Best Processor For Gaming AMD or Intel P4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: AMD AThlon 3500

GoldRush65 said:
How does the speed compare when the Amd Athlon3500 winchester is 2.2Ghz and most P4 are 3.0 and up for cheaper

that 3000+ will beat a 3.2GHz standard P4 in almost all kinds of testing.

Now talk about a 3200+, it should beat the higher ended P4's as well (not EE editions) Overclocked it smokes any of the stock P4's i believe, even the higher end non-EE ones.

AMD makes there CPU's much more efficient than Intel's, therefore they don't need as many GHz to give you the same performance.

General comparison:

(a cycle roughly adds up to MHz/Ghz)

Intel does more clock cycles to give you a certain rate of performance. (3.0GHz ~ 6 processes a cycle)

AMD can do that work in the same amount of time, but with less clock cycles because it can do more work per cycle than Intel can (2.2GHz ~ 10 processes a cycle)

The AMD is "slower" GHz wise...but performs just as good as the "faster" 3.0 P4. Now...imagine if you got that 2.2GHz AMD to say 2.8Ghz range. It would take something like 4.6GHz P4 to cacth up...see how that works? If you only look at GHz then the AMD seems slower, but there's more than just GHz in a CPU, and you willl find it's awful hard to convince some people of that lol.
 
bah @ amd whores...

If your buyin ur computer and intending to keep it for a long time then buy an AMD

If not and you want to spend less get a pentium, all the benchmarker "know nothing" people will tell u that amd is best for games and it most likely is, but seeing as most games dont even use the maximum performance of most gfx cards/processors/ram then its not really an issue of AMD or intel..

amds cost more but are built for the future, intels cost less and I wouldnt complain if i still had my 3.2 in 3years
 
each clock cycle pushes a bit to another transistor
the amount of trransistors the bits have to go through is less in an Athlon processor.
so it takes fewer clock cycles for an instruction to go through an Athlon processor than an Intel.

also the Athlon 64's have a FSB inside the CPU itself, not going through the motherboard. this is because the memory controller is on the CPU itself. because of this, the distance between the CPU and memory controller, which allows for faster speeds. now because the CPU almost directly communcates with the memory, it allows for much faster speeds than any previous CPU. the communication between the Athlon 64's and RAM is called HTT (hypertransport) rather than the FSB (which is inside the CPU)

although Intel's CPU's (with the exception of Celerons) have a larger cache than Athlons
cache is the on-board memory which holds the instructions before the CPU can process them. this also allows the CPU to process data when the RAM cannot send the instructions, usually when it is in a refresh stage. also the cache gives much faster access to the instructions (it is much faster than RAM, but a lot more expensive)

and apparently, Intel's CPU's are not capable of processing every 32-bit instruction. while the instructions it can't process are probbably not widely used (or maybe not used at all) if the CPU does get given one of those instructions, it cannot process it, and the program crashes.

plus the Athlon 64's have the advantage of being able to process 64-bit applications, so they are more future proof

Intels CPU's seem to do better in arithmatic, and Athlon's seem to do better in games.

in this case I would recommend an Athlon 64 3200+ or 3500+ in a winchester core - which is 90nm, uses less voltage, runs cooler and is more overclockable than Newcastles or Clawhammers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom