# AMD slower ghz?



## Zabarl (Jun 15, 2005)

How come the AMD 64 GHZ speed is slower than an Intel?  Like my 3700+ san diego is 2.2ghz and isaround 330 bux while a intel 3.4 prescott is around 310 bux.  Does that mean the 64 is slower?


----------



## MasterGooby (Jun 15, 2005)

In my opinion the AMDs are faster than the Intels.  The 3700 means it's equal to a P4 3.7 for example.  I have a P4 630 and it's not as fast as my Athlon64 3000+ (939 socket)


----------



## LittleHoov (Jun 15, 2005)

no it doesnt mean the AMD is slower, yes AMD does have a slower operating frquency, but that is because AMD handles processes differently than Intel, both get the job done with the same result, but AMD actually does it quicker, requiring less clock cycles, hence the lower frequency, whereas Intel needs the higher frequency to keep pace


----------



## NeuromancerWGDD'U (Jun 15, 2005)

The frequency is only part of the equation of performance. Keep in mind, that while a 2.2 GHz AMD doesn't sound that fast compared to a 3.4 GHz Intel chip, AMD chips perform 9 operations per clock cycle, whereas Intel chips can only do 6 operation per clock cycle. That, and the AMD 64's are 64-bit, and Intel chips (from what I understand) are still exclusively 32-bit.

(Master Gooby, your avatar frightens me, he looks like he's about to consume the contents of an orphanage)


----------



## MasterGooby (Jun 15, 2005)

I have one of the new Intel 64-bits "630" and it better be 64-BIT!  It's still no where near the performance of an AMD anything bit!


----------



## LittleHoov (Jun 15, 2005)

I believe Intel has 64-bit processors as well, and now that there are applications which actually take advantage of that, such as Windows 64-bit edition...its starting to be worth it.


----------



## MasterGooby (Jun 15, 2005)

My avatar shall rule the world!!!  Actually I got the pic off some news site.  I think he's a congressman or something.  It still looked funny!


----------



## NeuromancerWGDD'U (Jun 15, 2005)

Ah, I had read occasional spatterings of internet reviews and the sort, and kept hearing about how Intel had yet to go to 64-bit. I suppose then, that those were outdated writings. Ah well, I don't pay too much attention to what Intel does, after all, it's been a long time since they've done anything innovative or earth-shattering.


----------



## NeuromancerWGDD'U (Jun 15, 2005)

Anyway, my point in the whole "Intel not being 64-bit" bit is that Zabarl is comparing the operating frequency of a 64-bit AMD chip, to the operating frequency of an Intel 32-bit chip.


----------



## MasterGooby (Jun 15, 2005)

Yeah, well, i'm not paying anymore attention to Intel anymore.  They promised me speed, and they gave me nothing but a bigger price tag...  If I didn't spend 230!!! freaking dollars on the CPU alone I would definately go back to AMD.


----------



## mgoldb2 (Jun 15, 2005)

NeuromancerWGDD'U said:
			
		

> Anyway, my point in the whole "Intel not being 64-bit" bit is that Zabarl is comparing the operating frequency of a 64-bit AMD chip, to the operating frequency of an Intel 32-bit chip.



It does not matter if one 32bit and the other 64bit unless you using a 64bit operating system.  A sempron is 32bit and it still operates at a lower speed then a celron but the sempron will perform just as good if not better then the celron.  In some cases a sempron is better then P4's.  It all depends on exactly what two cpus you comparing.

Anouther example 3.0ghz p4 64bit(630) performs almost no different the a 3.0ghz p4 32bit(530).

What am trying to say is being 64 bit has nothing to do with why it performs better then a intel of the same speed.


----------



## The_Other_One (Jun 15, 2005)

AMD's speeds are much better than Intel's(when compared to the same MHz)  Man, compare a Celeron 1.6GHz to a Sempron 2800(well, my mobile one runs at 1.6GHz)  Heck, I have it underclocked at 800MHz now to save battery and I bet it'd still be most celerons   Probably put up a good fight with some P4's too


----------



## Praetor (Jun 15, 2005)

> How come the AMD 64 GHZ speed is slower than an Intel?


One could ask "Why is the Intel one faster?" ... the point being the clock speed isnt an issue. For instance, most people buy a car based on a make and model number rather than the number of revs in such a gear at such a speed  Same with computers (i.e., you buy a make and model rather than by a specific clock frrequency)



> Like my 3700+ san diego is 2.2ghz and isaround 330 bux while a intel 3.4 prescott is around 310 bux


1. More expensive doesnt mean better. Nor does it mean worse
2. The Pentium 4 3.4GHz is, afaik, discontinued in favor of the the Pentium 4 550



> Does that mean the 64 is slower?


Well it doesnt "mean" that it is slower. The fact of the matter is that the AMD Athlon64 3700 *is* slower. Why is kind of irrelevant 



> In my opinion the AMDs are faster than the Intels.


And important distinction here is that for specific tasks (namely gaming), AMD processors (and in particular their K8 lineup) is *better* than intel processors -- not _faster_ ("better" is measured in something like fps or seconds whereas "faster" is measured in Hz)



> The 3700 means it's equal to a P4 3.7 for example


Thats what most people think and AMD knows it. 3700 is an arbitrary number given to a specific type of chip running at 2.2Ghz



> AMD chips perform 9 operations per clock cycle


Ok before i see more of this crap... *what opcodes execute in 1/9th of a cycle?* LIST THEM. Last time i checked ASM for x86 the most efficient ops took place in 1 cycle. So lets drop the BS and talk facts.



> AMD chips perform 9 operations per clock cycle, whereas Intel chips can only do 6 operation per clock cycle


Even if we buy into this silliness, the 3700+ at  2.2Ghz x 9 = 198000000000 and say a 560 which is the "closest" at 3.6Ghz x 6 = 216000000000... so wth are you talking about? 



> I have one of the new Intel 64-bits "630" and it better be 64-BIT! It's still no where near the performance of an AMD anything bit!


Its a 64bit processor. Of course whether you're running it in 64bit mode depends on th OS involved.



> I believe Intel has 64-bit processors as well, and now that there are applications which actually take advantage of that, such as Windows 64-bit edition...its starting to be worth it.


Yes Intels 6xx linup of consumer processors and everything to follow will generally be 64bit processors



> My avatar shall rule the world!!! Actually I got the pic off some news site. I think he's a congressman or something. It still looked funny


Lets stay on topic please, avatar discussion can happen in the General chat



> Ah, I had read occasional spatterings of internet reviews and the sort, and kept hearing about how Intel had yet to go to 64-bit. I suppose then, that those were outdated writings. Ah well, I don't pay too much attention to what Intel does, after all, it's been a long time since they've done anything innovative or earth-shattering.


Hmmm funny how Windows XP 64bit edition was designed for Intel platforms and then awhile later Windows XP x64 came out for AMD processors..... I'd say Intel's been in the 64bit market a lot longer than you give them credit for 



> Anyway, my point in the whole "Intel not being 64-bit" bit is that Zabarl is comparing the operating frequency of a 64-bit AMD chip, to the operating frequency of an Intel 32-bit chip.


But the external addressing size of the processor doesnt matter



> Yeah, well, i'm not paying anymore attention to Intel anymore. They promised me speed, and they gave me nothing but a bigger price tag... If I didn't spend 230!!! freaking dollars on the CPU alone I would definately go back to AMD.


Intel processors are better suited for certain tasks and AMD processors suited for other tasks. Simple as that. Sure you can argue a Hummer (a real one, not them silly ones you see civilians driving) to outpace a Ferrari you'll be sadly mistaken but on the flipside, no Ferarri is gonna survive the roughzones like a Humnmer



> AMD's speeds are much better than Intel's(when compared to the same MHz)


Its been a long time since they've been the same though hehe ... ever since launch of Netburst


----------



## NeuromancerWGDD'U (Jun 15, 2005)

*OK, now I'm miffed*



			
				Praetor said:
			
		

> Ok before i see more of this crap... *what opcodes execute in 1/9th of a cycle?* LIST THEM. Last time i checked ASM for x86 the most efficient ops took place in 1 cycle. So lets drop the BS and talk facts.


Overall, AMD Athlon XP processors are able to perform 9 operations per clock cycle while Intel can only manage 6.

 SOURCE: http://www.pcmech.com/show/processors/715/

AMD cpus (athlon 32 bit) perform 9 operations (units of actual work)
Intel cpus (P2-3, older P4 and newer P4 while not in a hyperthreading state) only do 6 operations per clock cycle...

so you do the math...

*opcc = operations per clock cycle
*ops = operations per second
EDITED FOR ACCURACY
(AMD) 9 opcc multiplied by 2000 (2ghz) x 1,000,000 = 18,000,000,000 ops (eighteen billion)
(INTEL) 6 opcc multiplied by 3000 (3ghz) x 1,000,000 = 18,000,000,000 ops

realistically, the exact same amount of real world work, regardless of overrated megaherts hype....

 SOURCE: http://forums.pimprig.com/archive/topic/43233.html

The athlon does 9 operations per cycle ... how many does the p4 do??? Yes that's right ... only 6. Pretty poor show really.

SOURCE: http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001nov/bch20011114008864.htm

AMD Athlon CPU make up its disadvantage in memory bandwidth by providing three Full x86 decoders (while Pentium 4 has only 1) and performing 9 operations per clock cycle (while the Pentium 4 has 4). Consider the much more expense on the latter system, we still believe the former one is worth to report here. 

SOURCE: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...oc+amd+intel+"9+operations"+clock+cycle&hl=en

Also, the Athlons perform 9 operations per clock cycle, compared to 6 for the P4 (non HT).

SOURCE: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/archive/thread/103451-1.html

AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (2.083Ghz) (Inc fan/heatsink) (OEM)

# Frequency 2.083 GHz
# Cache Size: L1 - 128KB and L2 - 512KB
# Die Size: 128mm2
# Transistor count: 37.5 million
# Infrastructure: Socket A
# QuantiSpeed™ Architecture
# 9 Operations per clock cycle 

SOURCE: http://www.pluscorp.com.au/Product.asp?CategoryID=154&WebsiteID=2&ProdID=2387

Infrastructure: Socket A
QuantiSpeed™ Architecture
9 Operations per clock cycle 

SOURCE: http://dljsystem.com/detailsCPU.asp?productID=1328

Intel's do 6 operations per clock, AMD's do 9 operations per clock.

Simply put, AMD's do more calculations, and have less bottlenecks when gaming.

I could write you a book about it, but I'd just be quoting AMD...and even I would get lost in the technical explanation.

SOURCE: http://www.overclock.net/archive/index.php/t-6210.html

So AMDs or Intels?
Let me out an example of the XP 3200. It only goes up to 2.2ghz. On the other hand the P4 goes up to 3.2ghz and over. *ok more ghz, im happy*.
Unforuntely, no. the Intel does only 6 floating points per cycle meaning that it can only carry out 6 operations per cycle. The AMD does 3 more so it can do 9 points.

Maths Lession:
3.2ghz x 6 = 19.2 (Intel)
2.2ghz x 9 = 19.8 (AMD)

SOURCE: http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showpost.php?p=618488&postcount=2


OK, Praetor, now how precisely can you call this bullshit? Obviously something's amiss, because I couldn't find one shred of credible information that even remotely refuted my statement. In fact, it would seem that there is an overwhelming tendency to agree with my statements. By all means, you may ask for my sources of information, but before you call my words "crap" and/or "BS," at least confirm that they are "crap," and/or "BS."


----------



## NeuromancerWGDD'U (Jun 15, 2005)

Praetor said:
			
		

> Hmmm funny how Windows XP 64bit edition was designed for Intel platforms and then awhile later Windows XP x64 came out for AMD processors..... I'd say Intel's been in the 64bit market a lot longer than you give them credit for


Yeah, kinda embarrassed about that, I really need to pay attention to both sides of the field there... anyway, you must also keep in mind that Intel owns a very large percentage of the commercial processor market, and it would be very advantageous for Microsoft to initially release x64 for Intel's 64-bit processors versus AMD's 64-bit processors.


----------



## Praetor (Jun 16, 2005)

http://www.pcmech.com/show/processors/715/ said:
			
		

> AMD Athlon XP’s have 3 X86 decoders, 3 floating-point pipelines, and 3 integer pipelines. This is compared with Intel’s Pentium 4, which has only one X86 decoder, 2 floating-point pipelines, and 1 more integer pipeline than AMD’s Athlon. This leads to AMD being able to decode more instructions than Intel at the same time, and being able to perform floating-point operations quicker than Intel. Overall, AMD Athlon XP processors are able to perform 9 operations per clock cycle while Intel can only manage 6. It doesn’t sound like much, but in processors every operation is crucial. This is why I said AMD are more about getting more done per clock cycle in my AMD processor buying guide.


Unfortunately thats quite inconsequential if not partially incorrect:

 You cannot break an opcode -- even when an interrupt is called, the currently executing opcode will complete before the interrupt is dealt with. This holds true of 8086 and 68xx and 68K assembly. I dont know specifically about other ASM platforms but it would make sense that they would not be able to split an opcode.
 Do make sure you are aware of the distinction between an operation and an instruction as they are not neccesarily the same. 
 Now what the comment in the quote was referencing was about the superscalar architecture which was introduced to deal with the idea of "why are we limited to a maximum of 1 operation per cycle?" -- something you didnt mention. Regardless, superscalar architecture simply means "a crapload of extra silicon was added to the chip in the form of decoders and execution units etc. The funky thing about this is that, like all neato inventions ... _there is a catch_ (you didnt think it'd be that easy did you hehe) and the catch is that all this fancy hardware only kicks in *if* the multiple instructions in the prefetch queue *can* be executed independently

Getting back to the point Im making about execution times:

 The x86 processor doesnt an opcode within a single cycle. Consider something simple and stupidly common like *mov ax, bx* and we'll break it down in a bit more detail
 Fetch instruction. 1 cycle
 Update the IP. 1 cycle
 Decode instruction. 1 cycle
 If needed, fetch a 2-byte operand. 0-2 cycles
 If such an operand was required, update the IP again. 0-1 cycles.
 Translate the address of that operand if needed. 0-2 cycles
 Fetch that operand now that we know its address. 0-3 cycles
 Save the value to the destination register. 1 cycle
The total here is anywhere from 5-11 cycles for a stinkin mov op  This is a good analysis of the MOV instruction

That being said, only one serious correction needed to that first link you provided:


> Overall, AMD Athlon XP processors are able to perform 9 operations per clock cycle while Intel can only manage 6


While it may just be a case of symantics but an important one. When talking about executions or efficiencies or such, the unit being dealt with is an "operation" or "an opcode" (when we breakdown an opcode, sometimes that's called an 'instruction' but that is explicitly noted). Any other time 'instruction' is used, it's synonymous with 'opcode'. What that quote _should_ have said was "AMD Athlon XP processors are able to prefetch 3 op-instructions concurrently and deal with three such FP and INT instruction streams and the Intel Pentium 4 is only able to prefect a single instruction and deal with two FP and a single INT instruction stream".

That being said, perhaps you should have a look at page two of the link you gave me. Contrary to what you try to pass as the number of decoders and execution units being the defining characteristic of a processors performance -- it's not. (That and the fact that not all instructions are able to be executed independently as noted above -- then again thats what OOOE Optimization is for hehe)

-----



> (AMD) 9 opcc multiplied by 2000 (2ghz) x 1,000,000 = 18,000,000,000 ops (eighteen billion)
> (INTEL) 6 opcc multiplied by 3000 (3ghz) x 1,000,000 = 18,000,000,000 ops
> realistically, the exact same amount of real world work, regardless of overrated megaherts hype....


If you're trying to suggest that either of those processors will execute 18billion opcodes per second, then let me suggest to you that the year is 2005. Not 3005  hehe

----

Hehe the link gave me quite the chuckle .... its a collection of both AMD and Intel fanboys at a convention. One quote that stood out hehe


			
				amdtel said:
			
		

> The worst thing that can happen to AMD is that if they degrade their product by putting more pipelines.....if they do it in hammer they are screwed


<sarcasm> Well I guess they're screwed arent they? </sarcasm>

-----



> AMD Athlon CPU make up its disadvantage in memory bandwidth by providing three Full x86 decoders (while Pentium 4 has only 1) and performing 9 operations per clock cycle (while the Pentium 4 has 4). Consider the much more expense on the latter system, we still believe the former one is worth to report here.


While true from a hardware level (again the wording is quite wrong -- I wish my procs could be that effective), they failed to note that the reason any old-generation Pentium4 loses out to AthlonXP and Pentium IIIs is because their clock speeds are not scaled enough to counter the ineffectiveness of the individual cycle

----



> Also, the Athlons perform 9 operations per clock cycle, compared to 6 for the P4 (non HT).


Again with the wording .... just because you find forum comments about the number of "operations" being done doesnt mean thats actually how it is. Because if it was, I'd settle for that 18billion-opcodes/sec setup you 'calculated' earlier. Yer a bright kid I think and i'll assume you get my point about the wording

----



> Simply put, AMD's do more calculations, and have less bottlenecks when gaming.
> I could write you a book about it, but I'd just be quoting AMD...and even I would get lost in the technical explanation


.
Well a few things about that:
- The distinction for gaming has only really shone through with the K8 based processors and their on-die memory controllers ... having a memory controller that operates in synch with the cpu rather than the NB is hell of a boon and that is what gives AMD processors their killer advantage over Intel silicon in the gaming market
- Just because a processor is suited for gaming does not mean it's suited for everything. Although this is beginninng to change (although only with the top end processors), real work is still an Intel silicon job



> So AMDs or Intels?
> Let me out an example of the XP 3200. It only goes up to 2.2ghz. On the other hand the P4 goes up to 3.2ghz and over. *ok more ghz, im happy*.
> Unforuntely, no. the Intel does only 6 floating points per cycle meaning that it can only carry out 6 operations per cycle. The AMD does 3 more so it can do 9 points.


Well in that case with those two processors, explain to me why
- Intel processors dominate the photoshop sector? To a degree that's an INT bount application and since the AMD proc has supposedly 3x the INT capacity ... why does the Intel one win out?
- Intel processors dominate the Premier sector? Thats a FP arena and the AMD chip there should have an advantage since it has an extra FP pipeline?
- Some other supposedly FP bound stuff ends up in Intel land?
- And in animation, a FP bound application for CPUs, ends up in Intel land?



.... continues


----------



## Praetor (Jun 16, 2005)

... continued




> OK, Praetor, now how precisely can you call this bullshit? Obviously something's amiss, because I couldn't find one shred of credible information that even remotely refuted my statement. In fact, it would seem that there is an overwhelming tendency to agree with my statements. By all means, you may ask for my sources of information, but before you call my words "crap" and/or "BS," at least confirm that they are "crap," and/or "BS."


Well the simple fact that you seem to have confused the meaning of "operation" gives things away. Furthermore, just because you found some links here and there (mostly forum ones it seems) that corroberate doesnt mean much when you dont apply the facts being conveyed with a logical sense of reasoning. Sure the AthlonXPs can have 3 FP units ... I didnt even bother verifying that that (although didnt need to either) .... but just because they have three such units does not mean they are better processors .... and on the converse, just because intel doesnt have 3 such units does not make it a better processor. Since Ive dealt with ASM and I know for damn sure opcodes dont execute in fractions of a cycle I countered by asking for specific opcodes that may execute in 1/6 or 1/9 of a cycle (since, not being an ASM guru I dont know the entire opcode layouts off the top of my head). That was an opportunity to solidify your case. I see no opcodes.

Regarding the "applying the facts" comment, sure AMD can have 9 "whatever" per cycle and Intel only have 6 "whatevers" per cycle, but two things should come to mind:
1. Why the hell are all these processors so slow??? Sure we know its CISC technology so yer looking at a 300% bloat in opcode length but at say 18billion opcodes/sec -- it shouldnt matter
2. The fact that AMD has more "whatever" does not mean it is a better processor. And never will. The fact that Intels have fewer does not mean it is a worse processor and never will.

I think an overwhelming majority of informed users will concur that to say "AMD makes the best processors ever and all Intel Processors suck" (even if we limit the scope to current and last-gen processors) is an excessively broad and closeminded view. There is a reason why Intel and AMD exist and why there are so many threads on the internet about "Intel or AMD" -- thats because its not hands down clear. 

----



> Yeah, kinda embarrassed about that, I really need to pay attention to both sides of the field there... anyway, you must also keep in mind that Intel owns a very large percentage of the commercial processor market, and it would be very advantageous for Microsoft to initially release x64 for Intel's 64-bit processors versus AMD's 64-bit processors.


1. Windows XP x64 is not [originally]  for Intel systems but rather for AMD's K8 lineup. I think you have Windows XP x64 and Windows XP 64bit Edition mixed up?
2. The fact that Intel has the lions share of the consumer market was not why Microsoft released Windows XP 64bit edition -- t'is cuz Intel had their 64bit stuff up and running a lot sooner than AMD 

----

Oh and on a last note:


> Geforce FX 5700LE @ stock 250/500 core/memory with 256-bit memory interface, **drool**, ever so unneccesary...


That videocard doesnt have a 256bit memory interface.


----------



## 98vert6spd (Jun 16, 2005)

Praetor said:
			
		

> ... continued
> 
> 
> 
> ...





0WNED


----------



## Praetor (Jun 16, 2005)

Well it wasnt meant as an "attack" per se.... it's just that yes he makes a point that "Hz is not the bottom line" but then again neither is "number of execution units"


----------



## kof2000 (Jun 16, 2005)

i think you're forgetting about the 630 also be HT? whereas the amd they release the x2 for that.


----------



## Praetor (Jun 16, 2005)

> i think you're forgetting about the 630 also be HT? whereas the amd they release the x2 for that.


?


----------



## NeuromancerWGDD'U (Jun 16, 2005)

Praetor said:
			
		

> Oh and on a last note:
> 
> That videocard doesnt have a 256bit memory interface.



I didn't specify that it's a Geforce FX 5700LE OPTIMA. PNY Technologies. Check their site. Since the exact specifications of my card were not in question I didn't feel it necessary to specify that it's an optima. As far as I know, that's the only 256-bit Geforce FX 5700LE.


----------



## mgoldb2 (Jun 16, 2005)

NeuromancerWGDD'U said:
			
		

> I didn't specify that it's a Geforce FX 5700LE OPTIMA. PNY Technologies. Check their site. Since the exact specifications of my card were not in question I didn't feel it necessary to specify that it's an optima. As far as I know, that's the only 256-bit Geforce FX 5700LE.



from the web site

NVIDIA® CineFX™ 2.0 engine
*256-bit graphics core*
	250MHz core clock
*128-bit DDR memory interface*
	500MHz memory data rate
	8.0GB/sec. memory bandwidth
	188 million vertices/sec. setup
	4 pixels per clock (peak)
	16 textures per pixel(max)with 8 textures applied per clock
	Dual 400MHz RAMDACs
	Maximum display resolution 2048 x 1536 x 32 bpp at 85Hz
	Flat Panel display support with resolutions up to 1600 x 1200
*Requires flat panel display with VGA input

from
http://www.pny.com/products/verto/mainstream/5700le.asp


----------



## NeuromancerWGDD'U (Jun 16, 2005)

Alright, obviously you could, on a whim, liquify me with your immense knowledge of processors. I had browsed through about 20 different sites, just looking for a simple way to, in least terms possible, help explain why operating frequencies between AMD and Intel aren't the best way to compare performance. The constant comparison that I found was  "AMD, 9 operations per clock cycle, Intel, 6 operations per clock cycle." They are not my direct words, but a constant comparison that I found on 90% of the websites that I read. I'm not going to continue to argue because, stubborn as I may be, I'm not stupid. I admit, you know much more about this than I do, but I don't think that one (obviously 'one' who knows their stuff) can actually (thoroughly) answer a question about AMD to Intel performance comparison without confusing very nearly everybody that reads it. There's just too much involved. By simplifying it, you can give someone a general idea, even though this is at the cost of accuracy. I didn't simplify it (I don't even understand the unsimplified version), all I did was pass on the simplified version that is largely accepted.


----------



## mgoldb2 (Jun 16, 2005)

NeuromancerWGDD'U said:
			
		

> . By simplifying it, you can give someone a general idea, even though this is at the cost of accuracy. I didn't simplify it (I don't even understand the unsimplified version), all I did was pass on the simplified version that is largely accepted.



Simplifying is not the same thing as giving wrong information.  simplifying is being able to say CORRECTLY information in terms everyone understand.  Making something up to explain something is not simplifying it wrong.  How does it help anyone if they going around spreading false information even if they now THINK they understand why.

Simplyfing should not come at the cost of accuracy.


----------



## Praetor (Jun 16, 2005)

> By simplifying it, you can give someone a general idea, even though this is at the cost of accuracy. I didn't simplify it (I don't even understand the unsimplified version), all I did was pass on the simplified version that is largely accepted.


Absolutely and I agree entirely. Clock speed does NOT mean everything. And I have no issues with that. It's when you comment that 'because AMD has 9 of this and Intel only has 6 and this means AMD is better' -- thats what I challenge.

Losing precision is one thing and that is generally acceptable. Losing accuracy ... that tends to result in incorrect information being conveyed to the end user. Now as to what to buy, AMD or Intel ... that was already mentioned in a somewhat simplified and fair manner in the *CPU 101*.


----------



## NeuromancerWGDD'U (Jun 16, 2005)

...I'm going to stop posting until I get sleep, I'm just being stupid at this point. Originally the sig saying "256-bit memory interface" was a brain fart, what I was failing to notice was the emphasis on the fact that it's not a 256-bit MEMORY INTERFACE. I had assumed that Praetor had looked up a non-256-bit anything card due to the fact that I hadn't specified. I'm sorry, I'm being stupid and irrational at the moment, I'm gonna go to sleep now.


----------



## NeuromancerWGDD'U (Jun 16, 2005)

mgoldb2 said:
			
		

> Making something up to explain something is not simplifying it wrong.  How does it help anyone if they going around spreading false information even if they now THINK they understand why.


Now hold on! By my own words, I DID NOT simplify it; I looked up what was the general explanation, made sure that it wasn't just one source saying this (which, had it been, would have qualified it as spreading false information, and that I am thoroughly against!), then I proceeded to share what I had found.


----------



## Praetor (Jun 16, 2005)

> I had assumed that Praetor had looked up a non-256-bit anything card due to the fact that I hadn't specified


Hehe hardly, I'm quite careful with my wording as you no doubt have noticed by now 



> Now hold on! By my own words, I DID NOT simplify it; I looked up what was the general explanation, made sure that it wasn't just one source saying this (which, had it been, would have qualified it as spreading false information, and that I am thoroughly against!), then I proceeded to share what I had found.


Hehe then if I hadnt challenged you on it, that woulda essentially been plagiarism heehee   But humor aside, do realize that just because numerous sources say something is one way doesnt make it accurate ... hell 90% of the computing websites out there from Intel to ASUS to Newegg don't know what the hell "FSB" really means and they think boards come with a 800MHz FSB.


----------



## mgoldb2 (Jun 16, 2005)

NeuromancerWGDD'U said:
			
		

> Now hold on! By my own words, I DID NOT simplify it; I looked up what was the general explanation, made sure that it wasn't just one source saying this (which, had it been, would have qualified it as spreading false information, and that I am thoroughly against!), then I proceeded to share what I had found.






> Simplifying is not the same thing as giving wrong information. simplifying is being able to say CORRECTLY information in terms everyone understand. Making something up to explain something is not simplifying it wrong. How does it help anyone if they going around spreading false information even if they now THINK they understand why.



I never accuse you of doing anything in that statement


I was responding to


> By simplifying it, you can give someone a general idea, even though this is at the cost of accuracy



As I said simplifying should not come at the cost of accuracy.


----------



## Praetor (Jun 16, 2005)

1. Drop it or take a hike. 
2. "Sounds accusatory" and "making an accusation" are two different things.

Lets all get back on topic


----------



## mfraley65 (Jul 18, 2006)

*Old thread from 6/2005*

Well the simple fact that you seem to have confused the meaning of "operation" gives things away. Furthermore, just because you found some links here and there (mostly forum ones it seems) that corroberate doesnt mean much when you dont apply the facts being conveyed with a logical sense of reasoning. Sure the AthlonXPs can have 3 FP units ... I didnt even bother verifying that that (although didnt need to either) .... but just because they have three such units does not mean they are better processors .... and on the converse, just because intel doesnt have 3 such units does not make it a better processor. Since Ive dealt with ASM and I know for damn sure opcodes dont execute in fractions of a cycle I countered by asking for specific opcodes that may execute in 1/6 or 1/9 of a cycle (since, not being an ASM guru I dont know the entire opcode layouts off the top of my head). That was an opportunity to solidify your case. I see no opcodes.

Regarding the "applying the facts" comment, sure AMD can have 9 "whatever" per cycle and Intel only have 6 "whatevers" per cycle, but two things should come to mind:
1. Why the hell are all these processors so slow??? Sure we know its CISC technology so yer looking at a 300% bloat in opcode length but at say 18billion opcodes/sec -- it shouldnt matter
2. The fact that AMD has more "whatever" does not mean it is a better processor. And never will. The fact that Intels have fewer does not mean it is a worse processor and never will.

I think an overwhelming majority of informed users will concur that to say "AMD makes the best processors ever and all Intel Processors suck" (even if we limit the scope to current and last-gen processors) is an excessively broad and closeminded view. There is a reason why Intel and AMD exist and why there are so many threads on the internet about "Intel or AMD" -- thats because its not hands down clear. 

----


1. Windows XP x64 is not [originally]  for Intel systems but rather for AMD's K8 lineup. I think you have Windows XP x64 and Windows XP 64bit Edition mixed up?
2. The fact that Intel has the lions share of the consumer market was not why Microsoft released Windows XP 64bit edition -- *t'is cuz Intel had their 64bit stuff up and running a lot sooner than AMD 
*
----

Oh and on a last note:

That videocard doesnt have a 256bit memory interface.[/QUOTE]

I just came across this thread when searching for some information.  I am comfused by what you had said in it praetor.  One this is "t'is cuz intel had their 64bit stuff up and running a lot sooner than amd.  Is this really true.  According to wikipedia: *"This move by AMD was well timed to take advantage of a product hole in Intel's roadmap, namely a Pentium-compatible CPU that can deal with the inevitable transition to 64 bits. Some viewed this transition as slightly premature; however, it helped AMD to snatch the standard away from Intel, and its quality 32-bit backwards compatibility made it a feasible chip even for home users. AMD's standard was adopted by Microsoft, Linux and even Sun Microsystems. This left Intel in a position where they were forced to make an agreement with AMD to use the AMD64 extensions for their own 64-bit (EM64T) processors. The K8 is also notable for its Direct Connect Architecture.*(Amd) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  Also, some of the things you had said about the cycles operations deal.  I know this is old but if you can point me to where these ideas came from i would much appreciate it as this is contrary to what the guys here in development are saying.


----------



## Cromewell (Jul 19, 2006)

Strictly speaking MIPS Technologies produced the first 64bit CPU, then DEC then Intel announced the IA-64 architecture. The next to release one was Sun with an UltraSPARC, followed by HP, IBM then Intel actually releasing the Itanic. Of the list only IBMs PowerPCs were used in home computers (Macs) and with good reason, try to find prices on some of those 

What AMD did was add 64bit extensions to x86 before Intel did.


----------



## m0nk3ys1ms (Jul 19, 2006)

You do realise that this thread is over a year old, don't you?


----------



## Cromewell (Jul 19, 2006)

1. No, you assume I look at the dates
2. I don't really care


----------



## mfraley65 (Jul 19, 2006)

Yeah, i relized it was a year old when i posted(came across it on a search somehow) but was just messing around.  Also, as we all know there is so much miss information around on the web and so many people that are never wrong even when they are.  This makes getting proper information out to people that need it.  Anyway, after viewing the site i have seen there are some very knowledgable people on here and i can browse the forum for ideas i haven't had.  Now if i could just get these computers(and the good folks working with them) to do all my work without my presence i may be able to finish my car.


----------



## Praetor (Jul 19, 2006)

> I just came across this thread when searching for some information. I am comfused by what you had said in it praetor. One this is "t'is cuz intel had their 64bit stuff up and running a lot sooner than amd. Is this really true


Yes and no. Between Intel and AMD it's true however as Cromewell points out in #33, if we include all processors its not true. What most people think of when they say "AMD came out with 64bit before Intel" is the consumer chips. Intel's Itanic lineup has been around for several years before AMD's K8 even began to breathe life.

As for the ressurection, shrug, oh well, it's not horrible as this thread serves a good purpse


----------

