comparing 2.4ghz to whatever is out there - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-15-2005, 05:47 PM   #1 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7
Red face comparing 2.4ghz to whatever is out there

Hi,
I'm currently on an Intel 2.4ghz 400mhz system with 768 of RAM.
I have absolutly no idea about what is currently the best processor out there what with dual core and 64 bit on the go.

Just to clarify a few things.
Have intel got 64 bit processors and how do they compare with AMD's SPECIFIACALLY on 64 bit. (Facts not Fiction/Flames)

Dual Core.. again do intel do this or just AMD if so how do they compare. But what's the big deal with dual core.. whats to gain from it and why? (breifly explain dual core).

Also could sombody clarify what the effect the 400mhz system bus has on the speed?

If i was to upgrade from a 2.4ghz to the very latest thing buyable out there.. (ignore motherboard compatibility etc..)
What would I buy, and would i really notice a difference.


Wow how out of date am I lol
__________________

Terabyte is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 06:36 PM   #2 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,013
Send a message via AIM to DJ-CHRIS
Default

You would notice a HUGE difference.

Intel has dual core "gamer" chips, but they are still heavily outpeformed by the single core AMD FX-55 Chip and even some of the much cheaper AMD's like the 3500+

Your main letdown is your "400mhz (100 X 4)" frontside bus, today you either take an Intel with "800mhz (200 X 4)" fronside bus to give you more memory bandwidth, or an AMD with 2000mhz "FSB" (Note: AMD use hypertransport which is a built in memory controller, which is a CPU to memory connection instead of Intel CPU to FSB (Northbridge) to memory)
__________________

DJ-CHRIS is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 08:08 PM   #3 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7
Default

cheers
Terabyte is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 08:25 PM   #4 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 821
Default

so...virgin techie... it is nice to see that you finally came out of the closet to see what else it out there? Just kidding...

AMD all the way if you ask me... that is if you are a gamer. I don't know a lot of specifics about the difference really, but I had it put to me this way.

Intel is a small fast man and AMD is a big slow man. Intel moves faster but carries less bricks, and AMD moves slower but carries more bricks. In other words, Intel does less work faster, while AMD does more work but moves slower.

The point I am getting at is that you can get an AMD processor that will run at 2.4 GHz whether you buy on that speed or overclock it to that speed. When you do that, you are letting the big slow man run just as fast as the small fast one, taking away Intel's advantage.

Seem about right anybody?
__________________
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ socket 939 @ 2.3 GHz
MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard
EVGA GeForce 6800 GT
2 GB DDR 400 (PC 3200) (2 x 1 GB sticks) (Dual Channel)
DVD player and seperate DVD RW drive
Floppy Drive
80 GB Western Digital Hard Drive
500 watt power supply
Sound Blaster Audigy
Logitech 5.1 surround sound speakers
SAMSUNG SyncMaster 710T LCD monitor
Aspire X Navigator Case
Wayniac is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 08:46 PM   #5 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 611
Default

Errr...sry to say that, but that anology is kinda wrong...wayne...

It's sorta right....but...it's not the anonlogy i'd just.

AMD is faster cauze if it's integrated FSB or HTT technology. It allows much faster transfers from the RAM to the CPU. It makes your computer about 1.5 times faster than your clock speed. When AMD rates its computers, a AMD 3000+ is supposed to be about the same as an Intel 3.0 gighertz.

Hey terabyte, assuming you stick around long enough, terabytes will be standard and not that impressive of a number. What are you going to do then?
__________________
AMD Newcastle skt 754 3000+
Elitegroup 755-A2 ATX motherboard
512 DDR RAM
120 gig PATA Hard drive
128 mb AGP 8x ATI Radeon 9250
300 watt 12 volt psu
Antec SLK 1600 case
emeraldice is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 08:48 PM   #6 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 821
Default

Ah, like I said, that is what somebody told me. Also, I have heard that the analogy between the 3000+ and 3 GHz for Intel is wrong. I mean, when you think about it, for that to be true, AMD would be rating everything they make directly off of Intel. I don't know though to be honest. Sounds like it could make sense though.
__________________
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ socket 939 @ 2.3 GHz
MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard
EVGA GeForce 6800 GT
2 GB DDR 400 (PC 3200) (2 x 1 GB sticks) (Dual Channel)
DVD player and seperate DVD RW drive
Floppy Drive
80 GB Western Digital Hard Drive
500 watt power supply
Sound Blaster Audigy
Logitech 5.1 surround sound speakers
SAMSUNG SyncMaster 710T LCD monitor
Aspire X Navigator Case
Wayniac is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 08:57 PM   #7 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 611
Default

Yea, it's only a general rule of thumb. There are some exceptions....like I bet a 2400+ could beat out an intel 2.5 or 2.6...it's gunna become even more blurred when dual cores come out. One example of blurred labeling - Intel canceled a P4 4.0 gighertz, AMD suddenly was comming out w/ a 4000+ .

Anyways, the other person's questions.

Intel has no 64 bit processors.

400 mhz system bus usually refers to the FSB (i think). It's about the same as AMD's equivalent HTT. It's how fast the CPU transfers data from the RAM to the CPU and back. The higher the better.

If you bought the best system you could buy today, yes, you would notice a difference. But more likely you're gunna buy parts that are reasonably priced, and you'd notice a differnce there, too, but not as big. What would you use a new computer for? Cauze if it's not for gaming, i'd wait.
__________________
AMD Newcastle skt 754 3000+
Elitegroup 755-A2 ATX motherboard
512 DDR RAM
120 gig PATA Hard drive
128 mb AGP 8x ATI Radeon 9250
300 watt 12 volt psu
Antec SLK 1600 case
emeraldice is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 11:47 PM   #8 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 375
Default

intel has 64 bit CPU's, anything that is a p4 6-- i think?

am i totally wrong or....?
SteveGTA is offline  
Old 05-16-2005, 12:59 AM   #9 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 611
Default

They'd annouce it louder if Intel had 64-bit CPUs. Intel is eventually gunna move to 64 bit, they just have to have the time to think about what it means, that's all.
__________________
AMD Newcastle skt 754 3000+
Elitegroup 755-A2 ATX motherboard
512 DDR RAM
120 gig PATA Hard drive
128 mb AGP 8x ATI Radeon 9250
300 watt 12 volt psu
Antec SLK 1600 case
emeraldice is offline  
Old 05-16-2005, 08:26 AM   #10 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,013
Send a message via AIM to DJ-CHRIS
Default

Nope intel 6XX series are 64bit as well as the Itanium's are native 64bit
__________________

DJ-CHRIS 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 09:57 PM.


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