1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Athlons vs pentiums

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by radio91, 19 Jan 2006.

  1. radio91

    Associate

    Joined: 11 Jan 2006

    Posts: 57

    I know this has probably been done to death but why are athlons just as fast or faster than pentiums of far higher clocks speeds, Like my athlon 3500+ i assume means its as fast as a pentium of 3.5ghz but with a clock speed of only 2.2ghz.
     
  2. Mikesoft

    Gangster

    Joined: 12 Oct 2005

    Posts: 335

    Location: Cheam

    I think it is something to do with the memory controller which is ontop of Athlon CPUs. I think the Pentium cpu memory controller is on the motherboard which means data as further to travel which takes longer.

    However Athlons are only faster in programs like games. A pentium cpu would beat a athlon cpu usually in number crunching tasks.

    (someone correct me if I am wrong!)
     
  3. easyrider

    Caporegime

    Joined: 24 Dec 2005

    Posts: 39,560

    Location: Autonomy

    The athlons have a shorter pipeline and can process more data per cycle than a pentium 4.

    its like having a pile of coal ,the athlon is the bigger shovel so can move the pile in less shovels

    the P4 is the smaller shovel so to move the same ammount of coal it has to move more shovels at a faster pace to move the same ammount.

    hope this makes sense its early:)
     
  4. radio91

    Associate

    Joined: 11 Jan 2006

    Posts: 57

    But is the athlon called a 3500+ because its as fast as a pentium 4 3.5.ghz?
    And what sp special about the athlon FX processor that makes it 600 quid?
     
  5. hogfather

    Mobster

    Joined: 8 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,074

    Location: Sarrrf London


    OI! That's my analogy :p


    The PR (eg 3500) ratings apparently don't correspond to Pentium 4s (officially they are the speed in mhz that an original Thunderbird 1ghz athlon would have to run at to be as quick, IE a 3.5ghz thunderbird = an athlon 64 3500) - in reality it basically is supposed to be a 3.5ghz p4, but its not as quick as that.
     
  6. noxidjkram@hotm

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 29 Oct 2005

    Posts: 2,447

    Location: Newcastle upon Toon

    A worthy analogy it is too! I like it! ;)

    M
     
  7. easyrider

    Caporegime

    Joined: 24 Dec 2005

    Posts: 39,560

    Location: Autonomy

    Is it?

    :D i read it somewhere and it seemed to make sense :p
     
  8. ajgoodfellow

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Dec 2004

    Posts: 11,330

    Location: Shirley, Solihull, UK

    As hogfather says officially they are for comparison with the Athlon Thunderbird

    The A64 3500+ can be roughly compared to a 3.5GHz P4 though. Hogfather isn't correct when he says that it isn't as quick as that - it all depends on the task

    For most tasks they will be on par with eachother. The P4 will have an advantage when encoding, for example, and the A64 when gaming
     
  9. radio91

    Associate

    Joined: 11 Jan 2006

    Posts: 57

    Why are the A64's better for gaming? I always thought gaming was heavly dependant on number crunching and Floating point calculations which i thought the pentiums are better at. Also whats the difference between different athlons apart from clock speeds, because i see that a 3500+ is clocked at 2.2ghz but so is a 3700+ and the 3800+ and 4000+ are both clocked at 2.4ghz, So whats making the 4000+ faster than the 3800+? And is the FX 64's only advantage being that it runs at 2.8ghz or is it faster than the other athlons for other reasons as well.
     
  10. Dace

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 15 Mar 2005

    Posts: 2,367

    Location: Long Eaton, Nottingham

    Largely due to the shorter pipelines (12 on the Socket 939's instead of 30+ on the modern Pentiums). Modern CPU's have predictive algorithms in the pipelines, but if one of the predictions is wrong all of the data in the pipeline is scrapped and the calculation must be restarted. It's usually less 'costly' for a AMD CPU to abandon this data than an Intel processor.

    The modern AMD CPU's nullify Intel's advantage in this field. They are very efficient.

    Look very carefully at the description for these items. Check both the L2 cache size, and the CPU multipliers as well as the core type.

    The cores have essentially progressed since the first 939 CPU's were brought out as:

    Newcastle
    Winchester
    Venice
    San Diego

    (I've got a nasty feeling I've missed one out).

    Each revision has had incremental improvements to the memory controller and technology used within the chip (such as strained silicon, and the drop from 130nm CPU manufacture to 90nm... 65nm expected later this year!!!).

    3800 - Venice Core. 512K L2 Cache. 2.4Ghz (12x multiplier).
    3700 - San Diego Core. 1mb L2 Cache. 2.2Ghz (11x multiplier).
    4000 - San Diego Core. 1mb L2 Cache. 2.4Ghz (12x multiplier).

    The combination of revised technologies (as indicated by the core) and the L2 cache is what makes the 4000+ faster than the 3800+.
     
  11. radio91

    Associate

    Joined: 11 Jan 2006

    Posts: 57

    Okey i get you, Is there anywhere i can read up on what multipliers and other overclocking varibles actualy are ? Its all very well trying to follow the guide and knowing what to set things to, But its better if you actually understand what it all means.
     
  12. Street

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 17 Jan 2005

    Posts: 7,748

    Location: Liverpool

    Theres Clawhammer in there as well somewhere, think it came before the Newcastle, and wasnt there a Sledgehammer as well? Or am I taking carp?

    Edit: Just found this after a quick search.. loads of info on the A64 chips and overclocking for you:)

    Linkage!!!
     
    Last edited: 20 Jan 2006
  13. ajgoodfellow

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Dec 2004

    Posts: 11,330

    Location: Shirley, Solihull, UK

    Yep there was a SledgeHammer core but AFAIK it was only for Socket 940 (my Socket 940 Opteron has a SledgeHammer core)
     
  14. mrthingyx

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 3 Apr 2003

    Posts: 15,508

    Location: Cambridge

    Sledgehammer was the orignal Opteron core and Clawhammer was the original Socket 754 A64s.

    It used to be the case the AMDs lagged in terms of encoding/hardcore CPU frazzlement due to most such programs liking high clockspeeds, effectively neutering all the gains AMD made in terms of efficiency. However, massive gains in HT frequency, cache size and instruction sets have not closed that gap and even surpassed Intel's mainstream offerings.

    radio91 - unfortunately, the best way by a country/city (area-dependent) mile to learn what does what in that horrible thing called a 'BIOS' is literally to change things and see what they do. Load up a benchmark program, like SuperPi, PiFast, Prime95 or whatever and see what gives you the best stable performance. Follow the guides in terms of what to adjust first, etc. and then just play around.

    It's all well and good learning from a book but nothing beats practical experience.

    Just be warned, however - once you start, it's difficult to stop.
     
  15. radio91

    Associate

    Joined: 11 Jan 2006

    Posts: 57

    How far do you think socket 939 will go? I mean will there be any knew faster cpus released on socket 939 and if so what do you think the maxium speed will be?
     
  16. easyrider

    Caporegime

    Joined: 24 Dec 2005

    Posts: 39,560

    Location: Autonomy


    no the FX 60 is the last of the line of s939 chips
     
  17. radio91

    Associate

    Joined: 11 Jan 2006

    Posts: 57

    How long do you think before the price of it drops down to about 150?

    Can a 939 motherboard go above 2.8ghz?
     
  18. hogfather

    Mobster

    Joined: 8 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,074

    Location: Sarrrf London

    People have got 3ghz out of 939 opterons and fx chips, so yes its possible but you won
    't see it in retail channels.
     
  19. GAMEfreak

    Hitman

    Joined: 16 Nov 2005

    Posts: 759

    Location: Newry, Northern ireland

    i have a socket A motherboard which can handle 2.8ghz lol. only problem is there is no chips for socket A with that clock speed unless overclocked.
     
  20. m3csl2004

    Hitman

    Joined: 17 Jun 2005

    Posts: 621

    Location: Sheffield

    my xp-m can hit 2.8 on water, but is curently @ 6x100 in my mates machine lol

    i bet a 3.5ghz tbird would be signifcantly faster than a 3500+, if clocked at 3.5 ghz and a decent fsb like 250 or something