MHZ vs. MHZ

This is the place where all heated debates shall reside. Non-tech topics allowed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. "Enter at your own Risk".

Moderator: The Mod Squad

Postby Johnny Mnemonic » Mon Jul 08, 2002 5:44 am

This is my perspective on the whole matter....

AMD's current "top dog":
AMD XP 2200+ (1.8Ghz) $220.00

Intel's top dog:
P4 2.53Ghz 512k 533Mhz $638.00
-- or --
p4 2.4BGhz 533Mhz@ $386.00
-- or --
p4 2.4Ghz 400Mhz @ $358.00

Intel has the performance advantage right now, that is for sure, but you will be paying for it. All of the chips mentioned above probably cost around 50-75 bucks (guesstimate) to manufacture and ship.

Intel (Profit inside) :P
0100101001001101
Image
Johnny Mnemonic
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 1:01 am
Location: McKinney, Tx

Postby andrey » Mon Jul 08, 2002 10:45 am

If AMD named their processors by the actual mhz rating, then the sales would suffer. if AMD named the chips by their PR rating ( say, instead of 1800+, it would be 1.8) then they would get sued for libel by someone. so their naming scheme is just fine.

however, yes, AMD does beat out on performance. however, because thats the way the chip is oriented (at performance), it has a very tough time getting mhz. so, you'll obviously suffer with games that rely on pure mhz power (Commanche 4), but you'll gain on games that rely on intensive computing, and the like.

hammer, as they say, could get interesting....
________
Toyota Vios history
Last edited by andrey on Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
andrey
Black Belt
Black Belt
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2002 1:01 am

Postby undying fenix » Tue Jul 09, 2002 12:43 am

You are thinking of AMD Athlon XP 2000. AMD doesnt rate their processors by Mhz or Ghz. They rate theirs at the speed of how fast functions are finished. They explain the entire thing at the AMD site. An AMD Athlon XP 1800 is roughly 1.53 Ghz, but they run at faster speeds than an Intel Pentium 4 would. Tests come back saying that AMD is slower by a technical definition (aka ghz), but actually, they run much faster, its just not shown they way an Intel is. :o The numbers that AMD uses really serve no purpose other than to show one is better than the other, so you cannot compare numbers with other companies. By the way, AMD is better :!: :!: 8)

_____________________________________________________________

Now that truly is a good idea :idea:

You are now entering... The Twilight Zone.
undying fenix
Green Belt
Green Belt
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 12:36 pm
Location: Texa$$

Postby Brijm » Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:38 pm

Also, chipset and supporting hardware make a big difference. Clock speed isn't everything. I remember seeing a article about 6 - 9 months ago, that had a 1.2g Compaq (AMD I think) in performance tests beating the bejesus out of the fastest 1.5g Intels, and AMDs

Also the argument I always hear for rambus is faster clock speed, but most of the performance tests and reviews I've seen says that rambus barely beats DDR or SDRAM in a few tests, and it's slower in most test; basically didn't recommend Ramus over SDRAM. These reviews where about the time the DDR was just coming out. if anybody has seen more recent I would appreciate a reply.
Brijm
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 2:02 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN

Postby Aibohphobia » Tue Jul 09, 2002 7:40 pm

Hmmm.. okay sorry to burst you AMD fanboy's bubble, but unless you are talking about an XP2200 versus a P4 2.2ghz, then there is no real competition against the high-end AMD's versus the high-end Intel CPU's. the fastest Intel CPU, [I think it's a 2.53ghz] is much faster than the XP2200 in almost every way--90% of tasks. AMD chips currently get more out of the megahert, but they can't match up to the Intel CPU's having much more megahertz--they simply win by brute force. Intel is better, as in faster high-end chips.

Now, if you want to go in to the low-end, budget sector then AMD can sometimes be better depending on how much you want to pay. AMD is not putting a competitive effort in to winning over Intel now, which will hopefully change by Christmas if they expect to sway some people in to buying AMD over Intel. And Intel's are the overclocker's chip most definitely.

As for RDRam versus DDRam, RDRAM is definitely faster--in most tasks--if you are talking about the RDRam 1066mhz versus DDR400--again winning by brute force of megahertz. RDRAM 800 is equivalent, i believe, to DDR400, so in order for an equal-sized DDR chip to beat the 1066mhz RD alternative, it would have to measure at 533mhz, which is not going to come out any time soon. Check out www.tomshardware.com to get more information.
Aibohphobia
Black Belt
Black Belt
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 1:01 am

Postby Brijm » Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:49 pm

First of all, I'm not a fan of any paticular brand Intel or AMD. I'm actually planning on building a P4. I was just pointing out, that many times yahoos on the net or buddies making recommendations look at completly the wrong things. Speed doesn't matter if the performance is worse. I ussually look for good reviews that test performance in various applications and equally test the individual product as much as possible. It doesn't matter if you can run 2x as fast, if you take a path that is 3x as long.

As for the article from tomshardware it is one of the better artilces I've read for Rambus, and I would be more likely to look at Rambus, but they didn't have a good real life comparison between DDR and Rambus. The only comparison between the two is quake 3 frames / sec. and they where using theoretical numbers from chipsets that don't exist yet. Also I've seen early performance tests for Rambus (unfortunately I didn't bookmark the site) where they did very well at the popular Quake 3 test (almost designed for it); however suffered at other tests compared to SDRAM on an Intel board. DDR was just out, and not available on Intel yet, so they didn't test it (again couldn't isolate the RAM test from processor, and chipset) I considered this a good test.

Overall, I just recommend you look at real life performance numbers, and try to avoid misconceptions by people who don't know what they are talking about. I had a friend who highly recommends Rambus, but his only comparison is his old adequated machine he upgraded from. I'm sure it's better than a 400 MHZ but that doesn't make it the best.
Brijm
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 2:02 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN

Postby Johnny Mnemonic » Tue Jul 09, 2002 9:20 pm

Cmon Peter, aren't you rehashing the same stuff said before you?

Intel Northwood platform is at .13 micron vs the AMD XP's at .18 microns. That's part of the bottleneck right there.

Intel's P3's have higher IPC than current P4's. That's sad by a pure engineering stand point.

So Intel has to lead by pure Mhz speed, and You will have to pay for it too. (Again see posts above)

Sorry, I'll spend about 40% what you will pay for the cutting edge Intel chip, and "settle" for the "low end" AMD chip, which probably scores maybe 5 less FPS when playing a computer game. (And that amounts to squat when you are already pushing over 90 FPS)

Now Intel is the company that offers the best performing chip right now. However AMD has been winning the bang for buck award for quite some time now. And before anyone compares the bang for buck argument for low rent performance, again, let me say that 4 extra FPS of quake means nothing when you already have over 100 FPS or so!
0100101001001101
Image
Johnny Mnemonic
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 1:01 am
Location: McKinney, Tx

Postby Aibohphobia » Tue Jul 09, 2002 10:07 pm

Johnny Mnemonic wrote:Cmon Peter, aren't you rehashing the same stuff said before you?


Oh i'm sorry :oops: .
I agree that I would rather pay 40% less for a marginally slower AMD chip than an Intel chip, but that is just because I am cheap and I don't know what other people would do in that situation. In the next few years--I have an XP1800 now--I will have to come to the decision as to upgrade to the newest AMD chip or the Intel chip, and I am now considering Intel for longer life, especially in games because that is why I would upgrade. I also like the reliability of Intel and the fact that it's a bigger company.

Now when AMD starts putting more cache's on their chips they may be more competitive to the high-end Intel. I merely wanted to say that AMD seems to be delaying on getting more megahertz out of their chips, like Apple. This is why I compared AMD fanboys to Mac's.

I know this for sure: Intel makes better chipsets versus AMD chipsets--i850 verus AMD761, and succeed in making almost all motherboards have the same performance.

I just wanted to get my :evil: hatred :evil: for my AMD computer out of the way. For performance and reliability, regardless of cost, I would take an Intel cpu over an AMD any day, but my budget would probably get me stuck back in to AMD. Of course in the future Intels and AMDs should cost a lot less so maybe it won't be such an issue. And also I don't know what is going to happen to RDRAM any more.. they seem to be making a comeback which is good for high-end Intel's.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, my short-term memory is getting bad, I had better start taking that one herb, oh what's its damn name..
Aibohphobia
Black Belt
Black Belt
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 1:01 am

Postby datektrader21 » Tue Jul 09, 2002 10:39 pm

peter wrote:I know this for sure: Intel makes better chipsets versus AMD chipsets--i850 verus AMD761, and succeed in making almost all motherboards have the same performance.



well you can't really fault Amd with their chipset design. since they really only make chipsets when the third party ones have problems. they really don't like to.
Last edited by datektrader21 on Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Two muffins are baking in an oven. one muffin says to the other,"hey man its getting pretty hot in here" "Holy $%^!@#" the other muffin replys " A talking muffin!" MaximMAg
datektrader21
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 12:01 am
Location: L.A.

Postby Johnny Mnemonic » Wed Jul 10, 2002 4:47 am

AMD is doing pretty good for a company with ~20% market share (vs. Intel's ~80%). Don't forget that the Northwoods do have more cache, and smaller micron size.
The Thoroughbred will bring the pure Mhz war back into balance, and the Barton, I believe will push AMD back into the top performance lead. Then it'll likely be 64-bit chips from both camps. Not sure what Intel is up to, but the Hammer series by AMD looks cool.
0100101001001101
Image
Johnny Mnemonic
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 1:01 am
Location: McKinney, Tx

PreviousNext

Return to The Hundred Year War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bdub and 0 guests