The Truth About Processor Performance (a.k.a AMD GHz vs. Intel GHz) - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-19-2006, 10:31 AM   #11 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 602
Default

hey but i thought ddr2 was better than ddr cause the guy at the shop said ddr2 is duel channeling and will iprove my performance by double...
__________________

keyser09 is offline  
Old 10-19-2006, 10:40 AM   #12 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Nitestick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: смерти для спаме
Posts: 8,473
Default

well the guy at the shop was lying. DDR has used dual channel for about 4 years now (i think). dual channel does not double performance but it does allow larger amounts of data to be transferred to memory at the same time because the memory bus is 128 bits wide rather than 64 bits. the only thing DDR2 beats DDR memory in is in frequency. the latencies are poor by comparison for example the best latencies i have seen for DDR2 are 3-3-3-10 for DDR2-400 versus something like my memory which has latencies of 2-2-2-5 at DDR-400 (incidentally can run at over DDR500 with those as well). in my opinion DDR is superior to DDR2 as a platform but unfortunately has frequency limits so AM2 can actually get higher bandwidths with top-end memory
__________________

Nitestick is offline  
Old 10-19-2006, 12:11 PM   #13 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 180
Default

mann that really does help.. ive always been a bit confused with those ghz and mhz... with amd and intel... how bout crusoe processors? or G5s
__________________
Furby:
2500k @ 4.5Ghz max: 81C idle 33C
8 gigs ddr 3 Kingston Hyper x T1 @ 1600mhz
Asus P8P67Pro b3.1
Evga GeForce gtx 560 at 940mhz 1gbddr5
western digital black 1tb sata3
Viewsonic 22"
Windows 7 home premium 64bit
beluga is offline  
Old 10-19-2006, 02:44 PM   #14 (permalink)
Self Proclaimed Immortal
 
hmammen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: lounge 146 (Euless TX)
Posts: 2,679
Send a message via AIM to hmammen Send a message via MSN to hmammen Send a message via Yahoo to hmammen
Default

great read......pretty musch knew all of this previously but this cleared up some stuff........*favorited!*
__________________

Posted from my Nexus7
hmammen is offline  
Old 10-21-2006, 03:49 PM   #15 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
str8lazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 446
Send a message via ICQ to str8lazy Send a message via AIM to str8lazy Send a message via Yahoo to str8lazy
Default

This has been a very much need post for a long time. I know that you have seen the wars between the AMD and Intel fanboys (I'm one of them) and despite the recent turnover by Intel, I am going to support AMD to the fullest! Thanks once again, great read.
str8lazy is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 07:07 PM   #16 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 869
Default

Nice and lengthy, lots of good info, nice work.

But...

You compared a 2.4Ghz Conroe to a 2.6Ghz A64 X2? Amusing.

And just a minor correction, but Core 2 Duo has a 12-stage pipeline, not 14.
__________________
TriEclipse is offline  
Old 11-15-2006, 08:47 AM   #17 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,479
Default

I have some questions.

As I know the Intel Northwood and Willamette has 20-stage pipeline , while the Prescott and Cedar Mill has 31-stage pipeline.

So, does this mean that Willamette and Northwood are faster than Prescott or Cedar Mill, if they are running at same freq



Also, I have another question. As I know Pentium 3 has 10-stage pipeline. So, does this mean that Pentium 3 is faster than Pentium 4 ?
maroon1 is offline  
Old 11-16-2006, 03:52 AM   #18 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 869
Default

@ Maroon1;

Pipeline length does not automatically translate directly to the performance. The complexity of the stages also plays a major role.

For example, consider the similar performances of a 2.0Ghz A64 and a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4. The A64 has a 14-stage pipeline, and the P4 a 31-stage pipeline, but the Athlon 64 is not necessarily any faster than the P4.

The Athlon 64 accomplishes this through the use of complex stages and a short pipeline. The Pentium 4 accomplishes the same thing through the use of a longer pipeline, and simpler stages. The effect is that the Athlon 64 can do the same amount of work at slower clockspeeds while the Pentium 4 has to push for higher clocks to compete.

It is true, that at the same clockspeeds, a processor with shorter pipelines and more complex stages will beat out a processor with longer pipes and simpler stages. So, to use your example, if you have a Pentium III at 1.0Ghz, and a Pentium 4 at 1.0Ghz, the Pentium III would indeed beat out the Pentium 4. However, the Pentium 4 was designed with longer pipes and simpler stages so that it could race ahead in clockspeed and beat out the older generation through the use of pure speed.

I'm not sure about how the Willamette and Northwood compare to the Prescott since there are many many other things even besides the simplicity or complexity of the stages that dictates the performance of a processor. But the premise behind the Prescott was to make the pipes even longer, and the stages even simpler, to achieve higher clocks than the older cores could provide. At this point, Intel still hadn't realized the brick wall of insulator leakage that would leave it's processors crippled before even hitting 4Ghz.

Hope that cleared things up a bit (or maybe just made it even more complicated, haha).
__________________
TriEclipse is offline  
Old 11-19-2006, 07:03 AM   #19 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Nitestick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: смерти для спаме
Posts: 8,473
Default

Quote:
As I know the Intel Northwood and Willamette has 20-stage pipeline , while the Prescott and Cedar Mill has 31-stage pipeline.
it's not quite black & white. the "grey" area (i like this metaphor ) is the scalability of performance. at the lower end of clock speeds when comparing say a Northwood and Prescott, perhaps at about 2.4GHz the Northwood would win out. the Northwood proved to not scale well with clock speed though and that is part of why they did not go much past 3.0GHz. while at about 2.8GHz a Northwood and a Prescott would be about even i think after around 3.5GHz Northwoods stopped providing significant improvements and the Prescott gained a sizeable performance lead.

yes the P3 is indeed faster than a P4 at the same clock speeds, it is well publicised. it wasn't until the Willamette hit about 1.7GHz that it could officially take the performance crown from the last P3s in all tests.

Quote:
And just a minor correction, but Core 2 Duo has a 12-stage pipeline, not 14.
that is greatly appreciated . most of this information was originally typed at around 12:30am, without research .

NOTE: anything that doesn't directly pertain to understanding this thread/corrections etc will be split to another thread. spam of course will be deleted. i want this to stay clean and there is no need to post
Quote:
well im a nubby here but i have a chance to build a computer the cpus witch a freind has but dont know witch one to take he said there both good . but need some help on witch one to take ? the both intels ones a pent D 805 and a pent 4 650 ht. which one should i take ? i love my games .
and the like. discuss away just don't hi-jack a moderator
Nitestick is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 09:55 PM   #20 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 21
Default

That is a wonderful and most informational post…great job!

Cliffs notes version of a wonderful post, which if you have the time read it, other wise here is a shorter less intelectual explanation to accompany the original post. Latency is the keyword here...AMD architecture has been lower in latency for a long time...this is why they have performed better. Think of it in terms of a two straws trying to draw on the same liquid...one is a .0625 in diameter and the other is a .25 in diameter. In order to get both straws’s to draw the same amount of liquid the .0625 will have to work harder than the .25. Same principal in the CPU architecture. Lower latency means better performance. I just hope AMD can make a come back with the QUAD cores coming out soon…I really hate intel.

-HBBK131
__________________

hbbk131 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.