intel 32-bit processor vs. intel 64-bit processor

T

thereckerdbraikr

Member
is a pentium 4 630(64-bit) running at 3.0GHz faster than a pentium 4 processor 540 (32-bit)running at 3.2 GHz

im asking this because i know that the 600's in the pentium 4's are 64-bit (ive read some good things about 64 bit processors, but i figured it would be better if i asked the question directly) and pentium 4's in the 500's are 32-bit and I want to know which one i would be bettter off getting....

from my research i have read that 64 bits go fater and smoother than 32 bits......

i wanna hear what you guys/girls think though, maybe i have the wrong idea about this

thanks..
 
well im a student so like internet, powerpoint, word, movie editor, maybe some music........stuff like that, probably not any games, i dont really like to play games on PC, except for Sims....i dont think that it is anything heavy duty, but i dont want my computer to be slow....i need speed
 
is a pentium 4 630(64-bit) running at 3.0GHz faster than a pentium 4 processor 540 (32-bit)running at 3.2 GHz
Click to expand...
No. A 600 series only performs slightly better than it's 500 series counterpart
 
Cromewell said:
No. A 600 series only performs slightly better than it's 500 series counterpart
Click to expand...

from what i've seen the 6xx dominates the 5xx series. the 6xx with HT disabled is as good as the amd fx series. have yet to find a benchmark where they dont disable HT. the 6xx also has 2 mb of L2 cache.
 
Well that 2MB of cache that has 17% higher latencies than the 1MB. How do you define 'dominates?'
6351.png

6344.png

6326.png

I could go on but the only app that sees a durastic improvement is Maya, where the 2MB makes a big difference for holding the large models close to the execution unit.
 
Cromewell are you saying that if you have more cache your computer has a higher chance of going slower?
Click to expand...
no he's not, but if you cram more cache on there (as intel have) you need to cut back on the latencies of that cache - in other words you have more cache L2 memory, but what you have is less efficient, so its a trade off
 
Cromewell are you saying that if you have more cache your computer has a higher chance of going slower?
Click to expand...
apj101 has it but on die cache runs at the core speed, with larger caches there is more that it has to search through so all else being equal (same core clock speed) on average it's going to take longer to search through
 
from what i saw in that link, alot of the AMD's were beating the intel chips with a lower clock speed....how come?
Click to expand...

apj101 said:
Why buy an AMD processor when and Intel one has a higher clock speed?
It is true that AMD's processors run at slower clock speeds (i.e., AMD Athlon64 3500+ runs at 2.2GHz, and a comparitive, the Intel Pentium4 550 runs at 3.4GHz). It is also true, as noted above, this does not matter. The point is that Clock speeds are not the be all and end all factor to determine performance

The architecture of the 2 manufacturers products are totally different. AMD's chips are designed such that they have a shorter pipeline, this being a sort of conveyor belt of instructions, than Intel's chips. This means, again in lay terms, that AMD's processors can perform more work per cycle which is why they get away with slower clock speeds and still offer comparable (and sometimes superior). So you see that clock speeds are not to be used to compare between the two chiptypes.

Back in the days of the AthlonXP, AMD took to naming their chips using something called a performance rating. Officially this was meant as a meant of measuring the performance of the chips, however consumers began using the numbers to compare the XPs against the Intel's Pentium4 processors(which was AMDs real intent for the naming system). Thus, people often drew a comparison between, say an AthlonXP 3000+ and a Pentium4 3.0GHz, likewise the AthlonXP 2800+ was to be compared to the Pentium4 2.8GHz. To a degree, these comparisons were valid and held however there are many exceptions (i.e., the ratings do not compare as evenly as the clock speeds begin to get higher)

Interestingly Intel who long named there chips after clock speed, also use an indexed scale for processor designation. See
Intel's website for more details. If it's not obvious, this should be an indication that clock speed alone is having a less and less role in overall chip performance.

Recap

* Clock speed don't solely determine performance
* AMD operate at lower clock speeds
* AMD and Intel use a performance rating naming system.
Click to expand...

found at CPU 101
 
so an AMD 64 3200 can run just as fast as almost any intel?
Click to expand...
Not a chance. The AMD 3200 runs ballpark 2.0GHz ... you'd be hard pressed to OC it to match 3.8Ghz on Intel's flagship chips. Performancewise however, is a different story ... it'll keep up with most of what you'll need to do :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top