Speed (mhz) != Performance

This forum is for help with and discussion about your video hardware.

Speed (mhz) != Performance

Postby dwchang » Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:45 pm

I've said it before and even tried explaining it with a little more technical stuff. However, I'd like to point you guys to this article:

Why isn't Intel telling the whole Centrino story?

Read the whole thing and it will tell you what's up. As I've said in the forums, the Pentium-M is based on the PIII architecture and thus is more efficient then the P4. However, the P4 can be clocked a lot faster.

Which one performs better?

The Pentium-M (Centrino). The article goes into how people are confused since Intel has been selling the speed game the entire time and the fact the P-M runs at 1.6 Ghz compared to a P4 @ 2.4 Ghz confuses them. The Pentium-M is also more expensive and yet to them, it appears slower.

This is exactly what I've been trying to explain and also why AMD has a slower clock and yet comprable (if not better) performance. It would appear Intel has just tripped on it's own marketing machine that marketed speed as what you need. They're confused since if they market the Pentium-M as better, they pretty much destroy all their hardwork in convincing consumers that Mhz is what matters.

In fact, the article also talks about the lawsuit filed against Intel for misrepresenting their performance with false advertising and so on. I already knew about this, but figured I'd bring this up since it's related. It's possible that they're not marketing the Pentium-M like this since that would pretty much have them admitting that they've been misleading consumers.

Discuss.
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space
User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2002
Location: Madison, WI

Postby chuckg31 » Sun Oct 26, 2003 3:17 am

Hey Dwchang. Don't you work for AMD? The reason that I currently dislike Intel is because their whole major marketing strategy is or was (after the centrino deal) based basically on fooling the consumer. I mean WTF?

On a separate note.
What does the "EE" on the end of the new P4 "EE"'s stand for? And what are the major differences between the Athlon 64 FX and the Athlon 64 3200+?

And have you seen the Toms Hardware video where they directly compared the processors in terms of benchmarking?
User avatar
chuckg31
 
Joined: 13 Apr 2002

Postby Hitori » Sun Oct 26, 2003 3:34 am

chuckg31 wrote:On a separate note.
What does the "EE" on the end of the new P4 "EE"'s stand for?
Extreme Edition... :?
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
Hitori
 
Joined: 06 Feb 2002
Location: New Mexico
Status: I might be back.

Postby Anime2Envy » Sun Oct 26, 2003 11:35 am

As I've said in the forums, the Pentium-M is based on the PIII architecture and thus is more efficient then the P4. However, the P4 can be clocked a lot faster.


This is quite true. I think most people like to say "The numbers on my computer are bigger then yours!" I am running a single P3 Tualatin at 1.4Ghz and it kills most P4's under 2.0 Ghz. I can't wait untill I can get my second processor for this mobo, it will be great.
User avatar
Anime2Envy
 
Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Location: Ohio, for now

Postby dwchang » Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:11 pm

chuckg31 wrote:Hey Dwchang. Don't you work for AMD? The reason that I currently dislike Intel is because their whole major marketing strategy is or was (after the centrino deal) based basically on fooling the consumer. I mean WTF?

On a separate note.
What does the "EE" on the end of the new P4 "EE"'s stand for? And what are the major differences between the Athlon 64 FX and the Athlon 64 3200+?

And have you seen the Toms Hardware video where they directly compared the processors in terms of benchmarking?


Yes for the 9 millionth time, I work for AMD :-P

As Hitori has said, the "EE" stands for Extreme Edition and they are trying to market it to gamers. Funny since it's just a P4 Xeon, but anyway....

Difference between Athlon 64 3200 and FX? The major thing is probably the cache difference. I believe the FX has a 1 MB L2 cache and the 64 3200+ has a 256k or 512k. I think the FX also has more Hypertransport links.
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space
User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2002
Location: Madison, WI

now as we can see...

Postby Kenshin8518 » Thu Oct 30, 2003 5:57 pm

Well we are now seeing the fall of Intel. I am beginning to believe that AMD will soon overpower Intel in the world of processors. Intel just tripped, and the only way to go for them now is down.....

I admit that when I first got into computers, I thought that speed=MHz, but soon realized it wasn't, and went with AMD for my processor on my home-built cpu. After reading that article, I could only sigh. They used to be something, when their P3 was out, but they slowly made their own grave. I acutally think that when AMD became big, that's the time when Intel started to fall (not to blame AMD). I, in fact, have much better preformance on my 1.3 Ghz AMD Athlon XP then my friend is with his P4 @ 2.0 GHz. The fact i see is, Intel is a big liar, and the masses are catching on.
Fav. Brolly Quote: Monster? No im the devil
User avatar
Kenshin8518
 
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Location: Pennsylvania

Postby Lyrs » Thu Oct 30, 2003 6:00 pm

dwchang wrote:Hypertransport links.


What? What? :?

::does google search::

oh... :? too many big words.
GeneshaSeal - Dead Seals for Free
Orgasm - It's a Science
User avatar
Lyrs
 
Joined: 29 Aug 2002
Location: Internet Donation: 5814 Posts

Postby dwchang » Thu Oct 30, 2003 6:16 pm

Lyrs wrote:
dwchang wrote:Hypertransport links.


What? What? :?

::does google search::

oh... :? too many big words.


Hmm...I wonder how much I can say. I imagine this is public since it's well...released now. Basically it's an I/O interface on the northbridge that allows for 3.2 Gigabits/second (or is it 4.6) or some astronomically high value.

So yeah...hypertransport = super fast I/O interface on the northbridge.

I laugh because Intel is copying us (again) and trying to implement the same thing now. Then again, they don't wanna use our name (just like how they don't wanna use the AMD 64 ISA and will add like two Intel only instructions to ours) and will try and jerry-rig it so they don't have to use our name and patents.

XD
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space
User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2002
Location: Madison, WI

Postby bum » Sun Nov 09, 2003 10:12 am

i think that intel concentrate too much in the power of the Mhz and little els. they dont finly craft and tune their cpu's as well as amd does. then again, the p4 2.4C can be safely overclocked to 3.3 , which is prety cool. then again, its allmost summer in australia and running your cpu at stock speeds will get it too freeze. ah, fuck
User avatar
bum
17747114553
 
Joined: 08 Nov 2003

Postby SS5_Majin_Bebi » Mon Nov 10, 2003 1:41 am

bum wrote:i think that intel concentrate too much in the power of the Mhz and little els. they dont finly craft and tune their cpu's as well as amd does. then again, the p4 2.4C can be safely overclocked to 3.3 , which is prety cool. then again, its allmost summer in australia and running your cpu at stock speeds will get it too freeze. ah, fuck


Heh...it is almost summer here isn't it... Freaky weather lately though... coz the sun is freaking out or something...the most sunspots in an entire millenium are happening now... they think we're in for a huge magnetic storm as well... that should be interesting... but back on topic now..

Well, Intel are basically in bed with Microsoft, its not a wonder they're full of shit.
User avatar
SS5_Majin_Bebi
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Location: Why? So you can pretend you care? (Brisbane, Australia)

Postby Tab. » Mon Nov 10, 2003 2:56 am

Doom9.org wrote:It appears as if AMD's 64bit processor has a feature, which when supported by the CPU can be used to disallow the execution of unauthorized code. Obviously, this is being advertised as making your PC more secure, but on the downside you're loosing control and loss of control always comes down to DRM measures.


:?
You evil bastard.
◔ ◡ ◔
User avatar
Tab.
 
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: gayville
Status: SLP

2

Postby Nemoxs » Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:45 am

Intel sucks... My grandmother bought a new 3.06 P4 straight from the manufactor, and it BLOWS, I've tried everything under the sun to get it to work right and it just doesnt work, every intel I've had blew.

Thats why I use AMD (I sound like a fucking commercial), I need a new board (2600?), but I'm using my 550 k6'2 board right now, and it still runs like the first day i got it, I've been making videos for 3 years on this baby and it hasnt killed me yet.

Moral of the story... Don't trust evil corperations (that have contracts with microsoft).
User avatar
Nemoxs
 
Joined: 08 Mar 2003

Postby dj-ohki » Mon Nov 10, 2003 11:50 pm

dwchang wrote:Difference between Athlon 64 3200 and FX? The major thing is probably the cache difference. I believe the FX has a 1 MB L2 cache and the 64 3200+ has a 256k or 512k. I think the FX also has more Hypertransport links.


the only difference that i can see from AMD's whitepapers, is that the FX has a memory bus that is twice as wide as the stock 64. both of them have a single HT link ( no glueless NUMA love), run at the same FSB speed, and both have 1 MB of l2 cache.

cant find any technical whitepapers on the optierions, but IIRC, they have 2MB l2, and 3 HT links (8 way glueless NUMA love)
User avatar
dj-ohki
 
Joined: 17 Apr 2001

Postby bum » Tue Nov 11, 2003 4:11 am

i reckon that the Mhz rating sistem is full of crap too, and athlons performance rating system isnt too much beter. i mean, an athlonxp 2200 is about as fast as a p4 2.4 (but not the C variant that has hyperthreading) but an athlonxp 3200 can even compete with a p4 3.06 . i think that their should be a more universal (fairer, more truthful) way of rating cpu's. how about mips (million instructions per second) ?
User avatar
bum
17747114553
 
Joined: 08 Nov 2003

Postby dwchang » Tue Nov 11, 2003 10:37 am

dj-ohki wrote:
dwchang wrote:Difference between Athlon 64 3200 and FX? The major thing is probably the cache difference. I believe the FX has a 1 MB L2 cache and the 64 3200+ has a 256k or 512k. I think the FX also has more Hypertransport links.


the only difference that i can see from AMD's whitepapers, is that the FX has a memory bus that is twice as wide as the stock 64. both of them have a single HT link ( no glueless NUMA love), run at the same FSB speed, and both have 1 MB of l2 cache.

cant find any technical whitepapers on the optierions, but IIRC, they have 2MB l2, and 3 HT links (8 way glueless NUMA love)


Wow 0 for 3 in the three posts i've replied to.

The Athlon 64 has a 256k L2 cache. I can guarantee you on that. You don't need a whitepaper for that. Just go to any major technical website or vendor.

The Athlon FX has a 1MB L2 cache. Although you are right about the HT links. It only has one while the Opteron has 3. Then again, why would a consumer need more than one 1 HT link which runs at over 4 GB/s xfer on the north-bridge.

2 MB cache? Are you out of your mind. That would make the die nearly 60% larger than it already it is. Who do you think we are? Intel? People who just throw bigger caches at a performance problem (*cough* Pentium 4 Extreme Edition *cough*).
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space
User avatar
dwchang
Sad Boy on Site
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2002
Location: Madison, WI

Next

Return to Video Hardware Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests