Someone PLEASE expain AMDs to me?? - 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 02-04-2005, 10:22 PM   #1 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 18
Default Someone PLEASE expain AMDs to me??

Hey, I need some help please.

Ok, I know almost zip about AMDs, and always found P4s easyer to read. (I'm new).I was plaining to get a P4, but looking at it i might as well get an AMD. They seem to suit me better.

Anyway, I can't figure it out.. whats all the "+" for and what do they mean "3500+ 2.2 GHz" does this only mean its a 2.2 GHz? I'm confused.

thanks.
__________________

none67 is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 10:30 PM   #2 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 3,475
Default

The 3200+ means that it can get to speeds of a 3200Mhtz P4 CPU.
AMD uses better architecture which speeds up the low amount of htz.
If you only play games, you should get AMD.
If you encode, transcode.... (video...) get Intel.
__________________

turtile is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 10:36 PM   #3 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 18
Default

So when you say it CAN reach speeds up to 3200; do you set it? Or does it change by itself.

Also, AMD 64... the 64bit chip would be faster than a P4 32 bit chip. no?
none67 is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 10:41 PM   #4 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,349
Default

i think the + is there for absolutly no reason at all, or iv never asked or seen anyone else ask about it.

iv hear 3500, means its equivalant to the intel 3.5ghz.

the only thing diff between AMD and Intell, i think is... Intel quad pumps there FSB, so 800fsb is DDR400. were as AMD's FSB is 400 for DDR400. that and AMD has a 1600fsb northbridge. i dont remember any other differencess.

("3500+ 2.2 GHz" does this only mean its a 2.2 GHz? I'm confused.)

o, i c lol i misunderstood, u dont know AMD at ALL. 2.2ghz is yes what its rated to run at, ignoring overclocking. AMD's dont run as fast in Hz's as Intel. AMD's perform better grafix wise, because of there more efficent pipeline architectur, so it outperoforms intel gfx wise and is comperable in other tasks as well. Intell does have the advantage when it comes to stuff like Video encoding. because its so cpu intensive the faster clock cycles of intel get the job done quicker.
jolancer is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 10:45 PM   #5 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,349
Default

Quote:
Also, AMD 64... the 64bit chip would be faster than a P4 32 bit chip. no?
only ona 64 bit operating system. i think WindowsLonghorn will be 64bit.

the program that ur running in windows also has to be 64bit(i think) for u to get any advantage. cause the 0S is backward compatable with 32bit(i think)
jolancer is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 10:50 PM   #6 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

Quote:
So when you say it CAN reach speeds up to 3200; do you set it? Or does it change by itself.
No, I don't know why people seem to get so confused on this issue, I think you just kind of go into it with a different perception. Just wipe the slate clean on what you may have or not have known about AMD's

3200+, it just like saying "my comp will reach 50C+ when gaming" they are simply saying it will get up to that PLUS more on occasion, so when they say 3200+ they are saying it will be approx the equivelant of a 3.2GHz Intel, perhaps more than 3200....even 3300MHz would technically justify the + sign.

Yes it is a stock speed of 2.2GHz, but they label it a 3200+ specifically for Intel people so they don't just see 'Aww 2.2GHz that sucks' It's telling them "Yeah its 2.2GHz but it can perform approximately the same as 3200+MHz on an Intel machine"

Regarding the AMD64, they are the only 64bit CPU which can efficiently run in a 32bit application. So a 2.2GHz 64bit CPU would work better than a 2.2GHz AMD XP CPU which in turn would be a little bit better than 3.2GHz Intel since the 2.2GHz is listed as the 3200+


Make sense?

Personally I think AMD's labeling system is a lot easier, well once you know what it means. I suppose the same could be said about intels, but they got numbers for every chipset and CPU most of the time....I don't know, of course I'm biased to AMD so I couldn't tell ya beyond that
Nubius is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 10:52 PM   #7 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 18
Default

ahh... I see..

Yes, I'm AMD challenged. I know. Hence the words "(I'm new)".

The computer is just my computer. I do some word processing, play some games, goof around on the interenet. That kind of thing, which will be better? AMD or Itel?.. not trying to start a war. I'm on a tight budget too, so price is a huge factor.
Thanks.
none67 is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 10:54 PM   #8 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

I know you said you were new. The thing is, most come in and that '3200+' label seems to throw everyone off. Even though it's mainly to make things easier for Intellers.

Since you aren't doing anything major either processor would be fine for your needs.

If your a hardcore gamer, try AMD

If you're going to do a lot multi-tasking, video editing, things of that nature, Go Intel.

Or if simply you wish to try something new, and learn the best of both worlds, then try AMD.
Nubius is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 11:01 PM   #9 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 18
Default

Wow, Nubis, thanks.

I really am new to the whole computer thing, so i dont' know much about either side.

AMDs seem to cheaper which is nice. My first build is just a side project, next to my Mustang.

Aside from looking really stupid I did mange to grasp most of all that, which is good.

So, the AMD(3200 for example) is 2.2 GHz, BUT that number doesn't really mean much because its so efficant that its the equivilent of a 3.2GHz P4, am I correct?

Sometimes I tend to let my windows build up, and let things run at the same time, will the AMD be slow for things like this?

Thanks again.
none67 is offline  
Old 02-04-2005, 11:22 PM   #10 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,013
Send a message via AIM to DJ-CHRIS
Default

Unless you are truly multitasking, like running 2 major programs at the same time you will not have a disadvantage. Im talking about encoding video and compiling code at the same time ect.

Yes a 2.2 ghz AMD 3200+ would be equivelent to a 3.2 GHZ Intel.

On a side note for you to ignore, 2.2 ghz in the newer processors is a 3400 or 3500 now...
__________________

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 01:08 AM.


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