Probably a dumb quick question

[SamIam89]

Why is it that AMD processors run about 1ghz slower than Intels but get better performance?

Ex: 3.6 Intel comparable to 2.0 AMD

 

[jac006]

Well, higher fsb, own on-die memory controller (which makes amd ahead of intel in games), and the quality of the heat production. As in, intel runs hot and has to slow down to cool itself, whereas amd runs cool and goes fast because it's not hot. Yeah.

 

[catalyst1]

Basically, Intels run physically faster, but AMDs work harder.

 

[Dishdog]

AMD 1GHz isn't equal to Intels 1GHz. I don't know the exact ratio between the two but a AMD 64 3200 i belive is equal to a Intel p4 3.0GHz.

Well, higher fsb, own on-die memory controller (which makes amd ahead of intel in games), and the quality of the heat production. As in, intel runs hot and has to slow down to cool itself, whereas amd runs cool and goes fast because it's not hot. Yeah.

It doesn't have to slow done because of the heat. They are made to with stand the heat very well, so the heat has little effect on the speed of the CPU.

 

[Half Evil]

for some reason, im sticking with intel....

 

[catalyst1]

Basically the AMD numbers like 3000+ and 3500+ roughly equate the speed of an Intel processor. So if you have an AMD 3000+, it runs at about the speed of a 3.0GHz Intel processor.

 

[TRDCorolla1]

I wish AMD didn't have to do that with the rating system and all. Average consumers get confused at that. For the people that do know about it, we're use to it. Basically the higher the number, the better.

 

[alvino]

AMD's have a higher IPC (Instructions Per Clock) than Intel processors. The integrated memory controller aids it signifigantly in reducing latency between the RAM. AMD's use less power, and run cooler than the Prescrap processors.

 

[rdcmmnst]

i know that amd ranks its processors at 3000+ or 3500+ but is it really true i have heard that it's just a myth.