Question regarding "GHz" when it comes to AMD versus Intel...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jayce

Fully Optimized
Messages
3,056
Location
/home/jason
Something sparked when my buddy asked, "Only 1.8?" When I told him I just built a 1.8 GHz Athlon. I didn't know what to say, because I was like, yeah, why not? Then I realized he must of been thinking about Intel, in which some of their newer processors are like 3.6 GHz.

Is Athlon more efficient? Or does it have some kind of dual channel system, where 1.0 GHz Athlon would = 2.0 GHz Intel?

Also, just throwing this thought out there... Would it be possible to build a MAC? Don't know why I'm asking this, I've just never heard of it and was curious.
 
Yes, the Athlons are more effecient than Intels.

The numbers used by AMD reflect what their processor is equal to, plus.

Thus, a 3200 is equal to, or better than, a 3.2GHz Intel.

Does that help?
 
macdude425 said:
Exactly. The megahertz wars are over.

I understand. I was just trying to figure something out, like... if I wanted to build a system, but had no idea whether I wanted to use AMD or Intel, I wasn't sure how you'd suitably find a VERY comparable processor speed wise to compare between the two companies.
 
AMD architecture has traditionally used shorter pipelines whereas Intel has continued to stretch them out...to put it into perspective an average AMD64 has I think 12 pipeline stages whereas a prescott has about 30 stages

This basically means that AMD can take less clock cycles to send the information down the pipeline...however since both architectures involve different ways of retrieving and using data they both excel better in specific tasks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom