• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

AMD & Intel - the difference in data handeling?

S

Specks

n00b
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
8
Ok, I've thought about building a new rig that will last me more than a few years so I've been thinking of putting some serious money in to a serious rig. However since I've always used Intel and been a staunch (read facist) supporter of them I've turned my nose up on AMD processors. Recent chip prices from AMD and the fact that Intel can't really seem to get their act togther has made me look at the way I think about AMD's chips. Would a dual core 64 bit be worth getting for a new system? I read the analogy in the faq but I need a bit more explanation on the differences between an AMD chip and an Intel chip. Would an AMD chip running at 3.0 GHz actualy be faster than an Intel chip running the same speed? Besides heat generation what are the ups and downs of going with AMD rather than Intel?

Thanks,

Specks
 
'Besides heat generation' - you do realize that the AMD processors run COOLER than Intel, right?

Anyway, Anandtech has done a fairly interesting series of write-ups on the dual-core processors - head over to their site and check out the 'CPU/Chipset' section for some good reads.
 
From what I've gathered (If I understand it correctly), and AMD chip at roughly 2GHZ will run about the same speed as an intel chip running 3GHz.

Thats because AMD chips run 3 instructions per clock cycle, but intel chips only run 2.
 
Okay, before I go further, this applies to Athlon 64 processors and Pentium 4 processors. The Pentium M is more analoguous to the Athlon 64 than to the Pentium 4.

Imagine that a product can be made from start to finish using one assembly line. There are two assembly lines, the Pentium 4 and the Athlon 64, which produce identical products.

The Pentium 4's approach is a 31-step process, but the process moves very quickly from step to step. Let's say that that each step takes 2 minutes to complete. That's roughly one product per hour.

The Athlon 64's approach is a 12-step process, but the process moves slower from step to step. Let's say that each step takes 4 minutes to complete. That's roughly one product every 45 minutes.

Now consider overall system performance as the daily output level of the two production lines. This is an accurate depiction, as application execution is essentially a series of executed instructions (or, in our model, a line of products manufactured), and application performance is a measure of the progress of the application execution over a period of time.

In terms of daily output level, or overall system performance, the Athlon 64 tends to perform better because it uses less steps, yet each step can be completed fast enough that more products or instructions can be completed in a given period of time, when compared to the Pentium 4.

Obviously, with any given increase in process speed (clock frequency increase), the Athlon 64 assembly line's daily output level increases more dramatically than the Pentium 4 line. With the Athlon 64 closing the clock frequency gap with the Pentium 4, it's easy to see why the Athlon 64 is the overall performance leader in the desktop segment. Couple that with an on-die memory controller for substantially reduced latency, the Athlon 64 is a very strong contender.

In reality, the Pentium 4 handles instructions using the same 31-stage process I described, and so does the Athlon 64 with its 12-stage pipeline. Of course, there are other factors to consider, but this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top