PDA

View Full Version : 3000 MHz Pentium IV or AMD Athlon™3000 or better



DX-GAME
05-29-2007, 08:34 PM
With AMD going its own way with a rating system, how likely do you think it is that AMDs architecture might be causing problems with games designed on a Intel chipset?

While a AMD of lower ghz might out perform a Intel of a higher ghz, does that mean its as stable running the code and can run the same commands as its Intel counterpart?

The AMD chips use a faster cache as opposed to faster ghz. What if a bit of software wasnt designed to run that way?

nebula25x
05-30-2007, 04:59 AM
Processor architechture is designed to be independant from software design. It uses low level machine language that is independant from the software code.

It doesnt really matter how a processor gets its speed, whether faster fsb or raw clock cycles or faster onboard cache. It all boils down to IPC's.

Btw, is that the Metallica Master of Puppets album cover in you sig. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

HeXeDOSOK
05-30-2007, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by DX-GAME:
With AMD going its own way with a rating system, how likely do you think it is that AMDs architecture might be causing problems with games designed on a Intel chipset?

While a AMD of lower ghz might out perform a Intel of a higher ghz, does that mean its as stable running the code and can run the same commands as its Intel counterpart?

The AMD chips use a faster cache as opposed to faster ghz. What if a bit of software wasnt designed to run that way?

AMD went that way in their rating almost 5 years ago.. while Intel continued to push the MHz war and scoffed AMD for their lower clock speeds. While the Athlon XP line of processors were definnitely no match for hyperthreaded P4's, AMD did a bang up job with the Athlon 64. the Athlon 64 at stock speeds would definitely outperform the 3GHz P4 in games. But shortly after AMD picked up the speed crown, Intel did a 180 on everyone and stopped referrencing the MHz rating in their model number, choosing to name it "630, 631, 650" and all kinds of other names. Intel jumped on the "more processes per clock cycle" bandwagon and it is clearly evident that it got them back the speed crown. It's all about processes per clock cycle. The AMD 64 captured the speed crown in games because of it's on die memory controller. If anyone has seen memory benchmarks comparing a AMD 64 and a old school Northwood or Prescott P4 (or whatever the codename was back then) you will see a MAJOR difference in memory throughput.

As far as AMD not being able to do certain things that is meant for Intel is not feasible. It's not like a graphics card manufacturer that partners with a gaming company to be the official GPU of the game. This would be one of those instances where running an Nvidia GPU may work better than ATI or vice versa. There are certain instances where certain architectures are more suitable for certain applications than another, they usually are not "that" far off. Here is a good example of a Intel vs AMD shootout and you can get an idea of the 3.4GHz perfoormance of Intel, vs. the 3500+, 3800+, etc,etc. Plus you can see the old pentium 4 2.4 vs. the Athlon XP 2400+. You will notice that Intel has a "slight" lead in many of the canned office/decoding applications. When it comes to games, the AMD's take off.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjI2LDMsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

HeXeDOSOK
05-30-2007, 05:16 PM
Oh, and I forgot to add this before anyone tries to put the ol' "Your a stupid fanboy" comment... I'd have to say Intel is completely STOMPING AMD right now. It's pretty sad when companies can't compete anymore. I can't wait to see if AMD has an offering to combat these multicore Intel CPU's. Barcelona "sounded" good but from what we see in early benchmarks, Intel is still stomping them. I kinda liked the day when instead of choosing 1 CPU for the performance because it dominated, I like to choose cpu's for their price wars when both manufacturers are neck and neck.

Chiles4
05-31-2007, 09:35 AM
Oh, and I forgot to add this before anyone tries to put the ol' "Your a stupid fanboy" comment... I'd have to say Intel is completely STOMPING AMD right now. It's pretty sad when companies can't compete anymore. I can't wait to see if AMD has an offering to combat these multicore Intel CPU's. Barcelona "sounded" good but from what we see in early benchmarks, Intel is still stomping them. I kinda liked the day when instead of choosing 1 CPU for the performance because it dominated, I like to choose cpu's for their price wars when both manufacturers are neck and neck. Yeah, these are tough times for AMD. For me, it still boils down to performance per dollar. One bright spot I heard from a reputable source was that the Athlon 64 6000+ was actually outperforming a Conroe that sold for a similar price.

So like I said, you gotta look at the prices too.

stewman1234
05-31-2007, 09:36 AM
i dont care who makes what.....i get the best.....and then the other company takes the lead......its a never ending cycle

FI_FlimFlam
05-31-2007, 09:58 AM
THere are just too many variables to consider. Right now the biggest for most people is the performance for the price. Unless you have a particular need from a program that exploits a particular instruction set contained in either Mfg's processor then it's all about the performance for the price. Right now the Intel Core2 Duo's are leading the race for most consumers. Read just about any review site and you will find the Intel E6600 as the sweet spot for processors. That is until AMD knocks something new out in the next couple of years.

I went from Intel to AMD when AMD finally got their act together with the 64 bit processors and the prices for the performance were much better. Now I have moved back to Intel with the Core2's since that was where the performance for the price was when I built my current system. I'm looking at building a new low voltage (read low heat and silent cooling) system for a home entertainment system and will be looking at an Intel Core2 with ATI/AMD HD2600 vid card(25w/ 45nm GPU/fanless).

Anyway, provided one or the other doesn't fold, it's good to have them both battling out for the performance crown. In the end we all win.

DX-GAME
06-01-2007, 03:10 AM
nebula25x: Yup, thats what it is.
Still trying to come up with something better, but Im not all that great at graphic arts, lol.

Thanks for the reads guys!

SteveLord8
06-01-2007, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by FI_FlimFlam:

I went from Intel to AMD when AMD finally got their act together with the 64 bit processors and the prices for the performance were much better.

Too bad the 64bit market is near nonexistent. Good thing the cpu line was fast anyway, but the whole "64bit" garbage that everyone bought into was a waste. To this day, there still isnt even a fully functional 64bit OS to game on. Not to mention...no 64bit games.

DX-GAME
06-01-2007, 08:32 AM
Hey steve, UT3 is undergoing extensice teasting with 64 bit XP and Vista. So at least if there is no optimization for it, it should work well, lol.

reasonX3
06-01-2007, 09:18 PM
i run 3ds max in 64 bits and its defintely a nice step up .

i know this is for gamers , but think of developers and people who do business , thats why 64 bit was invented .

Mysticaly
06-02-2007, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by SteveLord8:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI_FlimFlam:

I went from Intel to AMD when AMD finally got their act together with the 64 bit processors and the prices for the performance were much better.

Too bad the 64bit market is near nonexistent. Good thing the cpu line was fast anyway, but the whole "64bit" garbage that everyone bought into was a waste. To this day, there still isnt even a fully functional 64bit OS to game on. Not to mention...no 64bit games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

GSC where supposed to release two versions of S.T.A.L.K.E.R, one 64bit and a 32 bit version, They where actually one of the first to start development for the 64b system.. I have no idea why and when they dropped there plans, possibly because theres really no point in developping 64b games when theres no real support for it.