AMD Processors - Please Can Someone Explain?

That chart is BS, the PR ratings on AMD's CPU's do not correspond with Intel's netburst-based processors. Even on AMD's site, they say the PR ratings are only to compare AMD processors of the same model class, such as an A64 3000+ and an A64 3700+.

And everyone has known for the past several years that the Athlon 64 series has owned the netburst-based Intel processors clock for clock, but Intel's current Core 2 Duo line smacks the hell out of the A64.

Sirantony, you seriously need to shut up.
 
ha ha, Look at the benchmark test!!!
Click to expand...

I looked at those benchmarks, Pentium D 830 was overall much better. Even Pentium 4 3.0GHz performed better than 3300+ in many cases

by the way, someone said, its just one processor which is better than Intels but if you look at the top of the benchmark test there is another one, which is even more embarrassing for Intel since that AMD processor has such a small clock rate compared to it!!!
Click to expand...

Note: In dual core processors you don't multiply the speed by two. Only multi-threaded applications can take take the advantage of dual core.

compare an AMD x2 to an Intels x2, AMD is still seamingly better!
Click to expand...

But AMD 4200+ is not on par with PD 4.2GHz as many people claim.

And currently Intel Core 2 is the fastest processor
 
Clock speed is pretty much irrelevant, unless comparing processors of the same families, (eg: comparing pentium 4's to other pentium 4's) due to each processor type having different architecture. Comparing an A64 to a P4 on clock speed is like comparing chalk and cheese, it's not plausable. The A64's smacked the P4's and the Pentium D's (on single threaded apps), because they were built better, and ran cooler as well. But the Core 2 Duos just kill any AMD processor at the moment. And how did you pull out that an Athlon 4200+ has a theoritical clock speed of 4.2 ghz? That's not right at all, although I don't know the reason behind the way AMD named there processors. Further more, just because you have a multi-core processor doesn't mean you double the clock speed, because most applications are single threaded, and are unable to take advantage of multiple cores.

Cheers, Mitch.
 
ha ha.

I was speculating. (i dont think you read the original post properly :) )

By the way, in my view, intels 4.2GHz processor should be twice as fast as AMDs 4200+ processor but its not, if AMD's crappy 2.2 can keep up with intels friggin' 4.2GHz, then is obvious which is the best (and the best is cheaper too!)

Ant...

Im going to leave it here because i can tell that for some reason, some of you are biased!

Thanks guys.
 
Last edited:
The Intel 4.2GHz CPU though would cause the local area to melt down from the heat whereas the AMD would stay fairly cool. That's where AMD's beat the NetBurst CPU's.
 
If you want to compare AMD to Intel at the current time, Intel is kicking the dirt into AMD's face, the conroes are killing everything AMD throw at them. If you OCed a conroe and a Windsor to 4.2ghz each, the conroe would beat the Windsor. And of cause people are biased, but mainly because the truth is that Intel are winning at the moment.
 
Im going to leave it here because i can tell that for some reason, some of you are biased!
Click to expand...

Can you show how we are biased ? Is saying the truth makes us biased ?

I think you are only one who is biased.

In you first post you claimed that 4200+ is acts like an intel dual core running at 4.2GHz !!!!

By the way, in my view, intels 4.2GHz processor should be twice as fast as AMDs 4200+ processor but its not
Click to expand...

Intel 4.2GHz would be faster. However, no one here said that it is twice as fast.

AMD's crappy 2.2 can keep up with intels friggin' 4.2GHz, then is obvious which is the best (and the best is cheaper too!)
Click to expand...

The best processor in my opinion is the ones that have the best performance/power consumption/price ratio

However, if you want to compare clock for clock, then yes AMD Athlon would be beat Pentium 4/D. However, Intel Core 2 Duo beats Athlon64.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top