Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-17-2006, 05:10 AM   #1
In Runtime
 
Logan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 265
Send a message via AIM to Logan Send a message via MSN to Logan
Default confused

in researching cpus i googled "what to look for in a cpu" and it said Ghz, cache size, and die size. cache and die are eazy, bigger cache and smaller dies are better. but it said the more Ghz the better but there seems to be a seperation between AMD and Intel. on newegg the only two cpus over $1000 are an AMD and an Intel but the Intel has 3.46 Ghz and the AMD has 2.6. Why?
__________________

__________________
So it Goes.
Logan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 09:10 AM   #2
Baseband Member
 
parsons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 84
Default Re: confused

thats the frequency when shoping for amd and compareing it to intel you dont look at the frequency's(when compareing), all amd are named like so "amd 3500+" that "3500" is the number that the cpu is rated for when compareing it to the intel chips... amd 3500 equals a 3.5 intel (roughly) but thats how it works.
__________________

__________________
Win XP Pro Sp2 | Mobo: MSI RS482M2/RX482M2 (MS-7093)|AMD Athlon 64, 3500+ 2.5Ghz* |1GB Dual channel (2 X 512 MB DDR PC3200 Kingston) | MSI ATI Radeon X1300 Pro 256MB PCI-E 621/854* | Creative SB Live! 24-bit |HDs 400 gigs (2 x 200GB Raid 0) | HP DVDRW | TSSTcorp DVDRW | NSpire 450W Psu
parsons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 02:14 PM   #3
Baseband Member
 
SSE5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 48
Default Re: confused

That used to be a good way to compare processor performance since in a general sense, they were far closer to each other in architectural considerations such as pipeline length. However, given the dramatic differences seen in the AMD64/NetBurst architecture, it would be ignorant to directly compare frequency as a determining factor in performance. Clock for clock, an AMD64 is faster than a P4 due to it's shorter pipeline. However, if you are comparing direct series (D930 to a D950 - or an AMD 3200+ to a 3500+) - if all other features/variables are identical, frequency is how you determine which will perform faster.

There are other things - but those are all things you would look at in a processor. Frequency can be important for processors of the same series, cache is generally beneficial for all processors, and under a typical mentality, the more the better. And smaller dies are also better, since the processor then uses less energy and generates less heat.

The AMD has a shorter pipeline - that 2.6GHz AMD will be faster than the NetBurst Intel processor simply because of the efficiency of the architecture itself - and the speed at which instructions are executed due to the shorter pipeline. The same cannot be said for Intel's new Core architecture, which performs better than an AMD64 at a lower frequency - just as you see with that Intel and AMD. (The difference is less dramatic though, but still there)
SSE5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 06:05 PM   #4
In Runtime
 
Logan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 265
Send a message via AIM to Logan Send a message via MSN to Logan
Default Re: confused

oooohhhhh thank you very much now i understand.
__________________
So it Goes.
Logan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2006, 06:44 PM   #5
In Runtime
 
Quinton McLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 298
Default Re: confused

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSE5
That used to be a good way to compare processor performance since in a general sense, they were far closer to each other in architectural considerations such as pipeline length. However, given the dramatic differences seen in the AMD64/NetBurst architecture, it would be ignorant to directly compare frequency as a determining factor in performance. Clock for clock, an AMD64 is faster than a P4 due to it's shorter pipeline. However, if you are comparing direct series (D930 to a D950 - or an AMD 3200+ to a 3500+) - if all other features/variables are identical, frequency is how you determine which will perform faster.

There are other things - but those are all things you would look at in a processor. Frequency can be important for processors of the same series, cache is generally beneficial for all processors, and under a typical mentality, the more the better. And smaller dies are also better, since the processor then uses less energy and generates less heat.

The AMD has a shorter pipeline - that 2.6GHz AMD will be faster than the NetBurst Intel processor simply because of the efficiency of the architecture itself - and the speed at which instructions are executed due to the shorter pipeline. The same cannot be said for Intel's new Core architecture, which performs better than an AMD64 at a lower frequency - just as you see with that Intel and AMD. (The difference is less dramatic though, but still there)


This is false and based off ignorance.
You and ownage honestly think pipelines are the "determing" factor in processor speed. You're both wrong!

The reason why the K8 outperforms the Prescott and the Presler series of Pentium processors is because of memory effciency, core design and thermal output. The AMD64 features a more rebust architexture than the pentium series. The Integrated controller makes it easy for the processor to process data. The core design features way less bugs than the core design in the Pentium counterparts. Not only that, but the thermal output is much lower due to the fact that Intel pushed Netburst and it sucked.

Pipelines mean nothing. Intel wanted longer pipelines to boost higher frequencies than AMD, but AMD has always done more per clock.

The Conroe has no proof that it does this. You're living off the same hype Intel has brought with the Prescott and the Presler. Intel has done this before. This time isn't any more different.

If you want to look what makes a processor faster, look at the benchmarks. You cannot possibly determine a processors speeds based on specs alone.

The AMD Opteron 165 with 1mb L2 Cache will operate at the same speed of a 3800+ with 512 megs of cache. The cache is irrelevant in AMD processors due to the Integrated memory controller. This is why AMD processors like low latency memory.
__________________
The best quotes I've ever heard:
RaistlinZ - "I think God woke up one day (probably around Noon. dude likes to sleep in) and said to himself, "OMFG, these dinosaurs are just kicking too much ass. The world is not ready for them yet." "
Quinton McLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2006, 12:34 AM   #6
Baseband Member
 
SSE5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 48
Default Re: confused

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinton McLeod

This is false and based off ignorance.
You and ownage honestly think pipelines are the "determing" factor in processor speed. You're both wrong!

The reason why the K8 outperforms the Prescott and the Presler series of Pentium processors is because of memory effciency, core design and thermal output. The AMD64 features a more rebust architexture than the pentium series. The Integrated controller makes it easy for the processor to process data. The core design features way less bugs than the core design in the Pentium counterparts. Not only that, but the thermal output is much lower due to the fact that Intel pushed Netburst and it sucked.

Pipelines mean nothing. Intel wanted longer pipelines to boost higher frequencies than AMD, but AMD has always done more per clock.

The Conroe has no proof that it does this. You're living off the same hype Intel has brought with the Prescott and the Presler. Intel has done this before. This time isn't any more different.

If you want to look what makes a processor faster, look at the benchmarks. You cannot possibly determine a processors speeds based on specs alone.

The AMD Opteron 165 with 1mb L2 Cache will operate at the same speed of a 3800+ with 512 megs of cache. The cache is irrelevant in AMD processors due to the Integrated memory controller. This is why AMD processors like low latency memory.
I've never said it is the determining factor in performance - so you should probably refrain from taking an ignorant yet aggressive stance. I said that it is one thing that historically, and currently, determines the speed of your processor. If you compare two architecturally identical AMD64 processors with the same cache - one will notice that the reason one will perform better than the other is purely due to the higher core frequency. This is fact.

And I also never said the memory controller, or other core efficiencies of the AMD64 weren't factors to take into consideration - but they were not the key points I addressed when he asked his question. I made mention of other things, but I simply did not go into detail in them.

NetBurst, if we are to get into ignorant opinions, didn't suck. It is agreed that, although in comparison to the efficiency of the AMD64 architecture - hyper-pipelining only excelled in its desired task, which was media. But because NetBurst wasn't designed to originally compete against such an architecture (As much as it was made to scale upward in core frequency) things such as doubling of it's cache often decreased performance in many ways as well - since NetBurst was not built with such high cache in mind. The AMD64 however, was a new and efficient architecture built as a successor to the XPs - but this is hardly the argument, you seemed to have some misconception as if I was insulting AMD in some way. With the Intel 9XX Preslers, we finally began to see the direction NetBurst was intended to move in - where the XE Presler was even catching up (But still falling behind) the AMD64 - not bad for NetBurst, considering it competed with the XP. However, problems such as leakage were to blame for high temperatures, which made scaling difficult. The NetBurst architecture also needed a great deal of energy, that did not help. And the leakage was an issue that required yet another die shrink - but with Pentium M and AMD64 showing such success, it was obvious that NetBurst's days were over in favour of more efficient alternatives.

Pipelines mean nothing? So then by that logic - the longer pipeline of the P4 should have made no difference - so a Prescott should have identical performance to a Northwood at the same frequency. Oh no? Oh I see, this is not the case. You have presented nothing new with your argument here - we all know that frequency is not a very good determining factor of performance when not comparing identical architectures.

Those were actual benchmarks - you don't think Intel understands that we're all waiting for the processor when it launches in 4 months time? That we'll all be watching the benchmarks closely? But even if you look at the Conroe's architecture, it makes perfect sense that it beats and AMD64. Of course we will see - but doubting it is a fanboyish notion and ignorant at best. They were just benchmarks - if you hate Intel so much, try not to lash out at those who feel that the superior architecture won the benchmarks.

And likewise, benchmarks are not always a good determining factor with performance - as we have seen, even in actual gaming benchmarks, where an AMD64 dominates - we would see top-end Pentium 4s coming out on top. This is not a very good way to determine performance all the time - but benchmarks can be a good indicator of overall system performance.

You mean at 512KBs of cache, not megs. Regardless - where AMD64 is concerned, I don't believe I've seen evidence (Unlike the Pentium 4 NetBurst architecture) that would cause me to believe that the increased cache is useless and gains exponential latency with each addition. Extra cache can aid a processor - AMD64 or not, memory controller or not, it's still nice to have. No one was arguing as to whether or not the extra cache would aid the AMD64 more than it would a Pentium 4 (Which is yes and no).

I never said that pipelines are the determining factor in speed - but in certain applications it is, since an instruction that has to go through 31 stages still has to go through more than double what an AMD64's instruction must go through. With a little simple math, it makes sense that the AMD64 instruction would execute faster - the point of the NetBurst architecture, and something it did very well, was media. Hyper-pipelining with help of Intels very good branch predictor would fill the pipeline allowing excellent and sustained execution of a greater number of instructions. However, because of leakage and inefficiencies in NetBurst when compared to AMD64 and the Pentium M - it was abandoned in favour of superior processing alternatives.

Just to add to the fact that you are truly inept - you told me I thought pipeline was everything, but if you had actually read my response before jumping the gun with your fanboy attitude - you would have noticed this was not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSE5
There are other things - but those are all things you would look at in a processor. Frequency can be important for processors of the same series, cache is generally beneficial for all processors, and under a typical mentality, the more the better. And smaller dies are also better, since the processor then uses less energy and generates less heat.

The AMD has a shorter pipeline - that 2.6GHz AMD will be faster than the NetBurst Intel processor simply because of the efficiency of the architecture itself - and the speed at which instructions are executed due to the shorter pipeline. The same cannot be said for Intel's new Core architecture, which performs better than an AMD64 at a lower frequency - just as you see with that Intel and AMD. (The difference is less dramatic though, but still there)
SSE5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2006, 01:51 AM   #7
cma
Baseband Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 51
Default Re: confused

wow your post is confuse than quinton

now i am lost..

i will pretend not read this topic and search on real-life article on the internet or computer magazine ( my best advice)
__________________
sorry bout my bad english
----
http://www.OtakuDB.info
cma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2006, 02:51 AM   #8
Baseband Member
 
SSE5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 48
Default Re: confused

Quote:
Originally Posted by cma
wow your post is confuse than quinton

now i am lost..

i will pretend not read this topic and search on real-life article on the internet or computer magazine ( my best advice)
If my first post was confusing - perhaps computers aren't for you. Normally if people are confused about what things like architecture means (Especially when you put it in a context, like a CPU) there's not really a problem with the explanation itself, as much as the person reading it.

If you have questions - calling people confused, when you're the one "lost," is not a very positive thing. Real people ask questions they know can help answer their questions - if something confused you, it would have been more constructive to ask a question in your post than to exclaim your confusion and then go on saying "I will search for real-life article." "This didn't make sense to me - what is a pipeline?" = A useful question "Certainly - a pipeline is..." = A useful answer - these can only exist where meaningful questions exist.
SSE5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2006, 03:01 AM   #9
Wizard of Wires
 
setishock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Not sure
Posts: 10,030
Default Re: confused

Easy guys. Let's not make this a war. You are required by forum rules to have links to back up your claims. Let's see some hard facts or this thread gets closed.
__________________

setishock is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0