Whats the fasest processor

Status
Not open for further replies.

joebx902004

Baseband Member
Messages
95
What is the Fastest processor for AMD and Intel

I think

AMD=Athlon 64 FX 53

Intel=Pentium 4 3.4GHz 800MHz 2MB Extreme

I don't know anything about XEON are they better???
 
You're right about the intel chip being their fastest available chip. I'm not sure about AMD, but someone else could probably answer that. XEON CPUs are used in pairs for servers and high-performance workstations. The fastest XEON CPU you can get is 3.2 GHz.
 
AMD processor speeds aren't as fast as Intel's at the moment. They are pretty close and when you could save a couple hundred bucks for similar performance.... no wonder AMD is gaining ground in the CPU world so rapidly.

The XEON processor is Intel's server line. The XEON is designed to be used in multiples for example, I have a server at work that has 8 Xeons and 8 GB of RAM. Needless to say this thing is huge but it has plenty of processing power.
 
No you wouldn't. Most applications that are used at home cannot take advantage of multiple processors. There are some exceptions, though.

Someone also told me once that windows cannot recognize more than 2 processors, so you may be limited on that as well. Windows may have gotten around that, though.
 
Xeon processors can be better if a program can recognize them, but you can't say a computer with two 2.8GHz Xeons has a an overall 5.6GHz clock speed.
It wouldn't perform as well as a single 5.6GHz processor, but you would see a marginal increase in performance.
 
The P4 3.4ghz is faster.

The FX-53 owns it in mostly performance (especially in games).
 
Northbridge said:
Xeon processors can be better if a program can recognize them, but you can't say a computer with two 2.8GHz Xeons has a an overall 5.6GHz clock speed.
It wouldn't perform as well as a single 5.6GHz processor, but you would see a marginal increase in performance.

You don't understand the nature of SMP do you? The processors would still share a common I/O bus and memory subsystem. No matter how you look at it, the system resources are shared by MP. I own a dual system myself and I know it could outperform a high level p4. You have to remember even if a program wont use both cpu's the most important thing will, the operating system. So even if program "A" doesn't support SMP, if processor number 1 is busy it has processor 2 do the work. That's just a very simple example. In reality the operating system already has the resources divided, such as one chip will take care of threading while the other does math, or it will have one chip take care of certain process's critical to the OS while the other takes care of non-prioritized things. This is why an SMP system is better than any single chip. Their is a reason why it is called multi-processing. Just because an app cant use both, doesn't mean the OS wont manage both cpus to increase performance. Also, when you have two processors your get double the IPC. One P4 could never beat the combined IPC power of two P3's. A dual P3 system could easily take two or more requests at once, where a P4 would not be able to do nearly as well.

Estimated example:
P3 can do 6 IPC
P4 can do 6 IPC

So 1 p4= 6 IPC
Two P3= 12 IPC

IPC= Instructions per cycle/clock.
 
see, you shouldnt really look at whats "faster"

Yes pentium IV has 3.4Ghz....but thats only at 32 bits
While the Athlon is slight slower.....but at 64 bit

So i would say athlon is much better then P4
 
oblivion said:
see, you shouldnt really look at whats "faster"

Yes pentium IV has 3.4Ghz....but thats only at 32 bits
While the Athlon is slight slower.....but at 64 bit

So i would say athlon is much better then P4

Well you also have to remember software has to support running in 64 bit. Also I would think running a larger line of code takes longer than running a line of code half that size...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom