Your Computer Specs

[CompWiz]

Do the amd 64's run 32 bit programs faster than the Ghz of the processor? 'Cause most programs these days are still 32 bit.

im going to college too, so I also need a laptop/notebook. Im looking at the ones from Cyberpowerpc over alienware because
#1 the Area-51m have WAY more than i need
#2 the Sentia only has a 12' model
#3 no AMD

Lol a twelve foot laptop! Inches are ".

AMD 64's run 32 bit programs faster than P4's of the same mhz. ( a lot) The numbers show about what P4 would be comparable.
for example
P4 3 ghz = AMD 64 3000 (approximately)

However, if you are doing video rendering, and the renderer does not support 64 bit, the pentiums will be somewhat faster. AMD's are faster with games.

[Spengo]

Okay cool. Some of my friends at school said that 32 bit progs would run just as fast on a 64 bit processor as on a 32 bit one. That's why I was asking. Now I get to say "I told you so!" If that's true though, then what's the point of intel's pentium processors at all? o_O Why don't they get on with a pentium 5?

[currahee]

Well... I think Intel is caught up with it's Pentium M processor development. I think they're just tweaking with the Pentium 4. After all, in a famous PC Mag quoted saying that although the P4 was beaten by his older brother, the P3 tne P4 was built for speed.
Do you know exactly how big the 20 pipelines (Willamette/Northwood) / 30 Pipelines (Prescott) in the Pentium 4 are? They're hyper pipelined
Now in the world of computing, you get a chunk of data and the CPU processes it. The CPU also tries and predicts code that the user might need next. Now it tries and fills ALL 20/30 Hyperpipes (much much deeper than superpipes which AMDs use) with code. Now uh oh! The Pentium 4 had a misprediction and everything loaded on the pipes are completely wrong! What happens?
CPU flushes out all pipe data and loads new, relevant data.
This was a problem that really killed the Pentium 4's performance against AMD CPUs. The advantage of having those pipes is that the CPU can be clocked to kingdom come (so you see speeds such as 6GHz). The disadvantage is that... well... get a misprediction and there will be a much more significant delay in processing data than you would in a shorter pipe. The Pentium III proves itself more efficient this way. However, with a shorter pipeline and less pipes (AMD/P3) You also get the problem with clock speeds. So it's a trade off. Performance per clock increases since if there is a misprediction less pipes need to be flushed and reloaded. Also Pentium Ms have a built in function that allows it to prevent errors fruther improving it's accuracy.
That doesn't mean the Pentium 4 is useless. It just sucks against AMD in terms of crap that have some unpredictable data in them. These days, A.I. is getting much more advanced in games so you should see a little performance cut in the P4. The P4 is best at programs that are "predictable" which ensures a good flow in and out of it's pipes. It's like a dam. Open up all pipes and you get so much water out. So a P4 is still better for encoding / decoding video files, music, whatever.

You can also tell him that in the case of a pure 64-bit CPU, the Itanium II (pure 64 meaning it doesn't use an x86 extension. The It II uses the IA-64 extension. Intel's own 64-bit extension), it needs to emulate 32-bit in order to run 32-bit applications so the performance is WORSE with 32-bits in that case. 64-bit has nothing to do with performance. It just means you can address a hell lotta memory

[CompWiz]

Well... I think Intel is caught up with it's Pentium M processor development. I think they're just tweaking with the Pentium 4. After all, in a famous PC Mag quoted saying that although the P4 was beaten by his older brother, the P3 tne P4 was built for speed.
Do you know exactly how big the 20 pipelines (Willamette/Northwood) / 30 Pipelines (Prescott) in the Pentium 4 are? They're hyper pipelined
Now in the world of computing, you get a chunk of data and the CPU processes it. The CPU also tries and predicts code that the user might need next. Now it tries and fills ALL 20/30 Hyperpipes (much much deeper than superpipes which AMDs use) with code. Now uh oh! The Pentium 4 had a misprediction and everything loaded on the pipes are completely wrong! What happens?
CPU flushes out all pipe data and loads new, relevant data.
This was a problem that really killed the Pentium 4's performance against AMD CPUs. The advantage of having those pipes is that the CPU can be clocked to kingdom come (so you see speeds such as 6GHz). The disadvantage is that... well... get a misprediction and there will be a much more significant delay in processing data than you would in a shorter pipe. The Pentium III proves itself more efficient this way. However, with a shorter pipeline and less pipes (AMD/P3) You also get the problem with clock speeds. So it's a trade off. Performance per clock increases since if there is a misprediction less pipes need to be flushed and reloaded. Also Pentium Ms have a built in function that allows it to prevent errors fruther improving it's accuracy.
That doesn't mean the Pentium 4 is useless. It just sucks against AMD in terms of crap that have some unpredictable data in them. These days, A.I. is getting much more advanced in games so you should see a little performance cut in the P4. The P4 is best at programs that are "predictable" which ensures a good flow in and out of it's pipes. It's like a dam. Open up all pipes and you get so much water out. So a P4 is still better for encoding / decoding video files, music, whatever.

You can also tell him that in the case of a pure 64-bit CPU, the Itanium II (pure 64 meaning it doesn't use an x86 extension. The It II uses the IA-64 extension. Intel's own 64-bit extension), it needs to emulate 32-bit in order to run 32-bit applications so the performance is WORSE with 32-bits in that case. 64-bit has nothing to do with performance. It just means you can address a hell lotta memory

Those huge pipes usually cause huge latencies. That's why AMD kept their pipes smaller. AMD's also have hyper transport. Instead of having a slow fsb, they have the memory controller on the CPU, to increase speed. P4's use a memory controller on the motherboard that is much slower. Also, AMD 64 FX chips can be overclocked a lot, some have hit 3Ghz with the FX-53. And don't get me started on the dual core intels.

[threefingeredguy]

Mmmm, dual core makes for some crazy assembly, I should expect.

[Shadow Phoenix]

In my expierence...
Intel = Better Motherboards, More Stable, Slightly less performance in games, Cheaper.
AMD = Better gaming, MUCH less stable, better speeds overall.

[CompWiz]

Intel basically just slapped two P4's onto the CPU just to try to keep up with AMD. (look at the pictures of the insides of the dual core intels) The cores are not connected to each other, and can only communicate with each other over the slow FSB(communication must leave the CPU over the FSB, go to the motherboard, get rerouted back to the CPU, then sent back up the slow FSB to the other core). Also, both cores have to share the FSB, using it one at a time. Talk about inneficient. AMD actually made a revolutionary on-CPU link that allows the processors to share data and communicate with each other at or near the speed of the cores. Also, both cores are connected to the rest of the system through independant hyper-transport connections that allow both cores to communicate with the system at the same time. AMD's are much more efficient, and are faster(for most things). Intel dual cores seem to be hastily slapped together to offer something similar to AMD's dual core cpu's, and to support the 64 bit computing AMD had already supported for some time. Some people estimate that intel is about 2 years behind AMD technology wise. While they were pushing mhz with P4's AMD was creating revolutionary new chips that were faster and much more efficient then the power hungry, room warmers that the P4s had become.

[CompWiz]

In my expierence...
Intel = Better Motherboards, More Stable, Slightly less performance in games, Cheaper.
AMD = Better gaming, MUCH less stable, better speeds overall.

AMDs are very stable now. Sure, if you look back several years, they may not have been quite as stable, but they have advanced so much since then. New architectures and technologies are continually incorporated to make better CPUs.

And what intel motherboard can even hope to match up to a nforce 4 AMD mobo?

DO NOT EVER SAY INTELS ARE CHEAPER
AMDs have always been known as a much lower priced alternative. compare these prices, straight from pricewatch:

AMD 64 3000 for $117
P4 3 ghz for $181

AMD 64 3700 for $165
P4 3.73 ghz 64 bit for $1025
P4 3.6 ghz for $345
P4 3.4 ghz for $242

Not to mention, AMD low end cpu's have an even greater advantage over intel buget chips(both in price and performance. Intel Celerons are terrible.) Also, some AMD CPUs(older ones and the high end FX cpu's) allow overclocking with an unlocked multiplyer. Intels definitely do not.

I could go on all day on this(don't try me)
Intels are more expensive, have inferior motherboards, and are not more stable than AMDs(expecially when the P4's generate so much heat they overheat. P4's have been known to be able to single-handedly heat small apartments )

AMS's are faster for almost all applications, and have a large advantage for game framerates. Go ahead, look up the benchmarks if you don't believe me.

If it wasn't for Intel's unfair business practices, AMD would have had the larger CPU marketshare years ago. They have been producing better chips for some time now. Read about Intel's unfair business practices here: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,783 ... 84,00.html



*pokes Intel to accept AMD's CPU duel and prove to the world that AMD cpu's are better* (http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_13368_13369,00.html)

[Spengo]

Weeeell, anything you get from places like amd.com or intel.com can be considered rather biased. I'm sure intel has stuff like that on there site too.

P4's have been known to be able to single-handedly heat small apartments Mad )

Lol, yeah. My school computer lab is the hottest room in the building, and the IT guy's room, (where all the big ugly servers are) needs a special air conditioning unit.

You really seem passionate on this subject though. Do you work for amd or something? Do you mind if I quote you in some of my arguments with my friend who works for intel?

[currahee]

Ummmm I'd think that if you had like 20 PCs in one room it'd heat it up pretty good In my public highschool my homeroom happens to be the *one* of the many PC labs. And it's kept very cold

BTW that's nothing.. you should see my old Athlon laptop. Heats my room up just fine and have you touched a Pentium III laptop? My uncle had one of those Sony laptops. That thing lit up like a match. Literally

[CompWiz]

Weeeell, anything you get from places like amd.com or intel.com can be considered rather biased. I'm sure intel has stuff like that on there site too.

P4's have been known to be able to single-handedly heat small apartments Mad )

Lol, yeah. My school computer lab is the hottest room in the building, and the IT guy's room, (where all the big ugly servers are) needs a special air conditioning unit.

You really seem passionate on this subject though. Do you work for amd or something? Do you mind if I quote you in some of my arguments with my friend who works for intel?

Go ahead and quote me. I don't work for amd, I just really like the processors, and I hate the fact that Intel's unfair business practices has prevented the better CPUs from gaining a large market share. I hope to show people who have always thought that Intels are the best processors that things have changed since the 90's.

[currahee]

In my expierence...
Intel = Better Motherboards, More Stable, Slightly less performance in games, Cheaper.
AMD = Better gaming, MUCH less stable, better speeds overall.

AMDs are very stable now. Sure, if you look back several years, they may not have been quite as stable, but they have advanced so much since then. New architectures and technologies are continually incorporated to make better CPUs.

And what intel motherboard can even hope to match up to a nforce 4 AMD mobo?

DO NOT EVER SAY INTELS ARE CHEAPER
AMDs have always been known as a much lower priced alternative. compare these prices, straight from pricewatch:

AMD 64 3000 for $117
P4 3 ghz for $181

AMD 64 3700 for $165
P4 3.73 ghz 64 bit for $1025
P4 3.6 ghz for $345
P4 3.4 ghz for $242

Not to mention, AMD low end cpu's have an even greater advantage over intel buget chips(both in price and performance. Intel Celerons are terrible.) Also, some AMD CPUs(older ones and the high end FX cpu's) allow overclocking with an unlocked multiplyer. Intels definitely do not.

I could go on all day on this(don't try me)
Intels are more expensive, have inferior motherboards, and are not more stable than AMDs(expecially when the P4's generate so much heat they overheat. P4's have been known to be able to single-handedly heat small apartments )

AMS's are faster for almost all applications, and have a large advantage for game framerates. Go ahead, look up the benchmarks if you don't believe me.

If it wasn't for Intel's unfair business practices, AMD would have had the larger CPU marketshare years ago. They have been producing better chips for some time now. Read about Intel's unfair business practices here: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,783 ... 84,00.html



*pokes Intel to accept AMD's CPU duel and prove to the world that AMD cpu's are better* (http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_13368_13369,00.html)

Uhhh... Intel's motherboards are not underperformers. Their mobos are known for stability and their north/south bridge chips are of course the best-in-class performers.
As for unfair business practicies- it's capitalism baby. And I Just think AMD has an exposure problem. They were always kind of that other brand name and I still think to some people it is. I know my dad still thinks that when he pointed out a Celeron laptop, but then I said to him the same laptop with the AMD Athlon performs just as (and better) than a Pentium 4. It had double the RAM and performance- at like $400 less.
And shooting back at AMD's Chairman:

Monopoly prices- Intel earns more money than AMD. If Intel lowers their prices they become competitive. However, there is so much public exposure to Intel CPUs. If Intel did lower their prices at stealing bargains than everyone would just buy Intel chips. BECAUSE their prices are a tad higher than AMD chips makes their market share go down and prevents them from becoming a Microsoft level monopoly.
Threatening users to buy Intel Chips- Wow. Did my laptop have a label that said "BUY THIS INTEL LAPTOP OR DIE"? Do most PCs have that label?
@ Withholding rebates and marketing subsidies as a means of punishing customers who buy more than prescribed quantities of processors from AMD- Why are you complaining AMD? The consumers would get just as pissed as you are and switch over to you

[threefingeredguy]

AMD 64 3000 for $117
P4 3 ghz for $181

An AMD 64 3000 runs at 1.9-2.1 ghz. I would know, I have one.

[CompWiz]

AMD 64 3000 for $117
P4 3 ghz for $181

An AMD 64 3000 runs at 1.9-2.1 ghz. I would know, I have one.

Must I say this every few days? Now, pay close attention;
GHZ SPEED IS NOT EVERYTHING

Intel has been saying for years that a faster ghz = a faster CPU. However, it was funny when their laptop processors running at clock speeds under 2ghz managed to beat P4's running at 3 ghz in most benchmarks.

If you want to compare processors, look at the scores on benchmarks. Also, the number for AMD chips (ex. 3000) is approximately what mhz P4 processor the AMD chip is comparable to. (AMD 64 3000 = Intel P4 3 ghz)

As to the motherboards, AMD 64 compatible motherboards do away completely with one of those bridges you mention, as it is integrated right on the CPU. This reduces latency by a large margin. Also, Intel brand mobo's don't support overclocking, as Intel is very much against this. AMD has left the multiplyers unlocked on many of its processors, so the user can increase the speed easily. This is another of AMD's features that clearly benifits the user more than the company. Intel has always just looked for some point(usually raw mhz) on which to promote their chips, and disreguards their actual performance.

[benryves]

Also, the number for AMD chips (ex. 3000) is approximately what mhz P4 processor the AMD chip is comparable to. (AMD 64 3000 = Intel P4 3 ghz)

Not in a million years is that an accurate figure... Or even close. It entirely depends on what you're running.

As for the overclocking, every Intel system I've owned has been able to have the CPU overclocked, whether through ye olde motherboard switches system through to software overclocking. Intel even offer their own software to do it.