you'r talking about "Operations Per Clock" not "Instructions Per Cycle". northwood C /prescott E 6x2 HT enabled.Originally posted by: lenjack
It may have changed, but I recall amd is 9 instructions per clock and intel is 6.
Originally posted by: NittanyLAncer
I might be a little off here, but I was under the impression that AMD's engineers were working with slightly better branch predicition...
...Is this still (not sure it ever was) an issue with Intel systems?
Originally posted by: dug777
its not remotely on the topic, but arguably mhz is a lot more accurate/truthful than the amd system- which is related 2 whatever fairydust the amd marketing folk r smoking & the intel ratings
Originally posted by: dug777
its not remotely on the topic, but arguably mhz is a lot more accurate/truthful than the amd system- which is related 2 whatever fairydust the amd marketing folk r smoking & the intel ratings
Originally posted by: dug777
its not remotely on the topic, but arguably mhz is a lot more accurate/truthful than the amd system- which is related 2 whatever fairydust the amd marketing folk r smoking & the intel ratings
Originally posted by: Shenkoa
Originally posted by: dug777
its not remotely on the topic, but arguably mhz is a lot more accurate/truthful than the amd system- which is related 2 whatever fairydust the amd marketing folk r smoking & the intel ratings
That whole statement was nor accurate or truthful. No offense but you have no idea what your talking about on this subject. Frequency is one of the things that measures a CPU's performance, you have to consider how many Instructions per second a CPU can calculate, lantency, cache prefetch and so so so many other things that only the AMD fab workers know about. Only newby's (General Public) or overclockers buy Intel's CPU's, and if you dont want to be a part of that General Public then I suggest the following.
Do your homework!
Listen to people on these forums!
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: CheesePoofs
Originally posted by: InseName
well y would u hate the pr system, it's not really amd's fault that intel has chosen to max their frequencies but not perfrom
because the pr rating does not accurately reflect actual performance, and also its confusing. For example, there are 3 different Athlong 64 3200+. one is 2.4 ghz, 512K L2 cache, socket 754; one is 2.2 ghz, 1MB L2 cache, socket 754; and the last is 2.2ghz, 512K L2 cache, socket 939. And they aren't even equal in perfromance.
It is as accurate as using mhz.
Originally posted by: dug777
for fvuck's sake u crazy buggers
Had it crossed your minds (obviously not or u wouldnt have comedown on me like a sack of shiat ) that all i'm saying is that the mhz intel speed rating is just that- a rating of a chip based on it's raw, measurable clockspeed- i'm not trying to say that it is an accurate rating of performance accross the board (or god forbid across architectures, i am well aware that "Frequency is one of the things that measures a CPU's performance, you have to consider how many Instructions per second a CPU can calculate, lantency, cache prefetch and so so so many other things that only the AMD fab workers know about." )
In a moment of foolishness i posted a comment (half-jokingly as it happens) because the IMO the AMD pr rating system is not quantifiable in any way,and whatever they like to say was heavily based on a comparison with intel processors...(certainly used to be before A64 ne way)
When i said that it wasn't on topic, i meant MY post, as i can't easily see what relevance pr ratings have to answering "How do AMDs manage to keep up with a much slower clock?", and so i thought what i was saying was rather irrelevant...
ne way- what i was trying to say is simply that the mhz ratings given by intel are an actual, quantifiable characteristic, while the relation b/w a 2.2gz 512kb l2cache & the rating of 3200+ is somewhat harder to see, especially given the different variants given the same name...ie. what i was saying was off topic & rather pointless, but also kinda true.
If u aren't still in flame mode u should b able 2see what i'm getting at, tho' badly expressed, and i've learnt my lesson when it comes 2posting comments like that
Originally posted by: CheesePoofs
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: CheesePoofs
Originally posted by: InseName
well y would u hate the pr system, it's not really amd's fault that intel has chosen to max their frequencies but not perfrom
because the pr rating does not accurately reflect actual performance, and also its confusing. For example, there are 3 different Athlong 64 3200+. one is 2.4 ghz, 512K L2 cache, socket 754; one is 2.2 ghz, 1MB L2 cache, socket 754; and the last is 2.2ghz, 512K L2 cache, socket 939. And they aren't even equal in perfromance.
It is as accurate as using mhz.
I would say that AMD's PR system is much better than just using mhz. I personally don't really mind it myself, i was just stating why some people don't.
Originally posted by: mwmorph
Originally posted by: Shenkoa
Originally posted by: dug777
its not remotely on the topic, but arguably mhz is a lot more accurate/truthful than the amd system- which is related 2 whatever fairydust the amd marketing folk r smoking & the intel ratings
That whole statement was nor accurate or truthful. No offense but you have no idea what your talking about on this subject. Frequency is one of the things that measures a CPU's performance, you have to consider how many Instructions per second a CPU can calculate, lantency, cache prefetch and so so so many other things that only the AMD fab workers know about. Only newby's (General Public) or overclockers buy Intel's CPU's, and if you dont want to be a part of that General Public then I suggest the following.
Do your homework!
Listen to people on these forums!
true, but overclockers tend to go amd now. 2.6oc on a 3200+ is easy and the chip is a hella lot cheaper than a comparable intel p4 that can oc and achieve similar performance with the stock cooler.
I would say that AMD's PR system is much better than just using mhz. I personally don't really mind it myself, i was just stating why some people don't.
Originally posted by: dug777
for fvuck's sake u crazy buggers
Had it crossed your minds (obviously not or u wouldnt have comedown on me like a sack of shiat ) that all i'm saying is that the mhz intel speed rating is just that- a rating of a chip based on it's raw, measurable clockspeed- i'm not trying to say that it is an accurate rating of performance accross the board (or god forbid across architectures, i am well aware that "Frequency is one of the things that measures a CPU's performance, you have to consider how many Instructions per second a CPU can calculate, lantency, cache prefetch and so so so many other things that only the AMD fab workers know about." )
In a moment of foolishness i posted a comment (half-jokingly as it happens) because the IMO the AMD pr rating system is not quantifiable in any way,and whatever they like to say was heavily based on a comparison with intel processors...(certainly used to be before A64 ne way)
When i said that it wasn't on topic, i meant MY post, as i can't easily see what relevance pr ratings have to answering "How do AMDs manage to keep up with a much slower clock?", and so i thought what i was saying was rather irrelevant...
ne way- what i was trying to say is simply that the mhz ratings given by intel are an actual, quantifiable characteristic, while the relation b/w a 2.2gz 512kb l2cache & the rating of 3200+ is somewhat harder to see, especially given the different variants given the same name...ie. what i was saying was off topic & rather pointless, but also kinda true.
If u aren't still in flame mode u should b able 2see what i'm getting at, tho' badly expressed, and i've learnt my lesson when it comes 2posting comments like that