why is AMD FX-53 so darn slow????

Status
Not open for further replies.

gizmo90

In Runtime
Messages
332
im looking in to AMD series CPU's and i was looking at the AMD FX-53.....its is only 2.4 Ghz!!!! why is it so slow? ar they expecting for people to OC it???? tell me more! Thanx!
 
2.4GHz is fast for an AMD processor. See, AMDs use shorter pipes and therefore can do more instructions per tick of the clock, so they don't need as fast of a clock speed. The AMD 3200+ that I have only runs at 2GHz, but is equivalent in speed to a P4 3.2GHz.
 
Interestingly, and don't quote me here, but I was told that AMD's advertised clock speeds are an Intel equivelent; i.e the actual clock speed for a 2.2ghz AMD is about half of that (1.1ghz-ish), but basiclly it's just as fast as a 2.2 Intel (shorter pipelines etc). Therefore a 3.2 Intel indeed has a faster core clock speed than a 2.4 AMD (but the latest AMD's being 64-bit more than make up for it).....

Any thoughts anyone?
 
DoomUK said:
Interestingly, and don't quote me here, but I was told that AMD's advertised clock speeds are an Intel equivelent; i.e the actual clock speed for a 2.2ghz AMD is about half of that (1.1ghz-ish), but basiclly it's just as fast as a 2.2 Intel (shorter pipelines etc). Therefore a 3.2 Intel indeed has a faster core clock speed than a 2.4 AMD (but the latest AMD's being 64-bit more than make up for it).....

Any thoughts anyone?
Hahaha, i quoted you. anyways, the equivalent is for the name of the AMD chip, not the actual speed. like my AMD Xp 2400 on my old comp is a 2.4 equivalent, but in reality the clock speed is 1.99ghz. so, the actual clock speed is right, the numbers in the name system is wrong. ie, the AMD 3200s are supposed to match an Itel 3.2, but in reality runs slower, but makes up for it.
 
64-bit capability does not have an impact on the comparisons with Intel.
 
but I was told that AMD's advertised clock speeds are an Intel equivelent

dern someone already beat me to it, but yeah what he said...it's the name of the chip you go by.

im looking in to AMD series CPU's and i was looking at the AMD FX-53.....its is only 2.4 Ghz!

Obviously an intel advocate...do some research before you start callin chips out slow...that AMD's already do more instructions per clock cycle as it is...much less with a 64bit chip. That's why I don't like Intels they are overpriced and get people like you hung up on the Gigahertz of the processor....which at this day in age the clockspeed of your chip is only one of many factors on how good of a machine you really have.

Intels use numbers to their advantage for people like you that don't know about AMD and just see 2.4GHz and you're think 'Psht well intel has 3.4GHz amd sucks' which is exactly what they want you to think...that 64bit has awesome power...and it doesn't need to be any faster than 2.4GHz because it can already withstand it's ground compared to a 3.0GHz+ Intel.....lol in another forum a guy said he liked intel cause they had 'Cooler chip setnames' and stuff like 'Hyper-threading' lol
 
:confused: Hmmm... nope, I'm sure it's the clock speed which is the Intel equivelent. Taking my CPU as an example, it's the equivelant to a 2.17ghz Intel, not a 3.0ghz...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom