Comparing CPU's

[oxybate]

never really understood so here's my question:

Aside from unintended differences (like overclock ability and etc.), how do CPU's compare?
For example, which is faster/better:

A lower generation chip with a faster mhz rating, or a higher generation chip with a lower mhz rating?

Which is faster/better:
k62 550 mhz or k63-450

Is it simple enough to say the 550 cause "its faster".
Is it really faster?

never understood which is the prime determinant..chip generation or speed rating.

Oxy

[chipbgt]

Hi Oxybate, you might have better luck with this in the overclocking and CPU forum, but dont go post there, if they feel like moving it there they will http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

I am very non-smart on the subject but mhz may be becoming a relative way to gauge processors...Macintosh claims its 400mhz blows away an intel 400mhz.....

someone else come along and help this guy out http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[Wiz]

Macs G4 chip completely destroys the P3

[narayan]

nevermind~~~~~~

[This message has been edited by narayan (edited 03-24-2000).]

[tonym]

Oxybate,

It's not necessrly the speed (MHz), it's what the processor can do at that speed.

Most processors are designed to do high speed arithmetic operations, so they are optimized at a particular speed to do lots of CPU work (many instructions per clock cycle) and are configured to have minimized delay time to access the scratchpad (cache) memory.
I believe the AMD Athlon, for example can perform 4-6 instructions per cycle.

There is no hard-fast rule of thumb that says a faster "old" technology processor will outperform a slower "new" technology. You've got to know the architecture of the beast before you can make such an assessment. ingeneral the chip makers release new products that utilize smaller feature sizes (0.18 micron, for example) and lower core voltages to get higher speed. But sometimes the next generation chip is intended to reduce the cost of and add feature to a successful older generation product (for example MMX-type processors). This doesn't always work, as AMD found out with the K3 series!

What it means is that you should visit the Intel, AMD and Cyrix sites and browse the information that they provide on the processors. Reading magazines like PC Magazine helps also as they periodically have issues that feature the processors, migration paths and the like. And utilize forums like SysOpt to get more practical knowledge on this topic!

Tony

[CMonster]

well, in lay terms: It doesn't matter if your hotrod engine can redline at 30000 rpm and has a gazillion horsepower if you only have a 1 gallon gas tank you will have to stop on every corner for a refill.

The two CPUs you pointed out are a great example: The K6-2 550 and the K6-3 450 are exactly the same design except one major difference, where the L2 cache is located (L2 cache - super fast memory that the cpu goes to for data and instructions - I'm not going to get into the whole explaination of L1, L2, and L3 cache jsut now). The K6-2 has to go all the way to the motherboard (across town) to the slower running (usually 66- 100mhz) L2 cache. But the K6-3 has its L2 cache integrated into the chip itself (running at 450mhz in this case)so it is 450% faster than the K6-2's 100mhz L2 cache.

for more info on CPUs and cache try a search of whatever you like at www.pcwebopedia.com (http://www.pcwebopedia.com)

[This message has been edited by CMonster (edited 03-24-2000).]

[BBA]

Wiz????

And that statement was important in what context???

[grandslammer]

Well, you know, 100 mhz difference (550 - 450) is a fairly big step. But say the 500/2 compared with the 450/3, I think I'd rather have the 450/3. IF, and only IF I weren't going to overclock. The /3' don't overclock worth a ****!

But, I'd much rather have the extra 256 LII cache at FULL CHIP SPEED than an extra 50 or maybe even 75mhz speed.

But, it's all in the eyes of the beholder, huh? Depends on the type of crunching you do. Games don't always shine on the chips that knock the hell out of business app's, you know?

But if I were going to get one or the other, I'd get the fastest K6/3 I could. I've heard people talking about the 500's, but haven't seen one yet.

Also, I'm looking forward to trying out one of the K6/2+'s supposedly coming out soon.... http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif They are suppopsed to be like the celeron's w/128kb LII cache on the chip. (I think half processor speed?) http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif


Good Luck In All... http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

Mike P.
http://www.bigfoot.com/~MikePrettyman

[This message has been edited by grandslammer (edited 03-25-2000).]