AMD performance

skidude

skidude

Active Member
With my new computer, I am getting an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (operates at 2.1 gHz). In terms of an Intel processor, what will mine be like?? (ex- a 2800+ would be like an Intel Pentium 4 (so and so) gHz. I know Intel processors and this is my first computer with an AMD Athlon 64, so if you could relate this processor to an Intel one it would really help me understand what kind of speed I'm getting.
 
Think of it this way... 3000 refers to 3000MHz, which equals 3GHz. So in your case, it would be comparable to a 3GHz P4.
 
j0hn00 said:
Think of it this way... 3000 refers to 3000MHz, which equals 3GHz. So in your case, it would be comparable to a 3GHz P4.
Click to expand...
That isn't the case. For one, you are comparing a 64-bit CPU to a 32 bit. Also, the performance rating wasn't meant to be the Intel equivalent. That was almost the case back in the earlier AMD XP days, but as the speeds increased it became less and less accurate.

As far as I know, the first XP was the 1600+ at 1.4 GHz. Since then, for each approx. 66 MHz speed increase they have done a full 100 increase in the performance rating (i.e. 1800+ at 1.53, 2100+ at 1.733).

What you say was pretty much the case for a while, but now it is no longer the case. An AMD 64 3000+ can not be compared with a P4 3.0 GHz accurately. Go into Intel’s 64-bit lineup and it will be easier to find a comparable chip, but don't think that the performance rating is the Intel equivalent speed.
 
So are you saying that my 3000+ will be faster (not in MHz wise, but in just plain speed) than a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4???
 
Palatzo said:
That isn't the case. For one, you are comparing a 64-bit CPU to a 32 bit. Also, the performance rating wasn't meant to be the Intel equivalent. That was almost the case back in the earlier AMD XP days, but as the speeds increased it became less and less accurate.

As far as I know, the first XP was the 1600+ at 1.4 GHz. Since then, for each approx. 66 MHz speed increase they have done a full 100 increase in the performance rating (i.e. 1800+ at 1.53, 2100+ at 1.733).

What you say was pretty much the case for a while, but now it is no longer the case. An AMD 64 3000+ can not be compared with a P4 3.0 GHz accurately. Go into Intel’s 64-bit lineup and it will be easier to find a comparable chip, but don't think that the performance rating is the Intel equivalent speed.
Click to expand...

intel 5x1 and 6xx series exists for a reason
 
An Amd 3000+ is kind of 'more or less' than a 3 G Pentium, it depens on the application that you're running...
 
You could rougly base it on that before when they were both 32bit CPU's, but i don't think the AMD64 numbers are really that equivilent in Ghz to Intel's 32bit
 
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (operates at 2.1 gHz).
Click to expand...
Unless thats a typo or your have a hacked out chip, it runs at 2.0Ghz or 1.8Ghz

Think of it this way... 3000 refers to 3000MHz, which equals 3GHz. So in your case, it would be comparable to a 3GHz P4.
Click to expand...
Except it doesnt. Numerics are coincidental (from a technical standpoint) and intentional (from a marketing standpoint).

For one, you are comparing a 64-bit CPU to a 32 bit.
Click to expand...
Granted you are ... but (1) the Pentium4 3.0Ghz chip has been discontinued and (2) the fact that it's a 64bit processor (or 32bit) doesnt matter

As far as I know, the first XP was the 1600+ at 1.4 GHz
Click to expand...
AMD AthlonXP 1500+
Core Clock = 133Mhz
Core = Palomino
Multiplier = 10.0x
Process = 180nm
Vcore = 1.75W
Max Core Temp = 90ºC

So are you saying that my 3000+ will be faster (not in MHz wise, but in just plain speed) than a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4???
Click to expand...
No. The Pentium4 is faster (because speed is measured in Hz and the Pentium4 has more of them). But a faster chip does not mean better performance

intel 5x1 and 6xx series exists for a reason
Click to expand...
Yes but the comparison was to a Socket478 chip rather than a LGA775 one

An Amd 3000+ is kind of 'more or less' than a 3 G Pentium, it depens on the application that you're running...
Click to expand...
As long as we note the caveate that it's more or less by a factor of 50%

You could rougly base it on that before when they were both 32bit CPU's, but i don't think the AMD64 numbers are really that equivilent in Ghz to Intel's 32bit
Click to expand...
As long as we realize that the address bus size doesnt matter

CPU 101.
 
So, my AMD that I am getting MAY have better performance than a Pentium 4, because I chose AMD because people say they are better for games, and I am a serious gamer.....
 
So, my AMD that I am getting MAY have better performance than a Pentium 4, because I chose AMD because people say they are better for games, and I am a serious gamer.....
Click to expand...
AMD are better for games. And that AMD will be better than than some P4's of the same class, and will be better at gaiming than the s478 3ghz p4
 
Alright, that is making me rest easier now that my games will run smooth (I have some system hogs like Doom 3, HL2, and BF2)!!!
 
So, my AMD that I am getting MAY have better performance than a Pentium 4, because I chose AMD because people say they are better for games, and I am a serious gamer.....
Click to expand...
For gaming you will most likely have much better performance with an AMD (k8 box) than an Intel box. This is due to the integrated memory controller which cuts down on the memory access latencies. Now for non-gaming tasks ... it then depends on the task :)

Alright, that is making me rest easier now that my games will run smooth (I have some system hogs like Doom 3, HL2, and BF2)!!!
Click to expand...
That has nothing per se to do with the CPU. Your CPU is more than sufficient to handle the game ... what you're bottlenecked by is the videocard. ... upgrade that and yer set :)
 
Ahhhhhh, I see now. Also, anyone know if Foxconn makes good motherboards? I got one of theirs, its a PCI-E one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top