AMD slower ghz?

**Praetor** · 06-16-2005, 07:03 PM

1. Drop it or take a hike.
2. "Sounds accusatory" and "making an accusation" are two different things.

Lets all get back on topic

mfraley65 · 07-18-2006, 10:11 PM

Well the simple fact that you seem to have confused the meaning of "operation" gives things away. Furthermore, just because you found some links here and there (mostly forum ones it seems) that corroberate doesnt mean much when you dont apply the facts being conveyed with a logical sense of reasoning. Sure the AthlonXPs can have 3 FP units ... I didnt even bother verifying that that (although didnt need to either) .... but just because they have three such units does not mean they are better processors .... and on the converse, just because intel doesnt have 3 such units does not make it a better processor. Since Ive dealt with ASM and I know for damn sure opcodes dont execute in fractions of a cycle I countered by asking for specific opcodes that may execute in 1/6 or 1/9 of a cycle (since, not being an ASM guru I dont know the entire opcode layouts off the top of my head). That was an opportunity to solidify your case. I see no opcodes.

Regarding the "applying the facts" comment, sure AMD can have 9 "whatever" per cycle and Intel only have 6 "whatevers" per cycle, but two things should come to mind:
1. Why the hell are all these processors so slow??? Sure we know its CISC technology so yer looking at a 300% bloat in opcode length but at say 18billion opcodes/sec -- it shouldnt matter
2. The fact that AMD has more "whatever" does not mean it is a better processor. And never will. The fact that Intels have fewer does not mean it is a worse processor and never will.

I think an overwhelming majority of informed users will concur that to say "AMD makes the best processors ever and all Intel Processors suck" (even if we limit the scope to current and last-gen processors) is an excessively broad and closeminded view. There is a reason why Intel and AMD exist and why there are so many threads on the internet about "Intel or AMD" -- thats because its not hands down clear.

----

1. Windows XP x64 is not [originally] for Intel systems but rather for AMD's K8 lineup. I think you have Windows XP x64 and Windows XP 64bit Edition mixed up?
2. The fact that Intel has the lions share of the consumer market was not why Microsoft released Windows XP 64bit edition -- t'is cuz Intel had their 64bit stuff up and running a lot sooner than AMD

----

Oh and on a last note:

That videocard doesnt have a 256bit memory interface.[/quote]

I just came across this thread when searching for some information. I am comfused by what you had said in it praetor. One this is "t'is cuz intel had their 64bit stuff up and running a lot sooner than amd. Is this really true. According to wikipedia: "This move by AMD was well timed to take advantage of a product hole in Intel's roadmap, namely a Pentium-compatible CPU that can deal with the inevitable transition to 64 bits. Some viewed this transition as slightly premature; however, it helped AMD to snatch the standard away from Intel, and its quality 32-bit backwards compatibility made it a feasible chip even for home users. AMD's standard was adopted by Microsoft, Linux and even Sun Microsystems. This left Intel in a position where they were forced to make an agreement with AMD to use the AMD64 extensions for their own 64-bit (EM64T) processors. The K8 is also notable for its Direct Connect Architecture.(Amd) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Also, some of the things you had said about the cycles operations deal. I know this is old but if you can point me to where these ideas came from i would much appreciate it as this is contrary to what the guys here in development are saying.

**Cromewell** · 07-19-2006, 05:10 AM

Strictly speaking MIPS Technologies produced the first 64bit CPU, then DEC then Intel announced the IA-64 architecture. The next to release one was Sun with an UltraSPARC, followed by HP, IBM then Intel actually releasing the Itanic. Of the list only IBMs PowerPCs were used in home computers (Macs) and with good reason, try to find prices on some of those

What AMD did was add 64bit extensions to x86 before Intel did.

m0nk3ys1ms · 07-19-2006, 02:38 PM

You do realise that this thread is over a year old, don't you?

**Cromewell** · 07-19-2006, 05:21 PM

1. No, you assume I look at the dates
2. I don't really care

mfraley65 · 07-19-2006, 05:59 PM

Yeah, i relized it was a year old when i posted(came across it on a search somehow) but was just messing around. Also, as we all know there is so much miss information around on the web and so many people that are never wrong even when they are. This makes getting proper information out to people that need it. Anyway, after viewing the site i have seen there are some very knowledgable people on here and i can browse the forum for ideas i haven't had. Now if i could just get these computers(and the good folks working with them) to do all my work without my presence i may be able to finish my car.

**Praetor** · 07-19-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote:

I just came across this thread when searching for some information. I am comfused by what you had said in it praetor. One this is "t'is cuz intel had their 64bit stuff up and running a lot sooner than amd. Is this really true

Yes and no. Between Intel and AMD it's true however as Cromewell points out in #33, if we include all processors its not true. What most people think of when they say "AMD came out with 64bit before Intel" is the consumer chips. Intel's Itanic lineup has been around for several years before AMD's K8 even began to breathe life.

As for the ressurection, shrug, oh well, it's not horrible as this thread serves a good purpse

06-16-2005, 07:03 PM	#31 (permalink)
Praetor Administrator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canada Age: 24 Posts: 19,900	1. Drop it or take a hike. 2. "Sounds accusatory" and "making an accusation" are two different things. Lets all get back on topic __________________ ASUS P5K Premium WiFi-AP, Q6600@3.7 / ASUS P5ND, E6400@3.8 4GB OCz Platinum XTC 8500 / 4GB CorsairXMS2 6400 5x500GB Seagate 7200.10 / 2x500 Seagate 7200.10 OCz 8800GTX 768MB @ 630/800 / 2x Galaxy 8800GT SLI

07-18-2006, 10:11 PM	#32 (permalink)
mfraley65 New Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 2	Old thread from 6/2005 Well the simple fact that you seem to have confused the meaning of "operation" gives things away. Furthermore, just because you found some links here and there (mostly forum ones it seems) that corroberate doesnt mean much when you dont apply the facts being conveyed with a logical sense of reasoning. Sure the AthlonXPs can have 3 FP units ... I didnt even bother verifying that that (although didnt need to either) .... but just because they have three such units does not mean they are better processors .... and on the converse, just because intel doesnt have 3 such units does not make it a better processor. Since Ive dealt with ASM and I know for damn sure opcodes dont execute in fractions of a cycle I countered by asking for specific opcodes that may execute in 1/6 or 1/9 of a cycle (since, not being an ASM guru I dont know the entire opcode layouts off the top of my head). That was an opportunity to solidify your case. I see no opcodes. Regarding the "applying the facts" comment, sure AMD can have 9 "whatever" per cycle and Intel only have 6 "whatevers" per cycle, but two things should come to mind: 1. Why the hell are all these processors so slow??? Sure we know its CISC technology so yer looking at a 300% bloat in opcode length but at say 18billion opcodes/sec -- it shouldnt matter 2. The fact that AMD has more "whatever" does not mean it is a better processor. And never will. The fact that Intels have fewer does not mean it is a worse processor and never will. I think an overwhelming majority of informed users will concur that to say "AMD makes the best processors ever and all Intel Processors suck" (even if we limit the scope to current and last-gen processors) is an excessively broad and closeminded view. There is a reason why Intel and AMD exist and why there are so many threads on the internet about "Intel or AMD" -- thats because its not hands down clear. ---- 1. Windows XP x64 is not [originally] for Intel systems but rather for AMD's K8 lineup. I think you have Windows XP x64 and Windows XP 64bit Edition mixed up? 2. The fact that Intel has the lions share of the consumer market was not why Microsoft released Windows XP 64bit edition -- t'is cuz Intel had their 64bit stuff up and running a lot sooner than AMD ---- Oh and on a last note: That videocard doesnt have a 256bit memory interface.[/quote] I just came across this thread when searching for some information. I am comfused by what you had said in it praetor. One this is "t'is cuz intel had their 64bit stuff up and running a lot sooner than amd. Is this really true. According to wikipedia: "This move by AMD was well timed to take advantage of a product hole in Intel's roadmap, namely a Pentium-compatible CPU that can deal with the inevitable transition to 64 bits. Some viewed this transition as slightly premature; however, it helped AMD to snatch the standard away from Intel, and its quality 32-bit backwards compatibility made it a feasible chip even for home users. AMD's standard was adopted by Microsoft, Linux and even Sun Microsystems. This left Intel in a position where they were forced to make an agreement with AMD to use the AMD64 extensions for their own 64-bit (EM64T) processors. The K8 is also notable for its Direct Connect Architecture.(Amd) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Also, some of the things you had said about the cycles operations deal. I know this is old but if you can point me to where these ideas came from i would much appreciate it as this is contrary to what the guys here in development are saying.

07-19-2006, 05:10 AM	#33 (permalink)
Cromewell Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Canada Age: 24 Posts: 9,786	Strictly speaking MIPS Technologies produced the first 64bit CPU, then DEC then Intel announced the IA-64 architecture. The next to release one was Sun with an UltraSPARC, followed by HP, IBM then Intel actually releasing the Itanic. Of the list only IBMs PowerPCs were used in home computers (Macs) and with good reason, try to find prices on some of those What AMD did was add 64bit extensions to x86 before Intel did. __________________ Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring!! Tiax rules all! Know this and be judged. I must plug a couple comics because they are good :D: www.ctrlaltdel-online.com www.userfriendly.org

07-19-2006, 02:38 PM	#34 (permalink)
m0nk3ys1ms Diamond Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Hanover, Indiana Age: 16 Posts: 3,694	You do realise that this thread is over a year old, don't you? __________________ CPU: Intel Pentium D 805 Mobo: ECS EliteGroup 945PL-A GPU: eVGA GeForce 7600GS 256MB RAM: 2GB DDR2-533 HDD: 120GB (80GB/40GB) Monitor: 26" Vizio LCD HDTV Sound: Logitech X-530 OS: XP Pro, OS X Leopard 10.5.2 Last edited by m0nk3ys1ms; 07-19-2006 at 02:40 PM.

07-19-2006, 05:21 PM	#35 (permalink)
Cromewell Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Canada Age: 24 Posts: 9,786	1. No, you assume I look at the dates 2. I don't really care __________________ Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring!! Tiax rules all! Know this and be judged. I must plug a couple comics because they are good :D: www.ctrlaltdel-online.com www.userfriendly.org

07-19-2006, 05:59 PM	#36 (permalink)
mfraley65 New Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 2	Yeah, i relized it was a year old when i posted(came across it on a search somehow) but was just messing around. Also, as we all know there is so much miss information around on the web and so many people that are never wrong even when they are. This makes getting proper information out to people that need it. Anyway, after viewing the site i have seen there are some very knowledgable people on here and i can browse the forum for ideas i haven't had. Now if i could just get these computers(and the good folks working with them) to do all my work without my presence i may be able to finish my car.

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