 4 EE." Unfortunatly you not realising that i had miss read your rather terible wording, read mine out of the context i was useing which formed an argument. About precisly Nothing.
Please please please, I cant speel, but atleast I dont write posts that are so gramaticly incorrect as to twist the meaning of them.
The conclusion (which we would have reached ages ago if not for Alantai poor english...)
All processors are good.
A AMD does more per clock cycle than a pentium.
Pentiums have a faster front side bus and so can talk to memory faster.
AMD 64 have the plus of built in memory controllers and 64 bit (for when apps come out for it)
What a load of stupidty... I cant belive i have argued against my one of my few allies in this forum about sod all...
aGorm
Actually aGorm
Alantai Firestar wrote:
I should have added the 64 bit thing but it's a 64 bit cpu why shouldn't I not include it it's presumed, It's not how I say it, my grammar is good for the most part and is better than most, it's what I say and what I dont say and the spelling errors I make in saying them, which I am resolving which has lead to a decline in posts per day which dismays me and my targets. The total post count projections for the next month are deeply worrying and unless I find a spellchecker for firefox or something I can easily use on the fly I'll be forced into a double what everyone else has combined lead.
Or I could unleash the full fury of my typing on you all and post without any care for spelling which nobody has seen yet.
Alantai Firestar wrote:
Also an AMD 64 1.8ghz does run faster than a pentium 4 EE.
I should have added the 64 bit thing but it's a 64 bit cpu why shouldn't I not include it it's presumed, It's not how I say it, my grammar is good for the most part and is better than most, it's what I say and what I dont say and the spelling errors I make in saying them, which I am resolving which has lead to a decline in posts per day which dismays me and my targets. The total post count projections for the next month are deeply worrying and unless I find a spellchecker for firefox or something I can easily use on the fly I'll be forced into a double what everyone else has combined lead.
Or I could unleash the full fury of my typing on you all and post without any care for spelling which nobody has seen yet.Ahhh but there is no (ok there is some ) 64 bit software. And 64 bit software does not run on a 32 bit platform...
It would be an unfair comparison...
And spring is writen for 32 bit at the moment and probablie will be untill a proper 64 bit windows is made (as they are only making it for windows...)
But the AMD1.8 does not out perform the P4EE (eceptin the case where ofcours the P4 does not run 64 bit apps.)
aGorm
It would be an unfair comparison...
And spring is writen for 32 bit at the moment and probablie will be untill a proper 64 bit windows is made (as they are only making it for windows...)
But the AMD1.8 does not out perform the P4EE (eceptin the case where ofcours the P4 does not run 64 bit apps.)
aGorm
Actually there is 64 bit software out there, for example windows 64 bit (which can eb downlaoded full version for an evaluation period of 365 days! legally aswell!) there's 32 and 64 bti versions fo text pad there's supposed to eb a 64 bti version of UT though I'm not sure since I dotn play that I just read it somewhere and the same with loads of other stuff not to mention the 64 bit linux distros
Please read the post... It said quite clearly (unless you ignor whats in brackets... oh hold on..) unless you ignor whats in brackets, that there is some. But less than 0.1 % of it is in 64bits. And for the purpose of fair testing you realy realy realy cant go comparing a 64 bit processor do a 64 bit task with a 32 bit processor doin a 64 bit task. Windows 64 bit has been out for weeks, and linux has had a 64 edition even befor the AMD 64 was lanched (there that good...). You seem to think that you can find somthing I dont know about and use it against me, but unfortunatly I'm very up to speed.
I think we'll have to settle this in a game of SPRING. Bring it on.
aGorm
I think we'll have to settle this in a game of SPRING. Bring it on.
aGorm
Actually no I'm just putting forward what i knwo and then constantly finetuning the grammar in hopes you'll figure it out.
Mind you I was comparing 2 systems running the same software exept one beign an AMD64 with 64 bit operating and software and the other the same btu with pentium 4 EE and the equivilant 32 bit software.
Mind you I was comparing 2 systems running the same software exept one beign an AMD64 with 64 bit operating and software and the other the same btu with pentium 4 EE and the equivilant 32 bit software.
Yes, but how can that be called a fair comparison? When you benchmark things against each other, you dont do it with to different peices of software, you do it with one peice that runs on both systems. So you can hardly say that just because the AMD is 64 its faster.
The realy stupid thing is that im in love with AMD and espcialy the AMD 64s. So why the hell im agruging against you i dont know, but its probablie because the point of this threed was to give advice to new people that want to know what sort of system they need. Buy saything that the AMD was so much better though it looked slower, you were confusing anyone that came along with no knoledge. Thats all. Never mind... alls well that ends well
aGorm
The realy stupid thing is that im in love with AMD and espcialy the AMD 64s. So why the hell im agruging against you i dont know, but its probablie because the point of this threed was to give advice to new people that want to know what sort of system they need. Buy saything that the AMD was so much better though it looked slower, you were confusing anyone that came along with no knoledge. Thats all. Never mind... alls well that ends well
aGorm
Yah AMD make damn good cpu's I'm afraid I'm stuck with a Celeron D, and I didnt even buy the computer so It aint ym fault, tho my last 2 werent bought by me they ahd AMD cpu's and my 380mhz AMD K6 managed to outpace my AMD Duron 1400+ at running XP Pro but they're ancient machines that seem to defy everything thats said lol
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
No way...Alantai Firestar wrote:... my 380mhz AMD K6 managed to outpace my AMD Duron 1400+ at running XP ...
You must be making some confusion or something.
I've got a wonderfull Duron 1300 (They are not 1300+, they run at 1300MHz so i supose it's the same with the Duron 1400), so i know what that CPU is worth.