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

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

    Dismiss Notice

The difference between? (Bit nooby)

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by quadboi, 1 Mar 2006.

  1. quadboi


    Joined: 28 Feb 2006

    Posts: 1,606

    :rolleyes: AMD and Intel chips

    Intel seem to have a higher ghz... (I have An AMD myself btw)

    Is AMD for gaming and Intel for basic photoshopping etc... What makes Intel better at that stuff. :rolleyes:

  2. ted34

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 5 Jul 2005

    Posts: 1,738

    Location: Edinburgh

    Intel have higher clock speeds but amd equivalent clock speed is alot faster. In general a amd 3700 (2.2ghz) is roughly the same speed as a 3.7ghz pentium and alot faster than a 2.2ghz pentium. Its to do with amd having inbuilt memory controllers making processing quicker. I think at the very very top (money no object level) intel have the quickest cpu's (someone confirm) but when it comes to value for money and for general home use amd cpu's seem to make more sense.
  3. Xionic


    Joined: 1 Feb 2006

    Posts: 631

    Location: Rotherhan, UK

    the easiest way to compare an AMD with a Intel (though its not exact) is multiply the clockspeed of the amd by 1.5...

    Opteron 170 (2.0Ghz per core) = 3Ghz per core (as i say not exact)

    NOTE: this doesnt make it a 6Ghz CPU!!!! dual core is a whole different story
  4. quadboi


    Joined: 28 Feb 2006

    Posts: 1,606

    Ok, so My Amd 3000+ 64bit is equivalent to Intels 3ghz
  5. Jack Bauer

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 6 Nov 2005

    Posts: 1,675

    Location: Oxford

    the difference is Amd make good processors and intel make good adverts
  6. Dark_Angel


    Joined: 12 May 2005

    Posts: 12,637

    Typically, at least at the moment AMD rules the roost. Their CPU's (apart from dual cores) are cheaper than the intel equivelent, and faster.

    An Athlon 64 Venice 3000 can be overclocked to around 2.8GHZ if you are lucky, from its 1.8GHZ default... this is almost FX55 speeds from a £100 chip :)
  7. quadboi


    Joined: 28 Feb 2006

    Posts: 1,606

    I have the Amd 3000+ aswell... Will get the Arctic cooler 64 to attempt this.
  8. ajgoodfellow


    Joined: 24 Dec 2004

    Posts: 11,343

    Location: Shirley, Solihull, UK

    This does irrate me slightly as the equivalent AMD X2s are quite a bit cheaper than the Intel P-Ds:

    Intel P-D 820: £164.44 (2.8GHz, 1MB cache)
    Intel P-D 920: £182.07 (2.8GHz, 2MB cache)
    AMD X2 3800+: £214.97 (2xA64 3200+, equivalent to a P-D 3.2GHz)
    Intel P-D 830: £223.19 (3.0GHz, 1MB cache)
    Intel P-D 930: £240.82 (3.0GHz, 2MB cache)
    AMD X2 4200+: £258.44 (2xA64 3500+, equivalent to a P-D 3.5GHz)
    Intel P-D 940: £323.07 (3.2GHz, 2MB cache)
    AMD X2 4400+: £334.82 (2xA64 3700+, equivalent to a P-D 3.7GHz)
    AMD X2 4600+: £387.69 (2xA64 3800+, equivalent to a P-D 3.8GHz)
    AMD X2 4800+: £458.19 (2xA64 4000+, equivalent to a P-D 4.0GHz)
    Intel P-D 950: £469.94 (3.4GHz, 2MB cache)
    Intel P-D 840 EE: £693.19 (3.2GHz, 1MB cache, HT Tech)
    AMD FX60: £728.44 (2xA64 FX55, equivalent to a P-D 4.3GHz)
    Intel P-D 955 EE: £763.69 (3.46GHz, 2MB cache, HT Tech)

    AMD CPUs can do more work per clock cycle than Intel CPUs. This is down to the fundemental design of the chip itself. Intel CPUs have long pipelines (more clock cycles for an instruction) and AMD CPUs have short pipelines (fewer clock cycles for an instruction). The main advantage of long pipelines is that it is far easier to get high clock speeds out of the chip

    Officially, the AMD PR system is for comparison to the old Athlon Thunderbird chips of 6 years ago. It can basically be compared to an Intel chip with a clock speed in MHz that matches the PR number. That is, an A64 3000+ can be compared to a P4 3.0GHz.

    There are a few differences between the two in which jobs different CPUs are best at. For single core chips, AMD are far better at games and photoshop work (the A64, not the AXP as this wasn't that good at this task). Intel chips are far better at encoding and music work.

    With the advent of dual core chips the tables turned. The original Intel dual core chips, the 800 series, were just a bodge job and it showed. The fastest Intel dual core chip was consistently outperformed (even in Intel strongholds like encoding) by the cheapest AMD dual core chip. The chip is an embarrassment and best avoided. The 900 series are a world ahead - not quite beating the AMD dual core chips but at least keeping up with them.

    At the moment AMD holds the performance crown in both single core chips (FX57) and dual core (FX60).

    Intel has some very nice chips due within the next few months though. They are following AMDs approach of doing more per clock cycle against continually increasing clock cycles.