Processors- help (2 Viewers)

[Serius]

ok iam really really confused...

how do you compare AMD processors to intel processors?

this AMD processor

AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 San Diego 1GHz HT Socket 939 Processor Model ADAFX57BNBOX - Retail

64 bit Support: Yes
Hyper-Transport Support: Yes
L1 Cache: 64KB+64KB
L2 Cache: 1MB
Multi-Core: Single-Core
Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, 3DNOW! Professional
Operating Frequency: 2.8GHz
Process Type: 90 nm
Series: Athlon 64 FX
Voltage: 1.35-1.4V

Model #: ADAFX57BNBOX
Item #: N82E16819103558

is said to blow the shit out of the 670 when using single threaded applications[e.g most games]

Intel Pentium 4 670 Prescott 800MHz FSB LGA 775 EM64T Processor Model BX80547PG3800F - Retail
64 bit Support: Yes
Hyper-Threading Support: Yes
L1 Cache: 12KB+16KB
L2 Cache: 2MB
Multi-Core: Single-Core
Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3
Operating Frequency: 3.8GHz
Process Type: 90 nm
Series: Pentium 4
Voltage: 1.25-1.388V

Model #: BX80547PG3800F
Item #: N82E16819116203

now i thought[having only used intel before] that processors are mainly compared based on their clock speed
The fx-57 has a clock speed thats like 1GHZ lower than the pentium, and yet in benchmarks i have seen the fx57 consistantly does 15-20% better in most games

so... how do i compare them? i am thinking that either the AMD GHZ is different to the Intel one[something to do with pentium being quad pumped maybe?] or something else, so is like 2GHZ of AMd worth like 3 GHZ of Intel?

basically most of the other numbers and figures mean little to nothing to me, like i understand them e.g the voltage range, but i dont know how it would effect performance...


the reason i am asking is cause iam trying to build a gaming pc[as some of you might have noticed from the previous threads] and what processor i pick is becoming a pretty big choice, i was thinking opteron cause of stabilty, but then i was like "can only overclock to 2.6? fuck that my p4 is overclocked to 2.4 rock solide right now, if i wanted 2.6 i could probably push it a bit further"

now i am wondering if they can just be compared like that?

 

[Calculon]

Generally using benchmarks and the "plus" number of the AMD processor to compare works fine.

 

[insert-username]

Clockspeed isn't everything. Processor speed also has a lot to do with the efficiency of the internal architecture of the processor, and in this regard AMD is streets ahead of Intel (for now). The Fx-57 outperforms the 670 almost across the board, and I'd go with the AMD chip in this case.


I_F

 

[loquasagacious]

As waf said, the 'plus number' for the AMDs eg an AMD 3200+ (which may be clocked at say 2.6Ghz) performs on par with an Intel clocked at 3.2Ghz....

 

[Templar]

The A64 3200+ is most likely to be clocked at 2.0GHz or 2.2GHz, max.

AMD and Intel deploy different architectures, making it impossible to come up with a simplified method for comparing performance. The following is a simplified generalisation.

The A64 architecture has a larger L1 cache than Intel's Netburst, which aids game playing. In addition AMD's built in memory controller is more efficient than Intel's northbridge and this reduces latency. Both aids game playing situations. In addition AMD's <20 stage pipeline (can't remember exact figure) is far less than Prescott's 31, and in a situation where data is called up unpredictably a shorter pipeline matters far greater than clockspeed.

An Opteron that can overclock to 2.6GHz on air is pretty impressive. A few select chips will go 2.8GHz, but that's highly unlikely for a beginner like you to achieve, since it depends on a lot of knowledge and luck (in a particular chip might just have higher potential).

While the explanation a 3200+ is equivalent to a 3.2GHz, in gaming there is a trend that the AMD will perform better than the Intel with the labelled clockspeed, with an exception in 3DMark06 (assuming that Intel's Hyperthreading gives it the upper edge).

For your gaming PC, it's far better to spend more on a graphics card than the extra on the CPU to get a FX series, unless you have a lot of money.

 

[vizman]

when comparing AMD and Intel clockspeed is almost irrelavant

for instance, a P4. 3.4ghz vs an AMD 3400+, although the p3 runs clock at 3.4ghz, the amd runs at 2.2ghz i think; what it means is they are direct competitors in terms of performance

 

[Templar]

for instance, a P4. 3.4ghz vs an AMD 3400+, although the p3 runs clock at 3.4ghz, the amd runs at 2.2ghz i think; what it means is they are direct competitors in terms of performance

Just to nitpick, I've never seen a 3400+, only 3500+.

 

[Serius]

so overclocking an opteron is likely to give performance equal to if not better than higher end Intel chips?

i am not very knowledgeable at overclocking, like ive had a stab at it but dont have all the programs that the pros use[ nor know how to use them or what they mean] so i guess ill have to have a tinker

 

[Templar]

The price to performance ratio of AMD Opterons are far superior to any Intel Netburst offerings. Even without overclocking it would be superior to most Intel chips.

You don't need special software for overclocking, you just need a capable BIOS and know how (especially for AMD). DFI makes one of the best, if not best, boards for AMD overclocking.

 

[Serius]

i thought you are supposed to use things like temperature monitoring, something that gives an accurate measurement of cpu clock speed, super pi, various other shit that i always see people using...

 

[STx]

yeah, definitely go with the amd for now anyway or wait for for intels Conroe, which is coming Q3 (Jul-Sept) apparently.

 

[Templar]

For both the AMD and Intel camp the best option now is to wait. AM2 is about to be released from AMD, and Conroe is coming soon from Intel. There is no reason to buy an obsolete processor with minimal upgrade paths.

To monitor the temperature of the system to prevent overheat, Motherboard Monitor is a good software to do that. SuperPi is used primarily for benchmarking but also to stress the CPU when overclocked to make sure it does not overheat. To check whether it returns errors, in my opinion Prime95 from GIMPS is a much better program to stress the processors. There are a few other software for testing stability etc, but these are the main ones, and best of all, all are freeware.

 

[weiwern28]

yeah, definitely go with the amd for now anyway or wait for for intels Conroe, which is coming Q3 (Jul-Sept) apparently.

For both the AMD and Intel camp the best option now is to wait. AM2 is about to be released from AMD, and Conroe is coming soon from Intel. There is no reason to buy an obsolete processor with minimal upgrade paths.

Definitely wait for Conroe which is expected to arrive Quarter 4. You can check out its performance here http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=3. As for AM2, its a platform which will not have such an impact on processor peformance, you can see it for yourself here http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2738

 

[Templar]

The Conroe performance benchmarks should be read cautiously as it is not performed by a 3rd party entirely but rather with Intel prepared systems. I am not suggesting that it was staged but caution should be used.

While I personally believe AM2 even at DDR2 800 will deliver minimal increases in performance I would rather wait. Socket 939 is becoming obsolete very soon and this will leave you with no upgrade path.