why is AMD as fast as INTEL
- Thread starter geo3tech
- Start date
- Status
yeah that summed it up quite nice alecjahn. its funny, cause they are actually experiencing the same problem with hard drives. they cant make them much faster than 15,000RPM cause after that, the disk actually starts approaching the speed of sound. When somehting starts approaching the speed of sound, it starts becoming warped. Hence the problem....
Apokalipse
Golden Master
- Messages
- 14,559
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
if AMD went to 3GHZ they would perform even better against Intel's CPU's than they currently do they would make a Prescott overclocked to 3.6GHZ look really bad - currently the FX-53 is in the lead with performance even though it's only 2.4GHZ (or is it 2.2?)Regulus said:
crazybeans
In Runtime
- Messages
- 233
I haven't had the chance to try a computer system running the AMD Athlon 64 but when comparing the P4 Northwood to an Athlon XP I found Intel is much better and faster. I compared a system with an AMD Athlon XP 3000+ to a system with an Intel Pentium 4 2.8Ghz Northwood with an 800mhz FSB and HT Tech and found that the P4 was more than twice as fast as the Athlon when benchmarking with AquaMark3. The first system scored a 8,485 while the Intel scored a 16,225. I believe this to be the faster FSB, HT Tech, Dual Channel RAM, and a few other things not CPU related. Unfortunately his computer came equiped with an eVGA nVidia GeForce FX 5200 with 128MB RAM while the Intel system has an eVGA nVidia GeForce FX 5700 LE with 256MB RAM. Although the faster system has a better video card, I beg to challenge the fact that a video card swap would really give the AMD the upper hand. Anyways, I think I'll stick with Intel and hopefully they will come up with a 64-bit idea that's more stable than AMD and doesn't use performance ratings as I think they are a sorry idea and make AMD look like they are having trouble keeping up in the race.
Nubius
Golden Master
- Messages
- 11,599
lol yeah, what lazerman said. This is how bias'd opinions form and then flames are later produced. Simply from people not being educated in something they do not know. Obviously if AMD were putting out 64bit chips that couldn't compare past 2.5GHz they'd be out of the business by now
What really needs to be said is, Intel needs to stop being marketing whores and just showing off big numbers to people who don't know what these numbers represent. That's all Intel does. "BUY IT NOW!!! 3.6GHZ HT TECHNOLOGY!!" common consumer who buys dells and hp's and prebuilts alike, where Intels main source of income comes from, don't even know that AMD exists, probably doesn't know what HT TECHNOLOGY!!! even means, and doesn't know what the latest speeds are.
AMD IMO gets mad props for creating a chip that not only compares to the Intel chips quite easily, but also does more work off of lower clock speeds.
No offense regulus, but a statement like the one both lazerman and I quoted is basically an Intel bias'd uneducated answer. Not uneducated regarding computers, but towards the variety of CPU's and manufacturers out there. If you don't really know that much about another company, or what their product is capable of, then you really can't say things like 'AMD needs to pick up the pace'
- Status
