[Mmmm]Homer May 13, 2003 Share [Mmmm]Homer Member May 13, 2003 Nice article on Tom's Hardware going into the history of the AMD line a little, and the gap in the "XP+" ratings: The benchmark tests, on the other hand, leave no room for doubt: XP 2800+ would have been a more realistic label for the processor, which wouldn't have been a problem for anyone, if AMD still wants to go toe-to-toe with Intel's P4. But the 3200 label is much too aggressive - especially since Intel will be introducing an increased FSB clock for its lower-clocked P4 CPUs. Yet the chip sounds nice, even if unable to unseat the P4/3.0 and 3.06ghz chips. The good news is that each chip introduced lowers the price of all the other released chips! And if no one is buying the AMD claim of "XP3200+", then they may have to drop the price even more on this flagship chip. Check out the article here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiZad May 13, 2003 Share RiZad Member May 13, 2003 (edited) Like tom said ... they are getting WAYYY to aggressive with the model numbering. Since the 3200+ only runs at 2.2Ghz they are giving it a 1000+ model rating. The 3000+ only runs 33Mhz slower yet its 200+ behind on the model numbers. Go figure that one out. (I am in no way a "Fanboy" of Intel. I own AMD and reccomend AMD to everyone i know. They are just getting alittle weird on the model numbers) Edited May 13, 2003 by RiZad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[VI]ROosTEr May 13, 2003 Share [VI]ROosTEr Member May 13, 2003 I think this model numbering scheme of AMD's is about the best choice they have made (marketing wise) since they started marketing to gamers. I really hope they don't screw it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL May 13, 2003 Share dwEEziL Member May 13, 2003 Well, when it began, the naming scheme was based on a direct (or nearly so) performance comparison to the Intel line. Now, the just seem to increment to jump paste Intel's high-end cpu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief May 13, 2003 Share Chief Member May 13, 2003 When I was in kindergarten I tried eating paste but it was gross. I always did like the smell of arts and crafts period though. +++ I don't remember where I was reading this but it was talking about how the numbers now correspond roughly with what the chip can be OC'd. But heck the XP ripoff was marketing enough, now it's all just marketing. But I'm very happy with my AMD especially for the price of the CPU and fast ram and board combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL May 13, 2003 Share dwEEziL Member May 13, 2003 I am happy with AMD as well but if that is true (about the name being what it can OC to) I guess we know why they started unlocking their CPUs again. Kind of hard to market a cpu at the OC'ed chip speed if you factory-lock the CPU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiZad May 13, 2003 Share RiZad Member May 13, 2003 (edited) The model numbers don't compare to intel or tell u how far they overclock. AMD stated that the model numbers compare to their own chips, namely the Regular Athlons. It is said that the Athlon XP 1600+ would run like a Athlon(non XP) 1600Mhz. The Athlon XP 2100+ would run like an Athlon at 2100Mhz. and so on and so forth. I think that was just a PR thing tho so that intel didn't get tinkley with them about it. Edited May 13, 2003 by RiZad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Mmmm]Homer May 14, 2003 Author Share [Mmmm]Homer Member May 14, 2003 I have just renamed my XP2000+ to: XP9900+++ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX May 14, 2003 Share NOFX Member May 14, 2003 Well, when it began, the naming scheme was based on a direct (or nearly so) performance comparison to the Intel line. Now, the just seem to increment to jump paste Intel's high-end cpu. exactly, Im a AMD fan, but it is gettin kinda ridiculous...... I liked the good old days where the fast the Mhz, the faster your processor is. It seems like they are just trying to make money. I really dont see how a chip that runs at 2.2Ghz could compare toa chip at 3.2Ghz..(assuming that the 3.2Ghz chips architecture wasnt designed extremely bad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief May 14, 2003 Share Chief Member May 14, 2003 Gimme a sec to try and drag out an old article on apple.com about how clock cycles don't mean everything. Kinda like rpm on a v-10 versus a four banger. Depends on what all gets done on each clock cycle...bbsoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief May 14, 2003 Share Chief Member May 14, 2003 http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/index.html Click on the image to watch a cool video about it, the Megahertz Myth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX May 14, 2003 Share NOFX Member May 14, 2003 (edited) Gimme a sec to try and drag out an old article on apple.com about how clock cycles don't mean everything. Kinda like rpm on a v-10 versus a four banger. Depends on what all gets done on each clock cycle...bbsoon true, now that i look at it that way..... but that article didnt really make much sense to me, i know the architecture has alot to do with it, but it didnt explain anything, and im not tryin to watch a 8 minute video.. in computers if you have a 1 Mhz machine that means it can perform 1 Million operations a second right? AMD 2.3 Ghz = 2,200,000,000 operations a second? Intel 3.06 Ghz = 3,306,000,000? more operations a second = better? I know the clock speed can't always increase performace, it depends on the application, if the algorithms and coding is poor or not designed for a fast processor, the the program might not perform any faster. Mac's are on a totally different format, so that is why I think their 733Ghz is fast. But what would happen if you tried to run some windows Software on that G4 733? I bet it would perform less than the Intel 1.7. Edited May 14, 2003 by NOFX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief May 14, 2003 Share Chief Member May 14, 2003 (edited) It's not straight calculations, it's a clock cycle. Hertz is a frequency, like how many times a second something happens. Not calucations though but processes. The macs do stuff more efficiently. And in that video toward the end they talk about the next-gen Intel chip Itanium and how it's clock cycle is down half the current stuff. And if you've ever tried a Mac G4, if the windows software is available for Mac it runs at the same speed, but lots of special apps like Photoshop, Premiere, After Effects go crazy on a Mac. They also talk about Sun's processors and how they are near Mac in clock speed and we all know how fast and rad Sun is. http://www.techtv.com/news/computing/story...3344635,00.html I'm looking for one ON that page there is a link for mac vs pc demo and they put it down the middle Edited May 14, 2003 by Chief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[VI]ROosTEr May 14, 2003 Share [VI]ROosTEr Member May 14, 2003 How about this analogy. You have a runner, he (or she ) can run the mile in 4 mins. Now you also have a hurdler, and they can run the mile in 5 mins. Throw some hurdles in that mile and the hurdler will probably beat the pure runner. I just thought of this, so bash away if it doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX May 14, 2003 Share NOFX Member May 14, 2003 (edited) nah man your post made sense.....but wouldnt the hurdles be in the software not the processor? Edited May 14, 2003 by NOFX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zerodamage May 14, 2003 Share Guest zerodamage Guests May 14, 2003 Clock speed is only a small factor. You have to take into account the L1 and L2 Cache and the bus speed and memory types and the latency of the L1 and L2 cache and what type and floating point math and etc and etc. Clock speed is only a part of it. Intel needs higher and higher clock speed due to the design of their chips. It is a matter of efficiency and this is where AMD has the hold. Now Hyper Threading may turn this around for Intel. HT is really freakin cool and I hope AMD implements this technology in some future cpu's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[VI]ROosTEr May 14, 2003 Share [VI]ROosTEr Member May 14, 2003 nah man your post made sense.....but wouldnt the hurdles be in the software not the processor? Exactly, the runners are the processors, and the mile is the software/task they are running Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Mmmm]Homer May 14, 2003 Author Share [Mmmm]Homer Member May 14, 2003 I've always thought of it like a V-8 and a turbo 4 cylinder that both make 300hp. One does it with more cylinders (pipelines), where the other goes for high revs (high FSB). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker May 15, 2003 Share Skywalker Member May 15, 2003 (edited) Benchmark Testing: Intel vs AMD This test uses older processors <p4 2gHz and athlon2000+> but its got good info. Check it out. (Note: all the graphs and explanations are on page 2: link at bottom of page) Edited May 15, 2003 by Skywalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zerodamage May 15, 2003 Share Guest zerodamage Guests May 15, 2003 Good One Sky. This explains it quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asphyxiator May 15, 2003 Share Asphyxiator Member May 15, 2003 RISC technology baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief May 15, 2003 Share Chief Member May 15, 2003 Homer,May 14 2003, 04:53 PM] I've always thought of it like a V-8 and a turbo 4 cylinder that both make 300hp. One does it with more cylinders (pipelines), where the other goes for high revs (high FSB). To keep this analogy accurate, I think that the pipelines would have to be valves. The pipelines allow for the higher clock speed, as do the valves. Whereas the cylinders allow for lower rpm since more work is done per cycle. AMD and Mac would be 8 cylinders with lower rpms and fewer valves/pipelines but more work getting done. Intel would be the sreaming four banger with lots of valves per cylinder (5 works out well since its got 20 pipelines) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX May 18, 2003 Share NOFX Member May 18, 2003 heh so its like AMD is the muscle car where Intel is the rice burner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asphyxiator May 18, 2003 Share Asphyxiator Member May 18, 2003 i would view it as the other way around, intel and amd, being all about speeds and feeds. Having the most pipeline sequences and multimedia extensions (mmx) being the V8 outputing 300 horsepower, but having high torque (for things like rendering and high-end processing) but lower horsepower for the weight (being the opening programs and the long pipeline sequences). The G4 motorola processor would be the 4 cylinder, that has fewer cylinders (like the Reduced instruction set or RISC) but performes better for quick tasks. However the G4 would have a tough time doing a rendering project because of its equivelance to engine torque being low. Its gonna take longer to crank out all that gas with the 4-cylinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
![[Mmmm]Homer](https://gamrs.co/uploads/set_resources_5/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_default_photo.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now