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.

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.

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.

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...

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