system req lab is an app to check if your computer is fast enough for a game
it states my 2ghz is rated at 3ghz(blew my 2.5ghz oc cpu)

Posted on 2006-08-29 02:28:49 by daydreamer
This really depends on *which* kind of AMD and Intel CPUs you're comparing.

For an AMD64 copmared to a P4 Prescott, the AMD64 will win per clock cycle (although for some SSE stuff, the P4 can still win). If you're comparing an AthlonXP and a P4, the P4 probably rates better. If you compare anything to a Intel Core2, the Core2 will win, etc :)
Posted on 2006-08-29 03:36:22 by f0dder
Who cares how AMDs perform... Now with introduction of C2D it's all irrelevant  :P
Posted on 2006-08-29 04:31:31 by arafel

Who cares how AMDs perform... Now with introduction of C2D it's all irrelevant  :P

For now, at least - perhaps AMD has something up their sleeves. If not, they've got a serious problem... intel beating them (massively) on *both* speed and power consumption/heat generation.
Posted on 2006-08-29 04:33:58 by f0dder
I hope they are. Because if they aren't Intel will enter its usual hibernating cycle due to a lack of competition.
Posted on 2006-08-29 05:07:09 by arafel

This really depends on *which* kind of AMD and Intel CPUs you're comparing.

For an AMD64 copmared to a P4 Prescott, the AMD64 will win per clock cycle (although for some SSE stuff, the P4 can still win). If you're comparing an AthlonXP and a P4, the P4 probably rates better. If you compare anything to a Intel Core2, the Core2 will win, etc :)


I think they mean in general in this test, but 1.5 times more clock cycles in general? much use of floats in games maybe gives disadvantage to intel?
its like cars, marketing them with highest Horsepower when in fact its torque that makes them make records when racing up a mountain
Posted on 2006-08-31 18:03:07 by daydreamer
Even for floats, the instructions used matter - afaik the intel implementations of SSEx are still somewhat faster than AMDs (and the core2 is... wh00p). The P4 series has a bunch of disadvantage in integer math too, bitshifts come to mind.
Posted on 2006-08-31 18:10:40 by f0dder
daydreamer,


its like cars, marketing them with highest Horsepower when in fact its torque that makes them make records when racing up a mountain


    Don't know which CPU is the fastest, but basic physics I can help you with.  Driving a car up a mountain takes work, or energy if you want to call it that.  Driving a car up a mountain fast means the engine is powerful.  In other words it has a high horsepower output.  You can put a tremendous amount of torque on a stubborn stuck nut, and if it does not move, no energy has been expended in movement.  Power equals torque times the  angular velocity of the shaft, so if the horsepower is low, the product of the angular velocity and torque will be low also.  That means a low horsepower car will not clumb the mountain fast.  Ratch
Posted on 2006-08-31 21:45:00 by Ratch
Who cares how AMDs perform... Now with introduction of C2D it's all irrelevant 

What's C2D?
Posted on 2006-10-03 18:02:13 by belhifet

Who cares how AMDs perform... Now with introduction of C2D it's all irrelevant 

What's C2D?

Core2Duo - wr00m wr00m power :)
Posted on 2006-10-03 20:21:04 by f0dder
lol thanks.
But is C2D able to make so big a change?
Meaning as there are too many bottlenecks keeping modern processors from unleashing their true computational power.

What has changed with the introduction of C2D.
It's two Pentium M cores right?
I mean someone explain from a technical standpoint what has changed in C2D from the latest Centrino Pentium M, so that the performance has been so greatly increased. Please. :)
Posted on 2006-10-03 21:59:40 by belhifet
belhifet, follow the link in http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/index.php?topic=24996.0
Read the whole PDF - it's got perfect technical answers to your question.
Understanding the improvements of C2D, I rest assured AMD won't take long to strike back :)  (a fanboy here).
Posted on 2006-10-03 22:35:07 by Ultrano
belhifet: it's not Pentium-M, it's newer tech.

Ultrano: let's hope so, though I'm not particularly optimistic... I mean, come on, they introduce socket AM2 and it's slower than s939? (and stop being a fanboy and use the best product... fanboyism sucks ;)).
Posted on 2006-10-04 07:23:18 by f0dder
Ultrano you totally stole my word! I made up fanboys to describe fraxis software! :lol:
No such thing as an original idea anymore is there.... ;)
Posted on 2006-10-04 08:51:33 by Nice Eddie
f0dder: Actually, I just can't easily invest in anything better than what I have - AthlonXP and Sempron2200+ (but with full 400MB/s bus). Because I really don't need anything better :). At that price range, for my uses, AMD's cpus are twice as better. After reading Agner Fog's docs, I finally understood why that's the case.
Also, I guess it would take some more time to get over Intel's "fxch" frustrating optimizations and 2 severely limited pipelines. I basically hate idiotic limitations.  Meanwhile, optimizing for AMD has always been a breeze :). C2D changes everything - but most of my target customers can't easily cough-up $550 for a cpu.
Thus, for the time being: "amd ftw" ;)
Posted on 2006-10-04 14:30:15 by Ultrano

Actually, I just can't easily invest in anything better than what I have

I didn't mean "go out and by new stuff", but rather "don't be a fanboy and stick with one company, always decide what's currently best and use that". That's why I've used both AMD and intel, nvidia and ATi. Currently that's a64x2 4400+ and GF6600.

I certainly wouldn't mind a Core2Duo, but I don't need one right now either. Reduced power consumption would be welcome, though.
Posted on 2006-10-04 17:05:48 by f0dder

belhifet: it's not Pentium-M, it's newer tech.

Ultrano: let's hope so, though I'm not particularly optimistic... I mean, come on, they introduce socket AM2 and it's slower than s939? (and stop being a fanboy and use the best product... fanboyism sucks ;)).


You make mistake with that... The C2D is not the best product but the best processor.
The product is not only the technical side but the cost of it. Every company can make processor that will hit 12345678989000 MIPS but the important feature is the cost of this processor.
So, why i have to buy a processor like C2D for 300$ when there is available AMD is for only 170$? I agree that C2D is faster than AMD 64 bit processors but... compared to the the AMD Athlon 64 is only 20-30% faster...

So, I spend 2x money to get 30% faster processor?
I don't like that... i would like to buy the best processor for the best money.
I always can buy Itanium 2 that is the fastest processor but the price is "the fastest" too.
There is UltraSparc too, it is a monster .... 8 cores...
Posted on 2006-11-28 05:03:29 by hydra
hydra: there's other factors to take into consideration as well. Core2Duo has lower power consumption, which means something when you pay your own electricity bills!, but also means lower heat and thus less requirements for cooling (less noise).

Hopefully you get rid of the memory-related problems that a whole bunch of AMD64 CPUs have because of the integrated memory controller (when using all four memory slots, BIOSes will set ram speed from DDR400 to DDR333 because of stability issues).

And then there's of course the intel chipsets - hi-def audio, raid matrix, etc.

Around here, motherboards for AM2 and 775 are similar in price; AM2 tends to be a bit more expensive though, but I haven't done close feature-comparison so I won't throw any numbers.

As for CPUs, the Core2Duo E6600 model (2.4GHz, 4meg cache, 1.066FSB, 65W) is DKK2.365 (USD416), while a A64x2 5000+ (2.6GHz, 2x512kb cache, 1.000FSB, 89W) is DKK2.291 (USD403). Hardly double the price!

And I do think it's pretty fair to compare the E6600 to the A64 5000+.
Posted on 2006-11-28 05:42:15 by f0dder
I didn?t mean Athlon 5000+. The Athlon 3800+, 4200+ is what i thought...
But as i said you are right. The C2D is powerful and fast processor...
Posted on 2006-11-28 08:46:11 by hydra
Okay, there's a dualcore 4200+ that's somewhat cheaper - I wonder how much slower it is, though. And there's even a slightly more expensive "energy efficient" 4200+ at 65W.

I know for sure that, unless something big happens the next 6 months, my next box will be core2duo. The chipset plays a big role in this decision too - intel raid matrix sounds like a really wonderful idea.

PS: if you're into that kind of thing, I've heard the C2D overclocks a lot easier & higher than the AMDs.
Posted on 2006-11-28 10:10:18 by f0dder