AMD 3500+ same as 3.5ghz P4??

[Dark8Master89]

oki some i know thinks that a amd 64bit 3500+ is the "eqvialent" to a
3.5ghz P4... is this true?

personaly i think its bullshit because it registers as a 2.2ghz so???

 

[baron insig]

better arcitecture of the chip

architecture pwns actuall frequency,

eg the way an athlon organises the jobs iit has to do is more efficient so there is less chance of a " process tree" getting missed and thusly that ree wont have to be done again

in short the athlon DOES more work per clock cycle than a p4
and tbh intel dropped their 4 GHz range cos they were balls

 

[Dark8Master89]

is amd 64 3500+ better than my 3.60ghz Chipset: Intel i915P/i915G

 

[baron insig]

couldnt say due to the lack of me owning neither but go www.google.com and check it out i did see one recently tho

EDIT : Found! http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q2/opteron-x50/index.x?pg=14

Begining of report: http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q2/opteron-x50/index.x?pg=1

 

[SenorDingDong]

its not the same, its better.

Mhz doesn't mean everything... The Athlon 64 will be better at Gaming then that Intel, only thing Intel will be better at is multi-tasking.

 

[Eg.]

i upgraded from a 3ghz to a 3500 3 days ago, best thing i ever did. intel=the lose

 

[the_lone_wolf]

tis true, i did a fair amount of research before jumping from Intel to AMD, from the research i did; for HL2 my 3000+ Athlon64 generally performs at around the same speeds as a P4 at 3.2-3.4GHz, not too bad at all

 

[bryanf445]

i upgraded from a 3ghz to a 3500 3 days ago, best thing i ever did. intel=the lose

why did you upgrade from that? grant it that the 3500 is better, but you wont notice that much increase...and if you do it wont be enough to dish out 200-300 bucks...my opinion

 

[oni_666]

Just run the processor tests in Sysoft sandra, Even my socket 754 3200 (newcastle) is only slightly slower than a 3.2ghz P4.

 

[Asus]

If you went to buy a car, would you look at engine RPM's or Horsepower?
Intel has 'higher RPM" while AMD does more per cycle (more torque).
AMD's Athlon 64 can do up to 12 operations per clock while the Pentium 4 does up to 6. Athlon XP does up to 9.

Frequency isn't everything. That's just how often it does work. But what work does it do really?

 

[Vigilante]

!!!OMGZ!!!! torque and horsepower are different. The 3500+ is better. My dads got one, my mom has a 3.06 ghz p4. The 3500+ is better.

 

[Warbie]

An AMD 3500 is definately better than an Intel 3.5.

 

[[Matt]]

a lot cheaper and runs cooler too

 

[Kommie]

Intel sucks dog butt!
I say this for three reasons
1 as stated above architecture architecture architecture
2 More expensive
3 It is SOOO much easier to OC AMD

 

[Top Secret]

Your 2.2 Ghz AMD 64 bit proc would own my 3.0 @ 3.6 gig intel in a heartbeat. And don't let anyone tell you any different. :hmph:

 

[cschaef13]

...who cares for the small amount of fps it adds

 

[FictiousWill]

...who cares for the small amount of fps it adds

a faster processor affects all aspects of computing. Be it loading files to encoding mp3's. We're talking about cpus here, not gfx cards.

 

[LostBok]

I'd take the AMD64 over the Intel any day - espcially for gaming!

I think AMD got a shade optimistic with their P rating on the old Athlons, but reckon their Athlon64's are understated (for most stuff) - gaming in particular.... bring on the dual core AMD CPU's!!

I thought ASUS had it pretty well described when he said it's the whole torque vs bhp vs revs argument.

For the non petrol heads: torque = turning power of the engine.... it's the "grunt" that you usually get from higher capacity engines.... but the overall speed or acceleartion of a car is usually judged in horsepower (revs x torque is directly proportional to horsepower). More revs can help a car have more power, but lots and lots of revs with no torque still means lower HP.

e.g. your Intel P4 is going for the Honda S2000 "wow it revs to 9000rpm" factor.... and banking on that to impress people before they realise that a Nissan 350Z looks vaguely similar but is actually packing a lot more usable power 'cos it's got a lot more torque and actually has more overall power, even though it doesn't rev to the same silly numbers.

Yes I've ignored the fact that I'm comparing a 2 litre to a 3.5 litre engine, but that's the point exactly - that's what people are doing when you compare a smaller capacity (Intel P4) to the larger capacity Athlon and huge Athlon64.... lower "revs" but so much more torque you actually end up with genuinely higher BHP.

 

[Asus]

!!!OMGZ!!!! torque and horsepower are different. The 3500+ is better. My dads got one, my mom has a 3.06 ghz p4. The 3500+ is better.

Yes, silly me. doh!
Torque.

 

[oni_666]

Your 2.2 Ghz AMD 64 bit proc would own my 3.0 @ 3.6 gig intel in a heartbeat. And don't let anyone tell you any different. :hmph:

The deciding factor in overall system speed, in the above statement, Is that since P4's are multiplier clocked, You have increased FSB to get the 3.0ghz to 3.6ghz, Thus drastically increasing memory bandwidth.
You would probably find that in this instance the AMD 64 would lose to the overclocked [email protected] P4 because of increased memory bandwidth by altering the memories FSB.
Overall, in a system, that is.
I'm guessing that your running on a memory FSB of 470, Or there abouts.
I may be wrong, because I can't remember whether that processor runs on a 533 or 800 FSB,
Which one is it?

 

[Dark8Master89]

FSB: 200mhz
bus speed:800mhz

 

[oni_666]

I thought it was 800, just checking thx!