Newsgroup: it.comp.hardware.cpu
Titolo: Intel or AMD?

Hi,
I've noticed that the new AMD Proccessors are call XP 1600, XP 1700, XP 1800
etc, but the actual speed of the XP 1600 for example is only 1.4 GHz.
Now does this compare to a P4 1.6Ghz or a P4 1.4Ghz. Also, consider the fact
the the P4 runs at a 400Mhz bus. To me it seems as if Intel comes out as the
sure winner over here. After all it seems as if P4 1.6Ghz is better than AMD
1.4Ghz,.
Please let me know if my deduction is right, or should I go for the AMD
Thanks

 wrote in
news:3c921...@news1.mweb.co.za
: 

I personally stick with AMD chips as they tend to be cheaper and better 
performance wise. The AMD ratings have been devised as the speed of the 
processor is not solely based upon the Mhz rating.
The AMD white paper explaining this rating is available from this link:
http://athlonxp.amd.com/technicalInformation/understandingPerformance.jsp
-- 
Colin
*Drop DEAD from the email address to reply*

 wrote in message
news:3c921...@news1.mweb.co.za...


, 
ak...@iafrica.com
 says...

Your deduction would be correct if all GHz were created equal.  Each 
machine takes a certain number of clock cycles to execute each 
instruction, with the exact number varying with instruction type and 
addressing mode.  In addition, modern processors can execute more than 
one instruction at a time.  Intel made some compromises in the design of 
the P4 intended to make it easier for them to scale it to high clock 
speeds.  Those compromises were such that on the average it takes a P4 
longer to execute a given set of instructions than it does an Athlon or 
P3 running at the same clock speed.  In practice Athlons outperform 
faster P4s in most benchmarks and in the real world.  They're also 
cheaper.
-- 
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

AMD chips do more instructions per clock cycle than Intel so yes, MHz
isn't tell all. Compare TBird 1.4 to a P4 1.6 and you'll see the AMD
come out on top, the XP1600+ at 1.4GHz will beat both, the XP does
more per clock cycle than the Tbird. The XP1600+ is so called as it
will perform like a TBird at 1.6GHz, which will way outstrip the
1.6GHz P4. The new Northwoods are better than the old P4 but I don't
know if they stack up to XP chips.


-- 
Antispam - all mail sent to sithlord@ gets deleted from server without me seeing it.

...

Hello Ari
The answer isn't so simple. I think you can find the answer in this article
http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s=1470&a=17284,00.asp
bye
Itzik

 wrote in message
news:3c921...@news1.mweb.co.za...

Generally speakin ghte Athlons' rating (say that XP1600) will perform around
10-percent faster than the Pentium-4 of the 1.6 Ghz speed.
The new Northwoods look to halve that to around 5-percent slower than the
comparible XP rated Athlon.
We know the "official" speel about the XP rating to relate the the T-bird,
but honestly many have already forgotten about that older version if the
Athlon. The "real world" effect (and I beleive the true- and unstated one)
is that the XP ratings line up with the clock speeds of the p4 and are rated
a little on the conservative side so as the p-4 gets more code optimized for
it and Athlon's rating will still be valid. (unlikes Cyrix's years ago).
--
An unjust king asked a devotee what kind of worship is best? He replied:
'For thee the best is to sleep one half of the day so as not to injure the
people for a while.'
I saw a tyrant sleeping half the day.
I said: 'This confusion, if sleep removes it, so much the better;
But he whose sleep is better than his wakefulness
Is better dead than leading such a bad life.'

Please let me know if my deduction is right, or should I go for the AMD
As you can probably see from the above benchmarks, there is no
clear-cut winner for every single application out there, in some cases
even the slowest AthlonXPs beat out the very fastest P4s, while in
other applications the opposite is true.
It should also be pointed out that the processor is only one part of
the system, and often a relatively small part when it comes to actual
performance.  If you look at this article:
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000212
You can see that the type of memory used and the motherboard chipset
can have a very serious impact on performance (though the above is
probably the most extreme case of this).  Video cards can also have a
tremendous impact on performance, particularly for games and for
workstation-type 3D graphics.  Hard drive performance is also
extremely important in determining how fast your system will be, and
even things like network cards and sound cards have an impact on the
overall system speed.

 wrote in message
news:i6979uc0qf7egp4pi...@4ax.com...


 wrote in message
news:3c921...@news1.mweb.co.za...


 wrote in message
news:21cl8.178764$Dl4.20...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
