What AMD would out preform an Intel 3.2+ ghz?

[WolvenASE]

Just curious. xD

Also, should I look into getting a dual core or just relax with a regular?

 

[Ste]

A 3200+ or higher.

If you have the money theres no reason not to go dual core.

 

[Flanker]

AMD Athlon 64 3200+. The "3200+" says that it is about equal in performance to a Pentium 4 3.2GHz. In games, the AMD performs MUCH better, in some cases, beating the 3.8GHz Pentium 4 and even the 3.73GHz Pentium 4 EE (since games only use one thread, the other 3 get wasted).

Relax with Single Core.

 

[WolvenASE]

AMD Athlon 64 3200+. The "3200+" says that it is about equal in performance to a Pentium 4 3.2GHz. In games, the AMD performs MUCH better, in some cases, beating the 3.8GHz Pentium 4 and even the 3.73GHz Pentium 4 EE (since games only use one thread, the other 3 get wasted).

Relax with Single Core.

Well that was one of my original questions in another thread, whether or not the 3200 is equivalent to "3.2 ghz". I was told that that was not true, and it was actually in a 2.6+ something range. I'm too confused.

 

[WolvenASE]

Oh, and another thing - if I were to get a dual core (like a Athlon-64 X2 4200+ CPU), does that mean that it has two processors that run at the same speed as a single processor thats an Athlon-64 4200?(I don't even know if they make that, but I have just an Athlon-64 4000+ CPU selected, and it costs me only $60 more to get Athlon-64 X2 4200+ CPU, so which would be the better buy in that scenario? :x)

 

[Flanker]

Thats a lie. A 3200+ is equal to a 3.2GHz in normal applications and is MUCH better in games because of its architecture.

Dual Core is two processors running at the same speed. One application will run on one core, while another runs on another core, it is NOT a 4.0GHz or so processor.

I still say chill with single core. You can get a 4000+ for the price of a X2 3800+.

 

[Apokalipse]

Well that was one of my original questions in another thread, whether or not the 3200 is equivalent to "3.2 ghz". I was told that that was not true, and it was actually in a 2.6+ something range. I'm too confused.

the Athlon 64 3200+ has a core clock of 2.0GHZ. but it still does perform about equal to a 3.2GHZ Pentium 4.
the clock speed doesn't tell you a CPU's performance. it depends how the CPU is built. IBM's powerPC processors (not used in PC's, but often in Mac's) are even more efficient with clock speeds. the 1.6GHZ PowerPC processor actually beats the 3.2GHZ Pentium 4.

AMD has given their processors a P-rating (or Performance rating) which tells you how well it performs, because the clock speeds don't really indicate that.

 

[WolvenASE]

Alright.. so let's say I'm just running a regular game like HL2, Doom3, WC3, etc.. Would a 4000+ single core be stronger than a 4200+ dual core?

 

[WolvenASE]

the Athlon 64 3200+ has a core clock of 2.0GHZ. but it still does perform about equal to a 3.2GHZ Pentium 4.

Alright, thanks. I've asked this before, but I never really got an answer, so I'm curious -

Because it has a "core clock" of 2.0 ghz, does that mean that if I were to run a game with a minimum requirement of 2.0 ghz of a processor(like found on the bottoms of most boxes), would that mean that it would put alot of strain on the processor?

 

[Apokalipse]

no.
the 2GHZ would have been measured off a Pentium 4. they're kinda wrong to do this, they should have said something like "2GHZ P4/2000+ AMD"
where the 2000+ AMD might be about 1.4GHZ, but perform roughly like a 2GHZ P4
the Athlon 64 3200+ performs roughly like a 3.2GHZ Pentium 4. so it's more than enough

although like said before, the Athlon 64's are even better than a Pentium 4 when gaming. they're built for gaming, and a 3200+ will often outperform a 3.73GHZ Pentium 4