Question on processor speed.....

[webe3]

I asked this in another place on the net, but here goes.....I have an AMD Athlon XP 2000 chip that has a core memory of 1.6 ghz that is supposed to outperform a Intel Pentium 4 2.0 ghz chip. (I understand the theory of how a 12 speed can out perform a regular bike, even though the regular bike is faster.) But this is what really puzzles me.....the differences in the CORE MEMORY of each chip I mentioned is only around 300 mhz! I could easily overclock my chip to a 2ghz chip if I wanted to. BUT lets take the new BARTON Processor 3200, which is AMDs "flagship" processor they have come out with recently.....this new 3200 chip is SUPPOSED to be on par with a Intel Pentium 4 3.2 ghz......but this is what blows my mind......the CORE MEMORY of the AMD 3200 is ONLY 2.2 ghz!! THAT is a 1 ghz DIFFERENCE from the Intel 3.2 ghz chip in core memory! I am having a hard time understanding how this new AMD chip can overcome a whole 1ghz of difference in it's core memory and STILL be able to perform as fast as a Intel 3.2 core memory chip! I can understand the how difference between a Pentium 4 2.0 ghz and a AMD Athlon XP 2000 (1.67 core memory) can be made up because therte is only a 300 mgz gap between those two(heck, I could even overclock mine to a 2ghz if I wanted to!).......BUT how can you say that a chip that has a 2.2 ghz core memory (the AMD XP 3200) can outperform a chip with a core memory of 3.2 ghz ??? (The Intel Pentium 4 3.2 ghz) To me, it doesn't seem possible to close THAT wide of a gap in core memory!! Can somebody explain this to me????

[FrYGuY]

First off, when you're saying "Core Memory", what you really mean is "Clock Speed".

Secondly, the clock speed is actually a very deceptive measurement of speed. The clock speed actually measures how many cycles the processor goes through per second. It does not, however, measure how much PROCESSING it does.

The AMD chipsets have a much higher workload/cycle, and this allows them to compete with Intel's much faster clock speed. In fact, most people I know agree that the AMD is actually a FASTER chip than the comparably marked Intel (IE: The AMD XP 3200 is actually more powerful than the Intel P4 3.2 GHz). There's also more, such as RISC vs, CISC, however those have different benefits. (CISC is very useful for a machine which does a very specific task, such as video editing/animation, which is why Silicone Graphics Video Editing Stations kick SO MUCH FRIGGIN A... ahem, sorry, as I was saying... wheras RISC is better for a general purpose machine).

Hope this helps.

[webe3]

But a 1 ghz DIFFERENCE in clock speed??? It seems that it would be hard to make up for THAT much difference in the two processors! No matter WHAT kind of software you ran!

[igalan]

I fact the AMD XP3200+ isn't faster than a Pentium 4 3.06 GHz (4 x 133 MHz FSB), 3.0 GHz (4 x 200 MHz FSB) or 3,2 GHz (also 4 x 200 MHz). AMD was too optimistic with model numbers on XP3000+ and up. The main difference for the XP3200+ is the larger 512 KB L2 Cache instead of 256 KB L2 of other XP (not Barton).

[Polariz]

The performance rating has actually always been compared to the old Athlon Thunderbird chip. Hypothetically speaking:

2GHz Tbird = 2000+ rating.
1.6GHz XP = 2000+ rating.

Obviously after core advances and other upgrades, basically it means that they're comparing their new products to their old ones.

The problem with the new chips for AMD however is the 3000+ and 3200+ has not had as much of a core increase in speed, but if I remember correctly they have more cache than older AMD CPU's. However on Tomshardware reviews the 3000+ actually performed slower than a 2700+ in most tests.

[Dr. Avery]

My athlon xp 2500+ has the 512 KB cache (not 512 MB as previously stated in this thread, sorry guys )

This additional cache is essentially the only major difference between the T-Bred, and a Barton core.

Make no mistake - AMD's processor architechture performs better per clock cycle than Intel's, but Intel has the most powerful processor on the market right now.

In my opinion AMD's 32 bit product line is a smoke and mirror show at this point. Something to keep us occupied while they pour enormous resources into the last minute R&D for Athlon 64's release this fall.

[igalan]

Originally posted by Dr. Avery
My athlon xp 2500+ has the 512 KB cache (not 512 MB as previously stated in this thread, sorry guys )

Errr, ok corrected

In my opinion AMD's 32 bit product line is a smoke and mirror show at this point. Something to keep us occupied while they pour enormous resources into the last minute R&D for Athlon 64's release this fall.

Yes, I guess that AMD is focusing on 64 bit computing, but this left users of XP processors a bit dissapointed for the performance of the last XP processors that AMD will produce...

BTW, it's really difficult to find Bartons here in Barcelona; I'm stuck with my XP2000+, and I don't want to pay the high prices of XP3000+. I would like to get a XP2500+ or better XP2700+ but they're not available anywhere

[Polariz]

I wonder what Intel are playing at, there is apparently room for 64bit capabilities for the Prescott chip, which really would kill AMD if this were to be correct when the chip arrives.

[ABOU]

hey could someone post some more infor on 64 bit i have not heard about this

thanks

[igalan]

Originally posted by ABOU
hey could someone post some more infor on 64 bit i have not heard about this

If you want some in deep information about 64 bit computing in x86 platforms read this Article at Arstechnica. It's a bit technical, but well explained .