Amd 64

[rhinoman08]

Hey do the AMD 64 bit run higher in ghz then they say. They say they run at like 2.2 - 2.4 Ghz.

 

[Bigshow1030]

depends

I believe it depends truely on which one you get.....I have a 2800 and it is running at 1.96 stock.....with no oc'ing or anything.......

 

[deathbysunshine]

heres another thread thats been started thousands of times
amd clock speeds are diffferent than intels clock speeds
and even though it may say they are running slowly they are actually running equal to a higher ghz intel processor
ive heard thats a 1.8 ghz amd is equal to a 2.4 ghz intel

 

[Yeti]

AMD = slower clock speed, more efficient per clock cycle
Intel = higher clock speed, less efficient per clock cycle

 

[rhinoman08]

what would u recomend to buy? AMD better for gaming?

 

[Yeti]

what would u recomend to buy? AMD better for gaming?

That seems to be the eternal question (well, that and ATi or NVidia). Generally you'll hear AMD for games and Intel for mutimedia editing. Just go here to see how much this topic is debated.

 

[Bobo]

Hey do the AMD 64 bit run higher in ghz then they say.

Well, my 3400 runs at 2.41GHz....

 

[Praetor]

Hey do the AMD 64 bit run higher in ghz then they say

They?

 

[rhinoman08]

lol they sites on like hp, gateway and stuff

 

[Eddie Haskell]

2800 AMD = 2.8 Intel
3200 AMD = 3.2 Intel
3800 AMD = 3.8 Intel
Etc., Etc. Etc.
At least thats the way I understand it

 

[dave597]

2800 AMD = 2.8 Intel
3200 AMD = 3.2 Intel
3800 AMD = 3.8 Intel
Etc., Etc. Etc.
At least thats the way I understand it

thats vaguely true. i ran sisoft sandra and it compared my cpu to a 3.6 intel.

 

[loserpunkx182]

i'm pushin mine to 2.3 so i dont see how 3200's can't go higher

 

[rhinoman08]

wait so im confused who is right here, are u guys overclocking or what?

 

[dave597]

No, im not overclocking, im just saying comparisons based on benchmarks dont always relate to the number that intel use.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

The way I understand it is the AMD processor takes information and does multiple things to it at each step along it path, while the Intel processor does only a single thing at each step along the way requiring more steps. So the Amd is more efficent, but the Intel works faster so when the information comes out the other side they are about equal but you can't compare the numbers side by side because they work in different ways...hope that makes sense

 

[Yeti]

thats vaguely true. i ran sisoft sandra and it compared my cpu to a 3.6 intel.

Sandra benchmarks seem to be very optimistic. It puts my P4 3.4 Northwood at almost a 3.8 Prescott

 

[Praetor]

lol they sites on like hp, gateway and stuff

They do?

2800 AMD = 2.8 Intel
3200 AMD = 3.2 Intel
3800 AMD = 3.8 Intel
Etc., Etc. Etc.
At least thats the way I understand it

Not true. There's not a reason in the world to compare a 3200 with a 3.2 Intel (furthermore because there is no such thing ... Intel has hence abandoned any attempt to use Ghz as a measure of anything)

i ran sisoft sandra and it compared my cpu to a 3.6 intel.

Yeah but Sandra is dumb: http://www.computerforum.com/showthread.php?t=6159

 

[Eddie Haskell]

2800 AMD = 2.8 Intel
3200 AMD = 3.2 Intel
3800 AMD = 3.8 Intel
Etc., Etc. Etc.
At least thats the way I understand it

Not true. There's not a reason in the world to compare a 3200 with a 3.2 Intel (furthermore because there is no such thing ... Intel has hence abandoned any attempt to use Ghz as a measure of anything)

I was making a comparison, as I said thats the way understood how it worked, Why else would AMD call a 2.2Ghz a 3200? If that is not correct how would you compare them?

 

[dave597]

can u even compare the them? they are two different companies making different cpus for their specific mobos.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Good point.