Highest actual GHz with AMD

[Thermalrock]

so an fx at 2.4 ghz already beats your barton at 2.5 even tho it runs with 100 mhz less unlike the 55 that runs with 100mhz more.

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Originally posted by: Thermalrock
so an fx at 2.4 ghz already beats your barton at 2.5 even tho it runs with 100 mhz less unlike the 55 that runs with 100mhz more.

there is still a $700 price difference. eitherway this is derailing the original thread topic.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
I made it very clear and said:

"a barton at 2.5ghz can give a FX55 a run for its money and beat it in some instances"

here are some benchmarks

edit: oops, its a FX53, not 55

Those are synthetic benches genius.

A barton a 2500mhz can not come close to an FX-53 or 55. A 2700mhz or at max clock (IIRC3ghz) it can match it SOMETIMES.

-Kevin

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy

Originally posted by: Thermalrock
so an fx at 2.4 ghz already beats your barton at 2.5 even tho it runs with 100 mhz less unlike the 55 that runs with 100mhz more.

there is still a $700 price difference. eitherway this is derailing the original thread topic.

Pretty damn good point most should pay attention to...the barton is still a sweet priced chip....

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Those are synthetic benches genius.

A barton a 2500mhz can not come close to an FX-53 or 55. A 2700mhz or at max clock (IIRC3ghz) it can match it SOMETIMES.

-Kevin

**** define artificial, i was under the impression that superpi was one of THE best benchmarks for basic raw computational power ****

 

[cheap]

Originally posted by: Zebo

If a 2.2GHz AXP (3200+) compares to a P4/3.2, what would a 3.2GHz AXP do?

The first part of your stament is false. 2.2 A-XP 3200 is equal to 2800Mhz P4 dispite the lies AMD is telling.

AXP * 1.25 = P4


so a 3.2 AXP is equal to a 4Ghz p4

What most people don't know is the rating is not vs a P4, but against AMD's original Athlon.

 

[itachi]

Originally posted by: cheap
What most people don't know is the rating is not vs a P4, but against AMD's original Athlon.

and what you don't know is what you're talking about. the pr rating used to be based off the p4, but now it's based off benchmarks. if what you said were true, then equivalently rated cpus of a64 and xp would have the same performance.

 

[cheap]

Originally posted by: itachi
and what you don't know is what you're talking about. the pr rating used to be based off the p4, but now it's based off benchmarks. if what you said were true, then equivalently rated cpus of a64 and xp would have the same performance.

pr rating used to be based off original athlon, not p4. Don't remember the name but it's definitely based off AMD cpu, not intel.

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: itachi

Originally posted by: cheap
What most people don't know is the rating is not vs a P4, but against AMD's original Athlon.

and what you don't know is what you're talking about. the pr rating used to be based off the p4, but now it's based off benchmarks. if what you said were true, then equivalently rated cpus of a64 and xp would have the same performance.

Actually cheap does know what he is talking about, you are just talking BS.

All AXP performance ratings where based on benchmarks compared to a non-SSE Athlon (I believe they used a Athlon 1.4 GHz for this). Thye reason that the A64 and AXP preformance ratings dont match also has a simple answer (if you bothered to think about it). As time goes by benchmarks become outdated and need to be changed to take advantage of new technology and features. Because of this need to update benchmarks the A64 performance rating is based of a different set of benchmarks and now uses a AXP as a referance point (a 1800+ if I remember correctly). the reason the change did not take place in the AXP line is because it would have caused a slower CPU based on the old benchmarks to have a higher performance rating.

The AMD performance rating has always used benchmarks, and has always (at least officially) used an AMD processor as a baseline for comparasion.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
well a barton at 2.5ghz can give a FX55 a run for its money and beat it in some instances, so a 3.2ghz barton would certainly romp. you simply can't ramp the clock frequency of the AMDs because they just aren't made to do that.

You must be mistaken. An Xp barton at 2.5ghz can once in a blue moon match an fx51(2.5ghz barton is normally slower then an athlon 64 2800 in most things), it couldnt dream in a million years of touching an fx55(these run at 2.6Ghz with 1MB l2 cache)

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
well a barton at 2.5ghz can give a FX55 a run for its money and beat it in some instances, so a 3.2ghz barton would certainly romp. you simply can't ramp the clock frequency of the AMDs because they just aren't made to do that.

You must be mistaken. An Xp barton at 2.5ghz can once in a blue moon match an fx51(2.5ghz barton is normally slower then an athlon 64 2800 in most things), it couldnt dream in a million years of touching an fx55(these run at 2.6Ghz with 1MB l2 cache)

He did admit to the mistake "oops, its a FX53, not 55".
Actually the AXP core and the A64 core are pretty equally matched (in 32 bit code). Before anyone jumps on me for saying that remember I said the "core". Probably no real world app is going to run completly from within the processors cache so the reduced latency and increased bandwidth of the A64 will give it more performance. In the end it all boils down to memory access, the more it is needed the more the AXP will fall behind.

 

[itachi]

Originally posted by: justly
Actually cheap does know what he is talking about, you are just talking BS.

All AXP performance ratings where based on benchmarks compared to a non-SSE Athlon (I believe they used a Athlon 1.4 GHz for this). Thye reason that the A64 and AXP preformance ratings dont match also has a simple answer (if you bothered to think about it). As time goes by benchmarks become outdated and need to be changed to take advantage of new technology and features. Because of this need to update benchmarks the A64 performance rating is based of a different set of benchmarks and now uses a AXP as a referance point (a 1800+ if I remember correctly). the reason the change did not take place in the AXP line is because it would have caused a slower CPU based on the old benchmarks to have a higher performance rating.

The AMD performance rating has always used benchmarks, and has always (at least officially) used an AMD processor as a baseline for comparasion.

ahh the price of arrogance: looking like an ass. oh well, good to know.

 

[Avalon]

I need to go to bed :X

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
I made it very clear and said:

"a barton at 2.5ghz can give a FX55 a run for its money and beat it in some instances"

here are some benchmarks

edit: oops, its a FX53, not 55

Whacked white boy, that bittech "review" is very limited in scope. Not only that it's a FX-53 and is totally dominating the overclocked barton (you know it's not fair to compare OC processors to non-oc But I'll let that slide) The barton only comes close in FPU tests which everyone knows was the AXP's strong suit. A reader must assume a global comparison when you make blanket statments like "AXP gives FX-55 a run for it's money" since you provided no caveats or instances. Which is an entirely false statement. Even in the bittech review the poor barton takes a beating in gaming/3d apps and just about everything else which it's strong FPU showing can't overcome.

Anyway Here is a much more expanisve review showing a Mobile barton @2400mhz getting it's ass handed to it by 3.2C's and E's and every A64. (except in FPU of course) I reccomend staying away from bitech in the future.

http://techreport.com/reviews/...xp-m-2500/index.x?pg=1


Edit: that's not to take anything away from AXP's.. they kick ass and we are really talking about small percentages here relative with any processor comparison (5-50%) and mobile XP's sub $100 price tag they still own price/performance over everything other than maybe if you can find a $40 Axp1700 and overclock it ~2.2ish. But that does'nt discount both the P4's and A64's sit on top and overclocked signifigantly more on top over the XP's.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: cheap

Originally posted by: Zebo

If a 2.2GHz AXP (3200+) compares to a P4/3.2, what would a 3.2GHz AXP do?

The first part of your stament is false. 2.2 A-XP 3200 is equal to 2800Mhz P4 dispite the lies AMD is telling.

AXP * 1.25 = P4


so a 3.2 AXP is equal to a 4Ghz p4

What most people don't know is the rating is not vs a P4, but against AMD's original Athlon.

so I've been told

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
well a barton at 2.5ghz can give a FX55 a run for its money and beat it in some instances, so a 3.2ghz barton would certainly romp. you simply can't ramp the clock frequency of the AMDs because they just aren't made to do that.

You must be mistaken. An Xp barton at 2.5ghz can once in a blue moon match an fx51(2.5ghz barton is normally slower then an athlon 64 2800 in most things), it couldnt dream in a million years of touching an fx55(these run at 2.6Ghz with 1MB l2 cache)

:roll: Now you're going to far the other way. I posted a link with global performance matrix at the end of the review which shows a 2.2ghz barton is exactly equal to a A64 2800. No, a 2.5 barton would only loose a couple gamming a couple 3d rendering proggies but would kick butt in everything else. And is normally faster then an athlon 64 2800 in most things.

http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/525/