Pipeline length and processor speeds?????

[gwarren007]

I was having a discussion and pipeline lenght and processor speed came up. We were talking Amd vs Intel. He was saying his Amd 2.2 athlon Venice core was faster than his 2.8 prescott core 800fsb Intel. Since my computer is slow to eithor of these, can someone elaborate?
Both have 7200/80gb/wd drives
both have the same OS
both have 1 gig of ram

He was also saying that the 2.5 ghtz atainable from the amd could match intel(@3.5)?
Maybe just blowing smoke.....
gwarren007

 

[BinarySynapse]

Longer pipelines incur heavier penalties when prediction mistakes occur. Prescott has 31 stages to refill when it stalls. Plus each stage takes clock cycles to do its work and move the data/instruction to the next stage. So the more stages there are the less efficient a processor is. I've read that a Northwood P4 with it's 20 stages would beat a Prescott P4 at the same clockspeed.

 

[gwarren007]

So is that why gamers will choose the slower Amd (2.2 amd, to 2.8 for intel), and the shorter pipelines make up the difference? Then they overclock it to reach the desired speed & stability? I see that Amd has clock speeds up to 2.4 for its Dual Core/ Dual hyperthreading procs. How do they compare to the 3.6 EE intel procs? Just asking to know, not to get flamed.
gwarren007

 

[darkeen]

Current AMD CPUs do more work per cycle than current intel chips. Jump on over to the intel or amd board and take a look at the conroe (new intel chip running at 2.6 - 3[?] ghz) threads. You will get a big load of why mhz are not the only measure of a cpu