AMD vs. Intel - diff in speeds?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So then how does the operating frequency matter?

Because it doesn't make sense to me that two chips, the same price, one intel and one AMD. The AMD is supposedly faster yet only has 2.0 ghz operating frequency, whereas same price intel has 3.0 ghz operating frequency.

So essentially the operating frequency doesn't matter? How can the AMD be faster?

How can one tell how fast a card is if operating frequency doesn't do it?

I'm confused.
 
I never said the operating frequecny didn't matter. The AMD may only be (3200+) 2 GHz as read in the CMOS, however it is equvilant to a P4 @ 3.2 Ghz because it is more efficent.
 
Ste said:
I never said the operating frequecny didn't matter. The AMD may only be (3200+) 2 GHz as read in the CMOS, however it is equvilant to a P4 @ 3.2 Ghz because it is more efficent.

See that is what I didn't understand. I just didn't see how they could perform equally, but I guess if the 2ghz is more efficient that would make sense. But 1.2ghz seems liek a big differnce to the point that I don't see how it couldn't be faster.

Why doesn't Intel make their chips more effecient?
 
Not trying to be rude but please do a search, there have been many, many threads asking this question already.

Anyway, I would answer your question, but it seems I have been beaten to it many times :)

AMD is better than Intel for gaming, but Intel runs a bit cooler.
 
I'll give you a comparison:

Lets say you have 2 runners. One guy is tall, one is short. The tall guy would be like AMD, and the short guy like Intel. Let's pretend that how fast they can move their feet is like the frequency of a CPU. If they are both running at the same speed, the short guy would have to move his feet a lot faster to keep up with the tall guy. This means that the tall guy goes further with each stride.

AMD can perform more instructions in a single clock cycle than Intel. This is why AMD can keep up with Intel with lower speeds. Another thing that helps AMD keep up is their on-die memory controller, in place of Intel's Northbridge.

Which one is better? Well, I'll put it this way, do a search for AMD vs Intel, and see how many little locks are on those threads :D
 
kyman_33 said:

Why doesn't Intel make their chips more effecient?

I don't know. Maybe they don't know how. Maybe they just like them that way. Maybe they just want to say that theirs are faster by citing clock speed.
 
apokalipse said:
no, the Semprons are a lot better than the Celerons. they compare to the Pentium 4's with their P-ratings

P-ratings? What're you talking about? Semprons are the exact same marketing stratagy as the Celeron. They kill half of the L2 cache. They're both crippled versions of the full processor.

Ryan
 
AMD all the way!!! yeah though intel may seem to have faster GHz, performance-wise AMD is more efficient (like Ste said). One thing is that I thought p4 were running hot (quintox said intels run cooler). I cant say i know a lot about cpus. just what i picked up from ppl when buildin my own box
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom