Why are AMD so fast? - 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 07-15-2005, 12:45 PM   #1 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 156
Default Why are AMD so fast?

I heard that a:

3000+ will compete with a 3.2, 3.4 and even a 3.6 Pentium 4 Ghz
(in terms of gaming)

However on a 3000+ the clock speed is 1.8/2.4Ghz
The P4 is 3.0Ghz

Now on the FSB the AMD are 200/250 (i think I am wrong)
and the P4 have 533/800

seems odd can someone tell me?
__________________

AuBrEy Online is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:53 PM   #2 (permalink)
Memberbot
 
Elbatrop1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,057
Default

There are 2 things that you need to be aware of:

First of all, AMD CPUs use Hypertransport which opens a huge amount of bandwidth to the memory. Along with this is AMD's on-die memory controller that reduces the time needed to get information from the RAM to the CPU itself

Second, AMD CPUs process more instructions per clock cycle. This is why a 3000+ @1.8GHz competes with a 3 GHz Intel. I'll give an analogy:

Two runners are running in step with each other. Their feet hit the ground at the same time as the others do. Imagine that one runner is taller than the other. The taller one is going to cover more ground per stride than the shorter one. Now if the shorter runner wanted to keep up with the taller runner, he would have to run faster by moving his feet faster just to keep up, because he covers less distance per stride.

Short Runner=Intel CPU
Tall Runner=AMD CPU
Stride=Clock Cycle
Stride Frequency=CPU Frequency

Hope that helps
__________________

__________________

Intel E6750...........PSN: ELBATROP
XFX nForce 650i Ultra
Patriot PC2-6400 8GB (4x2GB)
eVGA 9800GT
36GB WD Raptor
120GB SG
1TB SG
Logitech X-530
Samsung SyncMaster 931c
Samsung SyncMaster 750s
Windows 7 Home Premium 64
Elbatrop1 is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:53 PM   #3 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 420
Send a message via AIM to silence782
Default

I've always heard that AMDs were faster because they could do one instruction per clock cycle, whereas INTEL chips had to perform an instruction, and then idle for the next clock cycle while the instruction was processed. Thus making the AMD chip more efficient.
__________________
Still weak, I know, but getting better:
CPU: AMD AthlonXP 2500+
1.8GHz @ 333 FSB
512 DDR 2700
160 GB westerndigital hd
Dual booted with XP/Fedora Core 5
PCchips M848A mobo
nVIDIA GeForce MX 4000 video Card
Associate\'s Degree in Applied Computer Sciences.
A+ Certified for Hardware and Operating Systems. Network+ Certified
silence782 is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:55 PM   #4 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 156
Default

Ahh nice little analogy!

Got any more!?

Would the x64 bit make a differerence?
AuBrEy Online is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 12:59 PM   #5 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 156
Default

Oh yeah was I right about the FSB?

AMD = 200/250+

Intel = 533/800

If I was the tall runner must be very tall!
AuBrEy Online is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 01:01 PM   #6 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 420
Send a message via AIM to silence782
Default

I'm not too sure about how 64 bit works, but I think the reason why people are listing after it so badly is because the 64 bit architecture allows it to read RAM far more efficently than a 32 bit processor would.
__________________
Still weak, I know, but getting better:
CPU: AMD AthlonXP 2500+
1.8GHz @ 333 FSB
512 DDR 2700
160 GB westerndigital hd
Dual booted with XP/Fedora Core 5
PCchips M848A mobo
nVIDIA GeForce MX 4000 video Card
Associate\'s Degree in Applied Computer Sciences.
A+ Certified for Hardware and Operating Systems. Network+ Certified
silence782 is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 01:04 PM   #7 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 156
Default

Just that I know someone who thinks Intel are a lot better ..... and i'd like to be able to back my stoires up with cleaver stuff!

Oh yeah silence782? how is Linux? Mandrake 10.1?

Could you gimme some pics of it? ... I am thinking of trying it out are there any good things about it?

does MSN run on it? :P
AuBrEy Online is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 01:12 PM   #8 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 474
Default

hell no intel are the worst computers man.. they can't do any ****. Intels are only good mulitple tasking that's all, nothing else. Amd's are much faster, and preforms better in the games. That's why intel's are trying to change. Before, they were trying to make their cpu faster, they weren't thinking of making faster clock cycle. That's why they are trying to change that, and not trying to make their cpu faster.
nuke is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 01:13 PM   #9 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 413
Default

Also, AMD have shorter pipelines and depend on less clock cycles per instruction, and Intel have higher frequency, but dont really care about how many clock cycles it takes to get an instruction done.
algu7344 is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 01:18 PM   #10 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 413
Default

Nuke Intel also kicks AMD's *** when it comes to video encoding/processing. But AMD is still really good.
__________________

algu7344 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 04:12 PM.


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