Actual AMD speed

[-0MEGA-] · 06-09-2005, 10:04 PM

I've heard that an AMD 3400+ is comparable to an Intel 3.4Ghz. Now is this true? If you ran a benchmark for a cpu, would they come out pretty much comparable or would the AMD 3400+ be slower than the Intel 3.4Ghz?

Now i know you going to say, what type of AMD or what type of Intel, but im not quite sure if the Atlon XP or Athlon 64 is comparable to a P4, so just tell me if thats pretty much how to tell the speed of an AMD to a Intel.

Thanks

**Cromewell** · 06-10-2005, 02:22 AM

3400+/3000+/whatever+ wasn't supposed to be the Intel speed equivalent (according to AMD) but it tends to work that way. It's a rough comparison that is close enough.

**The_Other_One** · 06-10-2005, 03:49 AM

Usally, it's a bit slower. It seems like an AMD 3400 would be like a Pent4 3.2 or so...

damasta55r · 06-10-2005, 04:16 AM

Not... The AMS 3400+ socket 939 Venice is faster than a Pentium 4 3.2.

[-0MEGA-] · 06-10-2005, 10:44 AM

So if i were trying to compare an AMD with an Intel, i should look at the number before the +, not the actual operating frequency. And i have another question, what the difference between all the cores? (Venice, winchester, etc.)?

**jancz3rt** · 06-10-2005, 11:08 AM

The frequency is not the main performance indicator. In fact, AMD can accomplish more work per clock cycle. Therefore there is no such need for high frequencies like that seen in Intel processors. Rouhly said, the 3000+ rating for example is about the speed of a Pentium 4 3Ghz (although AMD does not claim that is the intent). The difference between the cores is often the Vcore requirement (1.4 for Venice and more for Winchester) and the on-die memory controller which is better in the Venice than in the Winchester allowing for all four banks to be occupied and still work at 400Mhz (Although at 2T command rate).

JAN

LittleHoov · 06-10-2005, 02:35 PM

i was also under the impression that the Venice core could be overclocked much better than the Winchester

**apj101** · 06-10-2005, 02:54 PM

it can

**jancz3rt** · 06-11-2005, 09:08 PM

It can get overclocked well (look at my sig). The Venice/San Diego cores also have SSE3 support as well.

JAN

NeuromancerWGDD'U · 06-12-2005, 09:39 AM

Operations per clock cycle:

AMD: - 9
Intel: - 6

looked it up on several websites

06-09-2005, 10:04 PM	#1 (permalink)
[-0MEGA-] Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Concord, NH Age: 19 Posts: 26,897	Actual AMD speed I've heard that an AMD 3400+ is comparable to an Intel 3.4Ghz. Now is this true? If you ran a benchmark for a cpu, would they come out pretty much comparable or would the AMD 3400+ be slower than the Intel 3.4Ghz? Now i know you going to say, what type of AMD or what type of Intel, but im not quite sure if the Atlon XP or Athlon 64 is comparable to a P4, so just tell me if thats pretty much how to tell the speed of an AMD to a Intel. Thanks __________________ Desktop // Laptop Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.0GHz // Core 2 Duo T9300 2.5GHz Asus Rampage Formula X48 // Intel PM965 ATI 4870X2 2GB GDDR5 // Dual 512MB GDDR3 8600M GT's SLI 4GB (2x 2GB) DDR2 940 // 3GB DDR2 667 DC 750GB SATA 3.0Gbps w/32MB // 400GB (2x 200GB) 7200RPM Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty SilverStone 750W +12V@60A 3DMark06: 21366 // 7394

06-10-2005, 02:22 AM	#2 (permalink)
Cromewell Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Canada Age: 24 Posts: 10,086	3400+/3000+/whatever+ wasn't supposed to be the Intel speed equivalent (according to AMD) but it tends to work that way. It's a rough comparison that is close enough. __________________ You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here. I must plug a couple comics because they are good :D: www.ctrlaltdel-online.com www.userfriendly.org

06-10-2005, 03:49 AM	#3 (permalink)
The_Other_One Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Lexington, NC Age: 23 Posts: 12,364	Usally, it's a bit slower. It seems like an AMD 3400 would be like a Pent4 3.2 or so... __________________ Desktop * Athlon X2 4200 \| 2G RAM \| 160G HD \| 7600GT Laptop1 * C2D T5550 \| 3G RAM \| 120G HD \| Intel x3100 Laptop2 * C2D T5250 \| 2G RAM \| 160G HD \| Intel x3100

06-10-2005, 10:44 AM	#5 (permalink)
[-0MEGA-] Diamond Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Concord, NH Age: 19 Posts: 26,897	So if i were trying to compare an AMD with an Intel, i should look at the number before the +, not the actual operating frequency. And i have another question, what the difference between all the cores? (Venice, winchester, etc.)? __________________ Desktop // Laptop Core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 4.0GHz // Core 2 Duo T9300 2.5GHz Asus Rampage Formula X48 // Intel PM965 ATI 4870X2 2GB GDDR5 // Dual 512MB GDDR3 8600M GT's SLI 4GB (2x 2GB) DDR2 940 // 3GB DDR2 667 DC 750GB SATA 3.0Gbps w/32MB // 400GB (2x 200GB) 7200RPM Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty SilverStone 750W +12V@60A 3DMark06: 21366 // 7394

06-10-2005, 11:08 AM	#6 (permalink)
jancz3rt Moderator - F@H Guru Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Czech Republic Age: 23 Posts: 4,009	Yeah The frequency is not the main performance indicator. In fact, AMD can accomplish more work per clock cycle. Therefore there is no such need for high frequencies like that seen in Intel processors. Rouhly said, the 3000+ rating for example is about the speed of a Pentium 4 3Ghz (although AMD does not claim that is the intent). The difference between the cores is often the Vcore requirement (1.4 for Venice and more for Winchester) and the on-die memory controller which is better in the Venice than in the Winchester allowing for all four banks to be occupied and still work at 400Mhz (Although at 2T command rate). JAN __________________ A64 3700+ @ 2.65Ghz ::: 7300GT @ 600/1500 ::: 2GB RAM @ 440Mhz www.CZ3RT.com ::: FOLDING FOR THE GOOD OF MANKIND ::: F@H Team 44358

06-10-2005, 04:16 AM	#4 (permalink)
damasta55r banned Join Date: May 2005 Location: Hawaii Age: 18 Posts: 71	Not... The AMS 3400+ socket 939 Venice is faster than a Pentium 4 3.2.

06-10-2005, 02:35 PM	#7 (permalink)
LittleHoov Gold Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Climax Springs, Missouri Age: 21 Posts: 302	i was also under the impression that the Venice core could be overclocked much better than the Winchester

06-10-2005, 02:54 PM	#8 (permalink)
apj101 Administrator Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Age: 26 Posts: 9,143	it can __________________ What did one snow man say to the other? can you smell carrot? The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses - behind the lines, in the gym, and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights. How you do anything, is how you do everything!

06-11-2005, 09:08 PM	#9 (permalink)
jancz3rt Moderator - F@H Guru Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Czech Republic Age: 23 Posts: 4,009	Yes It can get overclocked well (look at my sig). The Venice/San Diego cores also have SSE3 support as well. JAN __________________ A64 3700+ @ 2.65Ghz ::: 7300GT @ 600/1500 ::: 2GB RAM @ 440Mhz www.CZ3RT.com ::: FOLDING FOR THE GOOD OF MANKIND ::: F@H Team 44358

06-12-2005, 09:39 AM	#10 (permalink)
NeuromancerWGDD'U Gold Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: I miss Oregon... Age: 18 Posts: 477	Operations per clock cycle: AMD: - 9 Intel: - 6 looked it up on several websites __________________ My little machine: S423 Pentium 4 1.3Ghz, 4x256 16-bit RIMM RAM, 32MB TNT2 video card. I think it may be time to upgrade... The upgrade! My machine will soon be a 939 X2 4000+, 4x512 DDR400, and an 8600GTS.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode