AMD slower ghz?

**Praetor** · 06-16-2005, 12:14 AM

Quote:

i think you're forgetting about the 630 also be HT? whereas the amd they release the x2 for that.

?

NeuromancerWGDD'U · 06-16-2005, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praetor

Oh and on a last note:

That videocard doesnt have a 256bit memory interface.

I didn't specify that it's a Geforce FX 5700LE OPTIMA. PNY Technologies. Check their site. Since the exact specifications of my card were not in question I didn't feel it necessary to specify that it's an optima. As far as I know, that's the only 256-bit Geforce FX 5700LE.

mgoldb2 · 06-16-2005, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeuromancerWGDD'U

I didn't specify that it's a Geforce FX 5700LE OPTIMA. PNY Technologies. Check their site. Since the exact specifications of my card were not in question I didn't feel it necessary to specify that it's an optima. As far as I know, that's the only 256-bit Geforce FX 5700LE.

from the web site

NVIDIA® CineFX™ 2.0 engine
256-bit graphics core
250MHz core clock
128-bit DDR memory interface
500MHz memory data rate
8.0GB/sec. memory bandwidth
188 million vertices/sec. setup
4 pixels per clock (peak)
16 textures per pixel(max)with 8 textures applied per clock
Dual 400MHz RAMDACs
Maximum display resolution 2048 x 1536 x 32 bpp at 85Hz
Flat Panel display support with resolutions up to 1600 x 1200
*Requires flat panel display with VGA input

from
http://www.pny.com/products/verto/mainstream/5700le.asp

NeuromancerWGDD'U · 06-16-2005, 05:05 AM

Alright, obviously you could, on a whim, liquify me with your immense knowledge of processors. I had browsed through about 20 different sites, just looking for a simple way to, in least terms possible, help explain why operating frequencies between AMD and Intel aren't the best way to compare performance. The constant comparison that I found was "AMD, 9 operations per clock cycle, Intel, 6 operations per clock cycle." They are not my direct words, but a constant comparison that I found on 90% of the websites that I read. I'm not going to continue to argue because, stubborn as I may be, I'm not stupid. I admit, you know much more about this than I do, but I don't think that one (obviously 'one' who knows their stuff) can actually (thoroughly) answer a question about AMD to Intel performance comparison without confusing very nearly everybody that reads it. There's just too much involved. By simplifying it, you can give someone a general idea, even though this is at the cost of accuracy. I didn't simplify it (I don't even understand the unsimplified version), all I did was pass on the simplified version that is largely accepted.

mgoldb2 · 06-16-2005, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeuromancerWGDD'U

. By simplifying it, you can give someone a general idea, even though this is at the cost of accuracy. I didn't simplify it (I don't even understand the unsimplified version), all I did was pass on the simplified version that is largely accepted.

Simplifying is not the same thing as giving wrong information. simplifying is being able to say CORRECTLY information in terms everyone understand. Making something up to explain something is not simplifying it wrong. How does it help anyone if they going around spreading false information even if they now THINK they understand why.

Simplyfing should not come at the cost of accuracy.

**Praetor** · 06-16-2005, 05:17 AM

Quote:

By simplifying it, you can give someone a general idea, even though this is at the cost of accuracy. I didn't simplify it (I don't even understand the unsimplified version), all I did was pass on the simplified version that is largely accepted.

Absolutely and I agree entirely. Clock speed does NOT mean everything. And I have no issues with that. It's when you comment that 'because AMD has 9 of this and Intel only has 6 and this means AMD is better' -- thats what I challenge.

Losing precision is one thing and that is generally acceptable. Losing accuracy ... that tends to result in incorrect information being conveyed to the end user. Now as to what to buy, AMD or Intel ... that was already mentioned in a somewhat simplified and fair manner in the CPU 101.

NeuromancerWGDD'U · 06-16-2005, 05:17 AM

...I'm going to stop posting until I get sleep, I'm just being stupid at this point. Originally the sig saying "256-bit memory interface" was a brain fart, what I was failing to notice was the emphasis on the fact that it's not a 256-bit MEMORY INTERFACE. I had assumed that Praetor had looked up a non-256-bit anything card due to the fact that I hadn't specified. I'm sorry, I'm being stupid and irrational at the moment, I'm gonna go to sleep now.

NeuromancerWGDD'U · 06-16-2005, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgoldb2

Making something up to explain something is not simplifying it wrong. How does it help anyone if they going around spreading false information even if they now THINK they understand why.

Now hold on! By my own words, I DID NOT simplify it; I looked up what was the general explanation, made sure that it wasn't just one source saying this (which, had it been, would have qualified it as spreading false information, and that I am thoroughly against!), then I proceeded to share what I had found.

**Praetor** · 06-16-2005, 05:45 AM

Quote:

I had assumed that Praetor had looked up a non-256-bit anything card due to the fact that I hadn't specified

Hehe hardly, I'm quite careful with my wording as you no doubt have noticed by now

Quote:

Now hold on! By my own words, I DID NOT simplify it; I looked up what was the general explanation, made sure that it wasn't just one source saying this (which, had it been, would have qualified it as spreading false information, and that I am thoroughly against!), then I proceeded to share what I had found.

Hehe then if I hadnt challenged you on it, that woulda essentially been plagiarism heehee

But humor aside, do realize that just because numerous sources say something is one way doesnt make it accurate ... hell 90% of the computing websites out there from Intel to ASUS to Newegg don't know what the hell "FSB" really means and they think boards come with a 800MHz FSB.

mgoldb2 · 06-16-2005, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeuromancerWGDD'U

Now hold on! By my own words, I DID NOT simplify it; I looked up what was the general explanation, made sure that it wasn't just one source saying this (which, had it been, would have qualified it as spreading false information, and that I am thoroughly against!), then I proceeded to share what I had found.

Quote:

Simplifying is not the same thing as giving wrong information. simplifying is being able to say CORRECTLY information in terms everyone understand. Making something up to explain something is not simplifying it wrong. How does it help anyone if they going around spreading false information even if they now THINK they understand why.

I never accuse you of doing anything in that statement

I was responding to

Quote:

By simplifying it, you can give someone a general idea, even though this is at the cost of accuracy

As I said simplifying should not come at the cost of accuracy.

06-16-2005, 05:05 AM	#24 (permalink)
NeuromancerWGDD'U Gold Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: I miss Oregon... Age: 18 Posts: 477	Alright, obviously you could, on a whim, liquify me with your immense knowledge of processors. I had browsed through about 20 different sites, just looking for a simple way to, in least terms possible, help explain why operating frequencies between AMD and Intel aren't the best way to compare performance. The constant comparison that I found was "AMD, 9 operations per clock cycle, Intel, 6 operations per clock cycle." They are not my direct words, but a constant comparison that I found on 90% of the websites that I read. I'm not going to continue to argue because, stubborn as I may be, I'm not stupid. I admit, you know much more about this than I do, but I don't think that one (obviously 'one' who knows their stuff) can actually (thoroughly) answer a question about AMD to Intel performance comparison without confusing very nearly everybody that reads it. There's just too much involved. By simplifying it, you can give someone a general idea, even though this is at the cost of accuracy. I didn't simplify it (I don't even understand the unsimplified version), all I did was pass on the simplified version that is largely accepted. __________________ 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.

06-16-2005, 05:17 AM	#27 (permalink)
NeuromancerWGDD'U Gold Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: I miss Oregon... Age: 18 Posts: 477	...I'm going to stop posting until I get sleep, I'm just being stupid at this point. Originally the sig saying "256-bit memory interface" was a brain fart, what I was failing to notice was the emphasis on the fact that it's not a 256-bit MEMORY INTERFACE. I had assumed that Praetor had looked up a non-256-bit anything card due to the fact that I hadn't specified. I'm sorry, I'm being stupid and irrational at the moment, I'm gonna go to sleep now. __________________ 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