|
It is currently Sat May 11, 2024 8:14 am
|
yet another processor question...
Author |
Message |
tyranus
Emperor
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 3:42 am Posts: 2005 Location: Under my wife AND son's thumbs.. in essex! chavs! everywhere!!
|
the way i understand it is that the frequency is actually only about 2100 mhz summit, but the fsb data transfer is higher than an intel. they just call it a 2600+ so you can compare its 'effect' speed. is that correct?
so in essence, yes, an P4 is faster.
_________________ Sleep deprivation for teh lose
|
Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:04 pm |
|
|
ElevenBravo
King
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:18 pm Posts: 1976 Location: Sexy Town
|
That is not correct. The 2600+ fsb is 333 mhz. The slowest fsb a p4 has is 400mhz. The P4 hyper threaders do 800mhz fsb.
_________________ Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.
|
Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:52 pm |
|
|
Satis
Felix Rex
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm Posts: 16650 Location: On a slope
|
the FSB and processor frequencies don't necessarily tell how good the processor is at, er, processing.
For instance, let's take a 600mhz Pentium IV vs a 600mhz Athlon. I use these as an example because this is when AMD really threatened Intel.
Basically,the Athlon kicked the snot out of the Pentium. Though the speed was the same (I think FSB was 100mhz or 133mhz for both), the Athlon was able to process significantly more data. This had to do with how the internal structure of the processor worked, plus how good the prefetch algorithm worked, plus the size of the L1 and L2 cache, etc etc. End result: same speed, Athlon faster.
As the processor war heated up, Intel cranked up the frequency on their processors far beyond what AMD was able to match. However, AMD still had a superior architecture... they were able to process more units of data (if you will) then Intel at the same speeds...however, Intel's speed was higher. Thus someone at AMD came up with the + designation...they may be running at 1.9ghz, but they're "equivalent" to an Intel processor running at 2.4ghz.
Equivalent being a very rough estimationg. Recently AMD's been a bit liberal in their assignments of speed. Eg, their 2600+ doesn't really go as fast as an Intel 2.6. That's the marketing people's fault. However, their 2600+ (which, say, runs at 2.2ghz) DOES run faster than a Pentium 2.2ghz, due to its superior chip architecture.
Blah. If you have any more questions, I might just throw you to a description of how cpus work.
_________________ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
|
Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:24 pm |
|
|
tyranus
Emperor
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 3:42 am Posts: 2005 Location: Under my wife AND son's thumbs.. in essex! chavs! everywhere!!
|
ok, just one question, roughly how fast in 'intel' terms IS a 2600+? i've a P4 1.5 ghz now, and i want to get as close to a gig increase at possible without it costing the earth. would the 2800+ be a better idea? and if so how fast it that 'really'?
blah...
_________________ Sleep deprivation for teh lose
|
Wed Feb 11, 2004 9:48 am |
|
|
ElevenBravo
King
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:18 pm Posts: 1976 Location: Sexy Town
|
A boxed AMD Athlon Xp 2600+ runs at about 2.08 gigs, so pretty close to 2 gigs. And that run for about $100 OEM.
A Intel 2.0 p4 processor runs for about $119 OEM.
The AMD Athlon Xp Barton 2800+ runs at... 2.08 gigs !? and it runs for $136 OEM.
Im not 100% sure on the AMD since I dont follow them much.
This might help
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031223/index.html
_________________ Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.
|
Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:36 am |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|