LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Hardware (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-hardware-18/)
-   -   AMD vs. Intel (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-hardware-18/amd-vs-intel-21635/)

Orion224 05-23-2002 11:12 AM

AMD vs. Intel
 
When an AMD chip set says it is "1900+ 1.6ghz" is that their way of saying "our clock speed is only 1.6ghz, but, in reality, it is just as fast as a 1.9ghz Intel" ?

utabintarbo 05-23-2002 11:25 AM

Actually, for most applications they are faster than a 1.9GHz P4!

MrJoshua 05-23-2002 01:56 PM

Yes if you look on AMD's site it says almost exactly that. But there are benchmarks that say that the AMD 2000+ out performs the P4 2.2GHz Northwood. See G4 proccessors are the same way, a 700MHz G4 is just as fast as most P4s.

verigoth 05-23-2002 09:25 PM

Yeah, I have an XP 1600+ (1.49 GHz), and my friend has a P4 2.5 and his of course wins benchmarks, but not by much...plus I payed only $100 (US) for mine

verigoth

cathodion 05-27-2002 08:54 AM

Yeah, AMD Forever.

CathodioN

Half_Elf 05-31-2002 11:17 PM

AMD forever but PRAY THAT YOUR FAN/HEAT SINK DON'T STOP ;)
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/heatvideo-05.html

MasterC 06-01-2002 03:43 AM

AMD RULES!!!

AcidRain 06-01-2002 07:30 AM

Loo

AcidRain 06-01-2002 07:39 AM

Look AMD 1900+ is faster than an Intel 2000 but with socket 428 in 0,18ì. Intell processors (Nortwood) they are built in 0,13 ì and they have 512kb cache (from 1,8 Ghz and up). Intell processor are more realiable than AMD. Also intell processors are better for overclocking if you interest on it. Intell 1,8 you can overclocking it up to 2600 Hz and it stable. And the most importan without very extraortinary cooling devices. AMD :) i do not suggest to do that . But about the speed in some cases AMD is faster in other Intell. For internet aplication and some other things intell is more quickly than AMD. In others AMD. The other good thing abou AMD is the prices. With smaller price you get very good thing but in intell you have to spend a lot of money.The other problem you may interest is the noise of the heat fan. Of course in AMD it should be with more RPM so more noise.

So decide what you really want and choice.


AcidRain

Noerr 06-01-2002 12:18 PM

AMD is having tough time to follow intell, with new p4 and 533fsb, there isn't much of competition left from amd. They were suppose to put out new athlon .13um @ end of Q1, but there is June and no sign of palomino

Half_Elf 06-01-2002 01:28 PM

I heard Intel has a new P4 prototype of .08 microns, I dunno if it has been confirm. But if it's true AMD are really in trouble... Last time Intel reduced the "size" AMD striked back in giving more power to the cpu (that's why AMD are so warm little friends)....
Actually it works but it is not so safe...
If Intel really has a new cpu with 0.08, this time AMD will not be able to use this little trick or every cpu will come with a heat sink twice the size of the tower :)

finegan 06-01-2002 04:53 PM

Re: AMD vs. Intel
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Orion224
When an AMD chip set says it is "1900+ 1.6ghz" is that their way of saying "our clock speed is only 1.6ghz, but, in reality, it is just as fast as a 1.9ghz Intel" ?
AMD's 1900, 2000, 2100 blah blah blah ratings for the XP family are their comparisons to their own Thunderbird line, which ran from about ~850-1400 and immediately preceeded the XPs. The idea is that even though the 1900 runs at 1.6Ghz, it would measure up to a T-bird running at 1.9 if they had stuck with the same core.

Its a lot of little marketecture and scrambling, but the bench's don't really lie, AMD kicks Wintel's butt on price vs. performance and will probably beat them outright again (AMD really won the race to 1Ghz) in a year or so after a few more cores. Personally... I'm waiting for Clawhammer.

Cheers,

Finegan

MartBrooks 06-02-2002 05:06 AM

http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm

Regards

Noerr 06-02-2002 08:54 AM

Half_elf:
They have protoypes of anykind, not just intel. That doesn't mean much. .08 microns aren't in proposed scale. The next scale down from .13 microns will be .09 micron and then .065, no .08 on sight. Maybe for different manufacturers but not for intel/amd.
goto http://www.geek.com/procspec/procspec.htm
to see all the news and specs about cpus

Half_Elf 06-02-2002 09:55 AM

ok I suppose the "prototype" was a .09 microns... It's just a scale but a smaller scale reduce the time of communication between each cpu part no? So a .09 micron cpu should be really faster than a 0.18 and able of better performance,no? I duno maybe I'm just wrong all the line :D


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:42 AM.