Printable View
I am building a new system, starting with the CPU. I don't plan on overclocking the CPU. Can I really use the AMD rating system to compare to the Pentium 4 clock speeds? That is, if I buy an Athlon XP 2800, is it comparable in performance to a Pentium 4 2.8 GHz CPU, even though the AMD clock speed is only 2.08 GHz?
Although the comparison between athlon and pentium4 chips isn't exactly accurate, its close enough for most peoples' purposes.
In general a 2.8xp is equivalent to a 2.8-P4, an xp3.2 to a P4 3.2.
What you have to ask yourself is wether you are prepared to pay a large chunk of cash extra to buy a P4 with performance that is roughly equal to an athlon XP, in addition to a (generally) more expensive P4 motherboard.
The XP rating is actually a comparison to the original Athlon Thunderbird CPU. As it happens the P4 chips are only a couple of percentage points off this.
An XP3200+ is nowhere near the performance of the P4 3.2C, its a lot closer to a 2.6C
Shame on both of you guys...where are your manners? :D
Welcome to Sysopt, Bob.
Yes...lately...AMD has been a little "over" optimistic with their PR ratings...
I use AMD, love 'em...but have nothing bad to say about Intel...(Insert sound of wallet saying OUCH:)
Z is right on track. How much do you really need?
And...I agree...for the savings versus Performance...play with AMD!
No, not trying to start another flame war...just saying the obvious as far as price is concerned!
Intel's upper end chips with HT really are nice...very few people can use all they have to offer...the basis for my price savings point above!
Oh yes, my mistake, where are my manners?!?!? Allow me to be the second to welcome you to sysopt.
Manners... I remember those. I used to have some until I misplaced them.
Welcome. :)
Hiyas, and welcome.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say an AthlonXP 3200+ is as fast as a P4 3.2C, I would consider it faster than a 2.6C. The Athlon64 3200+ is very competitive with the P4 3.2C, and significantly faster than the AXP 3200+.
Confused yet? Good. You see there's a problem with the whole PR rating system. AMD and Intel make very different processors, and they have very different strengths and weaknesses. So any sort of performance parity is going to be one of averages, not equality across the board.
Enjoy.
The 'big' problem is that for years (in fact for ever) everyone has been buying CPUs based on their clock speed.
With the introduction of the Athlon XP chips, AMD decided on the controvercial XP rating.
After all, would you buy an AMD 1.667Ghz CPU or one from Intel that ran at 2Ghz?
To the uninitiated the 2Ghz CPU would appear to be heaps faster, even though it was the athlon that won most benchmarks.
That is the why.
A common misconception is that the XP rating is a comparison to the Pentium 4 CPUs. Its not. It is related to the athlon thunderbird (XP2000+ = athlon 2000 if one existed).
The media, to simplify things (thats what the media does) associated the XP rating with the P4 CPU, and everyone believed them. It didn't hurt AMDs sales so they didn't make too much of a fuss :)
So, the Athlon 3200 IS NOT supposed to be directly compared to a P4-3.2, but is an estimation of how fast it runs compared to a thunderbird 3200 if one was ever to have been made.
Intel now, have a similar fight on their hands. They have always run with the mantra "clock speed is everything" but now the AMD Athlon 64/FX chips are soundly whipping intel CPUs even though they are clocked at just over 1/2 the intel chips in the MHz stakes.
AMD, not having the huge resources that Intel can throw at a chip to get the clock speed up, has had to make their chips smarter, not faster. I think we all can see if this strategy has worked or not.
Hmmm... Never knew there were people out there that actually believed that the PR ratings were comparisons of the old tbird core :rolleyes:
There are a few of us. That is what AMD has officially claimed from day 1.
Practically it has normally worked out to being roughly comparable to a Willamette P4, but that's officially considered just a happy coincidence. Part of the situation is that the P4 has had a much greater improvement in IPC and clockspeed than the Athlon.
The numbers aren't perfect, but they do make a better comparison than either frequency or price straight across so we use them. They're not all that good, but probably the best choice we have right now.
yeah, i know thats what AMD has "claimed" I personally don't believe it.
who cares why? It is just advertising. AMD is just a dog looking for a bone. Trying to carve out some market share.
The PR rating that AMD used only applied to the Athlon XP cpu which had several cores namely: Palomino, Tbred A (short for Thoroughbred), Tbred B and the Barton.
So its not specific to either one of those cores, its specific to the Athlon XP cpu.
Now that AMD has realeased the Athlon 64, they are not using any PR anymore, since they are back on TOP :)
I don't know where you got that information, that AMD is not using PR numbers any more, but it's untrue.
The Athlon64 FX has just a model number, not a PR number, but the regular Athlon64 does indeed have a PR number. Just go to Newegg and you can see that they have PR tagged Athlon64's in stock.
This is a little off the subject... but has anyone bothered to figure out what the performance rating of the Intel 3.2G P4 hyperthreading chip would be if AMD could make it? Wasn't more work per clock cycle part of the original literature?
Just thought I'd throw a little fuel on the fire.
I use a 2500+ @2.2G and prefer AMD as I am somewhat penurious.
Enjoy!
