Why are AMD processors better than a P4

[HeathenUK]

I recently decided to make my own PC and I intended it to be an Intel based system. However I keep getting told that Athlon 64 is much better. Trouble is I know next to nothing about AMD processors. I'm confused over the speed, why exactly is an AMD running at 2.2Ghz, for example, better than a P4 running at a seemingly much higher speed?

 

[Brad4321]

Basically speaking, AMD processors do more work per clock cycle, IPC's.

Think of it as a pick-up vs. semi. Some rigs can hit 100MPH with 40 tons, while a pick-up could hit about 150MPH with 1 ton. The pickup is able to make more runs back and forth because it is faster than the rig, but it hauls less each time around.

OK, extreme example, but you get the point.

Plus, the 64's are 64 bit while intels creap along at 32bit, for the most part.

 

[HeathenUK]

Good explanation, finally makes sense. Do you think that the Athlon 64 is better value than the P4? Can anyone recomend wich one to get? I'm looking at £200 max for the CPU, and also need to know a good motherboard to go with it.

 

[Kroz]

That is one of the most stupid examples I have ever heard, and it makes the most sense! Cool way of looking at it.

Thanks for the new way to explain the difference.

Kroz

 

[Filter]

depends on what your going to do with you pc. if its video editing go p4 if its gaming go a64.


if its jus websurfing etc. pick either.

 

[Mushroom Prince]

I recently decided to make my own PC and I intended it to be an Intel based system. However I keep getting told that Athlon 64 is much better. Trouble is I know next to nothing about AMD processors. I'm confused over the speed, why exactly is an AMD running at 2.2Ghz, for example, better than a P4 running at a seemingly much higher speed?

Most intel users know next to nothing about processors in general let alone AMD chips

 

[Rad777]

Most intel users know next to nothing about processors in general let alone AMD chips

Haha, Im jacking this quote from you, cause its so true

Rad777

 

[Roberty]

Go with one of the 754 pin motherboard/cpu's. An nForce3 250 chipset motherboard with your choice of 754 pin Athlon 64 depending on your budget.

 

[ignitionxvi]

another way to look at it is comparing people running and horses running.

When a person runs, they move there legs very fast, but can't go very fast in general. A horse can run much faster than a person, but if you watch its legs they don't have to move as fast to beat out a person running.

Basically, the name of the game is how much work the CPU can do per clock cycle. The Athlon64 does much more work per clock cycle than the Pentium 4. Even intel knows that they're at fault with the Pentium 4, thats why they trashed Tejas and are moving to the Pentium M architechture for their new CPU's.

Also, the Athlon64 has an onboard memory controller, which means that it does not have to go through the northbridge to access the memory. The speed to the northbridge is the speed of the system clock speed (it used to be called the front side bus) so thats normally 200mhz. With the onboard memory controller, it can access the memory at up to 1ghz. This also makes onboard cache less important, so thats why the Athlons with 512kb cache beat out the Prescott's with 1mb cache.

Hope this helps.

 

[ameoba]

...not to mention the Prescott's 31 stage pipeline making branch mispredictions scary.


They're both good procs but, for the money, AMD is going to give you a faster system.

 

[HeathenUK]

That's a lot of great info guys. Didn't take a lot for you to convince me to go for the Athlon 64. Roberty, that fits my budget nicely. Thanks all.

 

[Roberty]

Glad we could help a brother out.

 

[Syphon Filter]

hrm...i have a question...and i figured it would fit in this thread nicely...

why are the 939 A64's so much more expensive than the 754's ??

 

[freeloader1969]

That's just AMD capitilizing on people's stupidity. Dual channel MUST be better than single channel.

 

[xonik]

Plus, the 64's are 64 bit while intels creap along at 32bit, for the most part.

"Creap along at 32bit"? That's perhaps the most absurd statement I've heard this week. The word length has nothing to do with speed. What a strange statement to make. Anyways, the vast majority of Athlon 64s are currently operating in a 32-bit environment, so they get to "creap along" too

 

[xonik]

why are the 939 A64's so much more expensive than the 754's ??

Supply and demand. Hardware websites and hype from nerds throughout the Internet helped create an artificially high demand for the Socket 939 Athlon 64s. Meanwhile, AMD's production lines are not making too many Socket 939 parts yet. High demand and low supply mean higher prices.

 

[freecableguy]

Look at it this way: Intel knows how to do what AMD can do - lower clockspeed with smaller pipelines, take for instance a Pentium-M which will compete (and whoop) the ass of a compariable AMD processor. The REAL difference is that AMD can't do what Intel does: run higher clockspeeds.

 

[Axdrenalin]

Look at it this way: Intel knows how to do what AMD can do - lower clockspeed with smaller pipelines, take for instance a Pentium-M which will compete (and whoop) the ass of a compariable AMD processor. The REAL difference is that AMD can't do what Intel does: run higher clockspeeds.

Yeah, I guess thats why Intel is using AMD 64 bit instruction code in their processors too, right? Please, just cause you've got the cash to burn on your 3.2EE doesn't mean you have the sense to go along with it. You're sounding like the old Amiga vs. Mac vs Windows mentality of the late 80's.

 

[freecableguy]

I don't have a 3.2EE....check again.

 

[Axdrenalin]

- Yeah, just noticed that reading over it....

 

[freecableguy]

At least tell me I'm wrong....if you can. You don't because everything I have written in my post is correct. And if you really want to talk about 64-bit lets talk about how Intel developed the Itanium YEARS ago before AMD even had the thought of x86-64.

 

[Axdrenalin]

At least tell me I'm wrong....if you can. You don't because everything I have written in my post is correct. And if you really want to talk about 64-bit lets talk about how Intel developed the Itanium YEARS ago before AMD even had the thought of x86-64.

Heh - never said you were wrong. Intel does run at higher clock speeds most of the time. But its really a matter of efficiency, which is what the whole thead was about. The higher clock speeds that Intel runs is a matter of comphensation for not being as efficient per each cycle. Thats the only *real* difference.

 

[xonik]

Look at it this way: Intel knows how to do what AMD can do - lower clockspeed with smaller pipelines, take for instance a Pentium-M which will compete (and whoop) the ass of a compariable AMD processor. The REAL difference is that AMD can't do what Intel does: run higher clockspeeds.

See, there's the flaw: Intel has not demonstrated that it's "ass-whooping" Pentium M can run higher clock frequencies. Hell, AMD has not even demonstrated that it CAN'T, with the Athlon 64 and Opteron. AMD has released a steady stream of processors since last April, with good supply and good power dissipation figures. Intel's recent track record with the Pentium 4 3.2EE, 3.4E and 3.6E/F shows that it is having trouble delivering high performance processors in good supply, and that it is having trouble meeting acceptable thermal dissipation standards, as indicated by the last few ATX and BTX revisions.

 

[freecableguy]

Wrong, Intel lengths the pipeline to ALLOW higher clockspeeds (in addition to some other design changes). This longer pipeline is what leads to your "inefficiency" argument. If you want to talk about "efficiency" though then look at the Pentium-M....extremely low voltage and wattage, lower clockspeeds and impressive scores. Intel marketing is the difference, the Pentium-M is for notebooks (an area is which Intel controls >90% of the market) and is not made for desktop systems. AMD works differently because they have to, because if they don't they go under. This is one of the reasons they continue to sell unlocked CPUs....Intel doesn't have to because they know their drawing power is huge even if they don't.

 

[Axdrenalin]

The pentium M processor is simply Intel following the "work smarter not harder" principle that AMD has been doing for years now. Actually it was quite refreshing to see Intel look at something in a different light instead of following the same old principles that they've followed in the past.

The 64 bit thing and the Itanic, come on. Tell me you've got one of those too? Of course you don't, nor an Itanic 2. Sure they were 64 bit, but they were way overpriced and nobody outiside of the Govt and large industy could afford them. AMD revolutionized 64 bit with the Opteron, which I might add is *very* affordable and easy to maintain. Count how many are being used in industy now compared to the Itanic.

You know, its really an uphill battle no matter what side of the fence you're sitting on. Both Intel and AMD have they're stong points and weaknesses. Hell, I have and use both processors in several of my 6 computers here at the house. What it all boils down to is the fact that AMD makes an enthusiast processor that people like (locked or unlocked ) and Intel puts it out to line they're pockets with. you want strong video editing features, get an Intel. You want good everyday and gaming performance, grab an AMD64. Whats so hard about that?

 

[apHytHiaTe]

I think u intel guys are missing the point. Clock speed isn't anything... its just a number. Yes its nice to have the fastest processor out there, but its even cooler to have one that runs half the other guy's speed, costs tons less, and still owns. If you've been watching your roadmaps, you intel peeps need to think up some more excuses, cuz they are taking the focus off the speed. Heck they don't even want to put the speed in product names any more. Pretty soon they will switch over to pentium m's and dualcore Pentium M's.

AMD peeps, you are missing the point. There are not any 64-bit apps. There wont be for years. Its useless to have an amd64, unless you are running something like 64bit linux, or some crappy windows64 beta. Just like clock speed, 64 and 32 are NUMBERS. The difference in today's apps is small. A64 is not the end-all of gaming processors. Plenty of people do just fine on p4s.

One company isnt necessarily(sp, too lazy to check) better than the other. There is an ebb and a flow of prices and bench performance. One processor may be a better deal at one time than another. Just get whats cheapest at the time and overclock it. Right now, the a64 3000 seems to be that.

Come on, people, !!!!!!ism is futile. the next guy isn't going to switch to intel or amd or ati or nvidia just because of how much you insult his hardware.

Now im going to get off of my soapbox and go take a dump...

EDIT: woops, looks like i used the OTHER f-word

 

[Axdrenalin]

I think u intel guys are missing the point. Clock speed isn't anything... its just a number. Yes its nice to have the fastest processor out there, but its even cooler to have one that runs half the other guy's speed, costs tons less, and still owns.

You put it so much more elegantly than I did...

 

[apHytHiaTe]

Thank you, i'll be here all week....

Itanic

It is called "Itanium"

 

[DemonDiablo]

Thank you, i'll be here all week....

It is called "Itanium"

I believe the reason he called it Itanic is b/c the Itanium sunk just like the titanic Intel dumped the Itanium quicker than it took you to read my post thats how bad of a concept it was

 

[apHytHiaTe]

Huh? I thought there were still itaniums.... but i probably missed the itanic thing so sry. Intel is still pimping it, i know. I was harrassing, ahem, talking to an intel rep at a tech show, and talking about a64, and hes like "well we do have the itanium" what a brilliant answer. anyway i didnt know they dropped it like a hot potato.

 

[FreiDOg]

I believe the reason he called it Itanic is b/c the Itanium sunk just like the titanic Intel dumped the Itanium quicker than it took you to read my post thats how bad of a concept it was

they still sell Itanium 2's. And there are more cores planned, including the Madison M9 (9mb of L3) and some LV cores (which have dropped the max power dissipation to an astonsihingly small 90W in the past, I mean they're practically mobiles now )
It is probably more of a pride thing anymore with Intel/HP but they're still around.

 

[Brad4321]

"Creap along at 32bit"? That's perhaps the most absurd statement I've heard this week. The word length has nothing to do with speed.

Maybe not now, but it will later on. How fast will a 32bit processor run 64 bit applications?

 

[FreiDOg]

Maybe not now, but it will later on. How fast will a 32bit processor run 64 bit applications?

how fast will 64 bit applications become availible?
how long until we see a solid suite of 64 applications on a mainstream 64 bit OS?
how long until 32 is no longer an option?
how long before the average [H] member junks their gaming machine's CPU?

If you're not buing a P4 (or AthonXP) because in some far off distant point in the future you might not be able to buy 32 bit software for a then obsolete chip, I'd think long and hard for a new reason.

 

[Brad4321]

Actually, that is a damn good reason, since I pass all of my systems down. My dad, being the last on the chain, uses my first system which struggles opening outlook.

However, people get the AMD because it is faster. There is no point in arguing over something this retarded.

 

[Esben]

I usually use a car engine analogy when explaining the performance difference between 2 processors of different clock speeds. A 3 GHz processor is to a 2 GHz processor, as a 6000 rpm engine is to a 4000 rpm engine. That shows how much (or little) the clock speed (or RPM) really tells you about the performance of a processor (or engine).
You need much more information than just a single number.

 

[Decelerate]

I like that semi vs pickup analogy, best one I've seen to date.

 

[Brad4321]

I have always used that. Considering I work at a trucking company, and as soon as I get my CDL I will be driving them, that might have something to do with that .

 

[apHytHiaTe]

I usually use a car engine analogy when explaining the performance difference between 2 processors of different clock speeds. A 3 GHz processor is to a 2 GHz processor, as a 6000 rpm engine is to a 4000 rpm engine. That shows how much (or little) the clock speed (or RPM) really tells you about the performance of a processor (or engine).
You need much more information than just a single number.

*applause* yes, my noobish friend, yes.

the most important line:

You need much more information than just a single number.

If a noobie can get it, why cant you gawds, limps, hards, and whatnot get it?!

 

[Brad4321]

Maybe because a lot of us have been in the computer scene for longer than we have been at [H] ?

 

[Mushroom Prince]

I don't have a 3.2EE....check again.

Just glancing at your sig I can tell that your a megahertz monkey.


Which is typical of intel users.