Why are AMD so fast?

[AuBrEy Online]

I heard that in terms of video encoding .....

a 3000+ with fight with a 2.8 Ghz

However since Intel like taking on a role of ripping people off

I think you could get a 3200+ or something like that!

EVEN if I had to video encode I'd still not go with Intel 'cause they like suck my balls 'n' stuff.

*Oh yeah I hope AMD win the court case!*

 

[algu7344]

Nah, a 3200 wouldnt even compete with a 2.4 Northwood.

 

[AuBrEy Online]

Huh? ..... I'm sure it would!

Anyway AMD pwn Intel at everything else!

 

[algu7344]

Why would you think that? Do you even know the basic architecture of AMD or Intel? Or are you saying it would because everyone else says it would? Why would you think it would?

 

[Hacp]

I've always heard that AMDs were faster because they could do one instruction per clock cycle, whereas INTEL chips had to perform an instruction, and then idle for the next clock cycle while the instruction was processed. Thus making the AMD chip more efficient.

If Intel had to wait, then it's processor would def suck ALOT. AMD just has more instructions per clock cycle. Intel has to keep its pipes filled in order to compete, hence the large amounts of l2 cache.

 

[gaara]

Don't go turning this into a flamefest now people. If you have an opinion, justify it.

Anyways, I will be blunt, the P4 architecture is garbage right now. The only thing Intel has which even keeps them competetive is Hyperthreading which can allows the CPU to use two threads, just not simutaneously. Any Intel without Hyperthreading doesn't stand a chance at competing with an equally priced AMD.

The revised P3 architecture found in the Pentium M right now is impressive though however it still isn't in full swing and probably won't be until next year.

AMD has a real advantage right now with the Athlon 64. The big thing is the intergrated memory controller. Intel still uses the northbridge and thus the FSB still has communicate between the CPU and that. Intel can only increase memory bandwidth by continually increasing memory and FSB speeds.

AMD however, still uses DDR and can achieve the same or greater bandwidth than DDR2 via the hypertransport bus, which is a high bandwidth low latency link directly between the CPU and RAM, rather than the Intel going from CPU > NB > RAN.

64 bit makes no difference apart from how much memory the core can address.

 

[SHAWN]

Oh yeah was I right about the FSB?

AMD = 200/250+

Intel = 533/800

If I was the tall runner must be very tall!

Intel fsb is quad pumped so a 533 fsb is really 133*4 so it performs as if it were 533 but its not. The 800fsb is 200mhz fsb *4 = 800mhz. Got me?

 

[algu7344]

Seriously,

Thank you for making a educated and purposeful post. This whole thread has had biased opinions based on absolutely nothing but other peoples opinions.

 

[AuBrEy Online]

Concluesion ......

So AMD are a lot better ....

However if your computer is for video encoding/rendering!
P4 would suit nicly.

Funny how everyone debated .... maybe an ATi or Nvidia someday.

Only kidding ......

Oh and thankyou SHAWN for telling me about the quad pumped P4's.

 

[TheHeadFL]

64 bit makes no difference apart from how much memory the core can address.

Agree everywhere except this.

This is not true. 64 bit mode adds a lot of general purpose registers to the CPU, not to mention being able to accept two wider instructions in a single clock cycle.