#1
  1. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Regular (2000 - 2499 posts)

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    surfing the interwebz
    Posts
    2,410
    Rep Power
    2005

    AMD XP+ vs. Intel P4


    Ever since AMD switched their chip rating to the XP+ design (i.e., amd 3000+) I've wondered if an amd chip rated as "3000+" could keep up with a P4 2.8gig? I thought there were three main factors that affected the speed of a processor; those being the FSB, multiplier, and cache? Most of the AMD's (from what I've seen) only use a FSB in the 200's or lower? Could the design of the AMD chip allow it to keep up with, say a 2.8gig 533FSB P4 even if the AMD had a lower clock speed and FSB (or did I just answer my own question)?
  2. #2
  3. Just another guy
    Devshed Frequenter (2500 - 2999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,953
    Rep Power
    262
    First, that 200 or lower is the fsb speed, which you need to multiply by two to get the actual bus speed. (Those pentium numbers are "quad pumped", so divide by 4 to see the fsb speed, but the 533 or 800 is the number that matters).

    As for the fsb, multiplier, cache thing: FSB and multiplier determine clock speed, but architecture differences make comparing the XP and P4 on speed wrong. The XP has a different pipeline, which allows it to get more performance per mhz, but not run as high a clock speed. Cache also increases performance, by allowing more data to be "close" to the cpu for faster use.

    Now, performance comparison wise, there are a ton of comparisons of all manner of pentiums and xp's online. Use google. It depends on the application. XP's are comperable sometimes, fall behind other times. The big selling point is the price difference compared to the P4.
    --Dave--

    U2kgSG9jIExlZ2VyZSBTY2lzLCBOaW1pdW0gRXJ1ZGl0aW9uaXMgSGFiZXM=

    My hobby: collecting US coins
  4. #3
  5. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    65
    Rep Power
    10
    Well, I've been reading reviews at tom's hardware guide for some time and I noticed that the quantispeeds of the XP's are comparable (sometimes edging out the Intel) in most aspects. The P4's seem to do well in mpeg and archival compression, while the AMD's seem to command the area of applications and games. Now with the latest 90 nanometer Athlon 64's out, they are mopping the floor with the Pentiums. Even the 130 nm Athlons are giving Intel a run for their money. I appoligize if this seems biased, but I consider AMD to be a superior product and they will continue to get my CPU dollars.
  6. #4
  7. Warning: I can't read
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Langley- CIA Headquarters
    Posts
    400
    Rep Power
    15
    AMD "ratings" > Intel speeds. I asked one of the smarter members at DevH about the reason why. He also goes into the WMV benchmark, where you run the HD video off of microsoft.com

    Originally Posted by DMOS
    When an instruction is broken down, it's actually composed of a bunch of littler instructions. In a modern, out of order (OOO) execution processor, like the P4's and K8's, take any number of instructions, break them up, check for dependancies, then try and execute as many of them as possible at once. The K8 takes a few of these in one clock, and tries to spread them wide across a large number of execution units. The P4 is "narrower" and while it is able to handle more individual instructions at once (HT, and a very large "window"), instead of spreading them wide and doing them all at once, it lines them up and just keeps track of them in various stages of execution, trying to get each stage done very quickly.

    It might help you to think about these two approaches in terms of a McDonald's analogy. At McDonald's, you can either walk in or drive through. If you walk in, there are five or six short lines that you can get in and wait to have your order processed by a single server in one, long step. If you choose to drive through, you'll wind up on a single, long line, but that line is geared to move faster because more servers process your order in more, quicker steps: a) you pull up to the speaker and tell them what you want; and b) you drive around and pick up your order. And since the drive-through approach splits the ordering process up into multiple, shorter stages, more customers can be waited on in a single line because there are more stages of the ordering process for different customers to find themselves in. So the K8 takes the multi-line, walk-in approach, while the P4 takes the single-line, drive-through approach.

    Each can be fast, it just depends on the application. I figured the P4 would be quicker on the WMV thing because it's not code that is hard to predict, and media encoding/decoding traditionally has been a P4 strength thanks to it usually not being something that goes "wide" no matter what you try to do to it.
  8. #5
  9. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0

    AMD VS P4 Which is superior?


    Hey everyone,

    I recently built a new pc fairly cheap and cost effective these are my specs below..

    Gigabyte 7VT600 1394
    AMD Athlon XP 2600+ Barton O'ced to 2.13ghz
    1024MB of Corsair XMS RAM
    256MB Nvidia FX5700le Graphics Card
    160GB WD Sata HDD
    120GB WD Sata HDD
    LG 700B FLATRON CRT 17"

    I know for a fact that my pc has much better results then my mates p4 2.6ghz... It manages applications alot better then p4.
    I will always stick with AMD and im thinking bout upgrading to AMD64 FX55 next year... that cpu ownz any on the market today!

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo