Intel vs AMD

[stuperfied]

I remember seeing a comparison calculator tool plastered somewhere in zeropaid a couple of years ago. Does anyone know the URL or of any other ones? The calculator allowed you to find out what the equivalent to whatever AMD CPU was in Intel or vice versa.

[CCSDUDE]

I remember seeing a comparison calculator tool plastered somewhere in zeropaid a couple of years ago. Does anyone know the URL or of any other ones? The calculator allowed you to find out what the equivalent to whatever AMD CPU was in Intel or vice versa.

Ummm do you mean the recent AMD XP vs P IV problems with clock cycles?

It's simple...no need for a calculator. An AMD XP 2500 running at around 2ghz is as fast as a P IV running at 2.5ghz

If you're talking benchmarks an such...the AMD chips can't handle media all that well while the P III and IV chips eat it up.

[Lehk]

Ummm do you mean the recent AMD XP vs P IV problems with clock cycles?

It's simple...no need for a calculator. An AMD XP 2500 running at around 2ghz is as fast as a P IV running at 2.5ghz

If you're talking benchmarks an such...the AMD chips can't handle media all that well while the P III and IV chips eat it up.

nope, an Athlon 2500 works as fast as an original athlon Thunderbird 1Ghz would if it were running at 2.5 Ghz. The speed ratings are not comparisons to any intel chip.

oh, and welcome back CCSDUDE, ZP wasn't the same without you.

[stuperfied]

Yeah, welcome back CCSDUDE. Glad they let you back in.
I was just looking for the calculator because it lets people know the correct comparrison and what speed their CPU is actually operating at in GHz using the proper conversion rates because intel and amd both use different conversions. The correct conversion from MHz to GHz is 1024 MHz to the GHz but for some reason some people just assume its the same as mils to litres which is where we get the confusion in the conversions. The calculator just makes it easy for people who dont know how intel and amd stuffed it up and dont realize that just because you have a 2400+ does not mean that your computer runs at 2.4GHz.

I hope I have cleared some things up, im not really that good at explaining things but I just need the calculator.

[DampCold]

Well, if the system is 2400MHz then that would be about 2.34375GHz. I just divided the MHz number by 1024. Not quite sure if that is what you had in mind or not so I hope it helps.

!pG

[MegaMog]

http://img43.photobucket.com/albums/v133/MegaMog/miscscreens/chart.png

here is a chart with some info that may help

[CCSDUDE]

Yeah, welcome back CCSDUDE. Glad they let you back in.
I was just looking for the calculator because it lets people know the correct comparrison and what speed their CPU is actually operating at in GHz using the proper conversion rates because intel and amd both use different conversions. The correct conversion from MHz to GHz is 1024 MHz to the GHz but for some reason some people just assume its the same as mils to litres which is where we get the confusion in the conversions. The calculator just makes it easy for people who dont know how intel and amd stuffed it up and dont realize that just because you have a 2400+ does not mean that your computer runs at 2.4GHz.

I hope I have cleared some things up, im not really that good at explaining things but I just need the calculator.

Thanks for the welcome back.

Intel is the offending party here...they used less work per cycle to make their chips seem faster when they really aren't pushing as much data even if they're close to 500mhz off the AMD counterparts.

I get what you're looking for now, can't really help much, but good luck on finding something worth while.

[stuperfied]

I get customers and friends commenting all the time on how their 2400+ is a 2.4GHz Processor or how their 2000+ is a 2GHz and we all know that is not the case. A friend said to me a couple of days ago that he had a 2GHz AMD CPU and when I asked him what the AMD spec was, he said it was a 2000+. If I tell him that its running at 1.6GHz, do you think he would believe me?

CCSDUDE knows what im talking about, When you take the Core frequency, the Front Side Bus frequency and the size of the cache into account, you get into a whole new ball park and its hard to judge exactly how the AMD processors compare to the Intel ones without some involved calculation. The calculator I am refering to does all the calculating for you so all you have to do is enter the info about the CPU and it tells you what the equivalent is in the competitors range.

MegaMog If I gave my friend the figures that you just pasted, allong with Intels, they would just stare at me with a blank look on their face. I thought I could just put a link to the calculator on my web site and let them find out for themselves the easy way.

[MegaMog]

All that really matters is the cache and transisitor count(more trans=more room for 0s and 1s) thus more room for storeing data and computeing data(cache on amd is about half the transisitors on the fx line)

Its true in hertz amd may not be as fast on amd then intels but that really means jack since all they do is stack more layers onto a chip so they can add more speed.
the chips architecture is far more important, how it shuttles data to the cache(and crunches it) then sending it to the bus is far more important then the speed at which operations are clocked

[MegaMog]

just came across this thx to tomshardware

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040601/images/cpu_history_big.gif

look at the transisitor count and you can see how the chips really stack up

[tamarisk]

RAM is also an important consideration

[Hicks]

I went Pentium 4 because they overclocked very good.
I got my p4 2.6c running at 3.25 GHz with a 1 GHz fsb.