Is AMD faster than intel

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kirkyg


I dont need to do "research" i have nothing to prove in here. All im saying is in any games that you run (besides quake3) an equivalently clocked athlon system will DESTROY the p4...there isn't even an argument there. And your on here saying all these benchmarks prove that they are really close even clock for clock . But in real world application THEY ARE NOT period.

kirkyg

---

Your still not getting it. They are saying if the code is optimized properly the P4 can and will compete with the AMD which you fail to realize.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kirkyg


I dont need to do "research" i have nothing to prove in here. All im saying is in any games that you run (besides quake3) an equivalently clocked athlon system will DESTROY the p4...there isn't even an argument there. And your on here saying all these benchmarks prove that they are really close even clock for clock . But in real world application THEY ARE NOT period.

kirkyg

---

first you say in "any game," and then you go on to say "real world application." games and real world appz are not synonymous in my opinion. yes a significant number of us in here play games, but the real world does not. don't get it twisted.

"And your on here saying all these benchmarks prove that they are really close even clock for clock . But in real world application THEY ARE NOT period."

SPEC is made up of real world applications as Moridin pointed out. 26 i think it was. so you are discounting this benchmark, made up of 26 real world applications, and countering it with "in any games you run." not a strong argument.

cpu2000 programs
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/CINT2000/
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/CFP2000/
so games are more real world huh?

I guess there isnn't much thats optimized for it...again in real world application it doesn't outperform the AMD chips it underperforms them clock for clock there is absolutely NO argument suggestioning otherwise. There are a few things that p4 does exceptionally and amd the same...but excluding those the chips are not created equally clock for clock.

kirkyg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by joerg
So basically what your sayign is that P7 or P4 is only now getting getting applications that are suing its matured code mainly sse2 instructions and that applications wriitten with such codes are the only non leagcy applications and games out there.

---

Just to be perfectly clear I'll repeat this. THE MOST IMPORTANT P4 OPTOMIZATIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SSE2! Code scheduling, L/S rules, branch rules and data structure are far more important. These are the things I have been referring to. It takes time for programmers and compiler writers to figure out how to make these things work in their programs, and this learning curve only started in late 2000 so we have yet to see the results.

Hammer will not see the same types of benefits. AMD is forced by their market position to sacrifice top end performance in favor of good performance on a wide variety of code.

This means that over time we see better performance out of Intel's processors as software catches up. We typically do not see this in AMD processors.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by joerg

So will you say the same thing abotu the new featyrse being added in hammer or will you proclaim them useless?

---

Some of the new features in Hammer like more architectural registers in 64-bit mode are potentially very useful. But, 3DNow! was potentially useful as well, in practice it didn't turn out to be particularly important because everyone chose to use SSE instead.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chronus


Worthless?

Even today we hear INTYEL officials lean on the "clock speed" factor/argument.

---

Do you have some links to back that up?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kirkyg


But then you payed $560 bux or so for your processor and i payed $93 shipped from newegg and my processor is faster in most benchmarks than the 3.06 DOH...who wins again?

kirkyg

---

Sure, but then O.C. the P4 to like 3400, pair it with Rambus and you're done:p ... You have to compare apples to apples. You also have to look at the applications for which you purchase your rig. Your 2100 couldn't even dream of running within HALF the fps my wife's p4 could do encoding mpegs and avi's. With SSE2 and HT, FORGET IT... go back to games, dude...:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kirkyg


I dont need to do "research" i have nothing to prove in here. All im saying is in any games that you run (besides quake3) an equivalently clocked athlon system will DESTROY the p4...there isn't even an argument there.

---

All that proves is that those particular games perform better clock for clock on the Athlon. It says nothing about what the two processors are capable of clock for clock, so they simply do not back up you position that the Athlon is faster clock for clock. These are application benchmarks, and application benchmarks CANNOT tell you how a processor performs in general.

Most of these games were started before P4 optimization guidelines were known, and even for those started after, there is no guarantee that the developers took the P4s needs into account. It is therefor not surprising that the P4 performs poorly on them clock for clock, This tells us nothing about what we will see in the future and it doesn’t matter anyway since the P4 still offers performance as good or better then any other processor out there due to it's high clock rate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kirkyg

And your on here saying all these benchmarks prove that they are really close even clock for clock . But in real world application THEY ARE NOT period.

---

You have already been pointed to real world applications that show this isn't true.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kirkyg
I guess there isnn't much thats optimized for it...again in real world application it doesn't outperform the AMD chips it underperforms them clock for clock there is absolutely NO argument suggestioning otherwise. There are a few things that p4 does exceptionally and amd the same...but excluding those

---

All the SPEC components are real applications, and some like gzip are quite common. From Tomshardware reviews mp3 Maker platinum runs faster clock for clock on the P4 (and show no FSB/memory dependence). So do the Lightwave reviews from many sites.

Benchmarks that favor the P4 on a clock for clock basis are certainly not in a majority, but neither are they hard to find.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kirkyg

the chips are not created equally clock for clock.

kirkyg

---

No two micro-architectures are. There are simply to many issues to address, but:

The P4 offers higher throughput of integer instructions, more loads and stores, lower latency cache, better branch predictions, lower latency for simple Integer instructions, better prefetch, deeper OoOE capabilities…

The Athlon has higher X87 throughput, dual ported L1, larger L1, suffers less from a branch mispredict, suffers less from a L/S rule violation, higher sustained issue rates, lower latency for most X87 instructions, lower latency shifts…

All of these effect how much a processor can do per clock, and each processor has it's advantages. How then can you make such sweeping statements that the P4 simply isn't capable of competing clock for clock?

you waste all that time microanalyzing everything i said trying to make a point and ended up proving mine thanks bro ;)

Quote:

---

All that proves is that those particular games perform better clock for clock on the Athlon. It says nothing about what the two processors are capable of clock for clock, so they simply do not back up you position that the Athlon is faster clock for clock.

---

Indeed they do...because the rare times that your processor is maxed out 100% resources pumping full capacity is when your playing a game or doing some sort of graphics editing/viewing....thats the ONLY time your processor is maxed. Just proved my point. In real world when you have your system maxed out when you really need the power the AMD clock for clock will DESTROY p4 for the same clock. I would buy a 3.06 over a 3000+ because it has hyperthreading and is slightly faster than the 3000+ for the same price. But the 2100+ is EASILY a better buy than anything p4 has to offer on the cheaper end.

kirkyg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Moridin

All of these effect how much a processor can do per clock, and each processor has it's advantages. How then can you make such sweeping statements that the P4 simply isn't capable of competing clock for clock?

---

Well, the P4, without SSE2, simply isn't capable of competing clock for clock with the Athlon XP. That's quite clear from the 1000s of P4 reviews. Lets be real here though, who buys a P4 at 2.2 hoping it will beat an XP 2800+?

The P4 has to have higher clock speed to be overall "faster" than an Athlon. How a P4 performs on an SSE2 written benchmark or program that is hardly commonplace, such as Lightwave or MP3 Maker, probably doesn't mean anything to 99% of us here either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gotmonopoly?


Well, the P4, without SSE2, simply isn't capable of competing clock for clock with the Athlon XP. That's quite clear from the 1000s of P4 reviews. Lets be real here though, who buys a P4 at 2.2 hoping it will beat an XP 2800+?

The P4 has to have higher clock speed to be overall "faster" than an Athlon. How a P4 performs on an SSE2 written benchmark or program that is hardly commonplace, such as Lightwave or MP3 Maker, probably doesn't mean anything to 99% of us here either.

---

Thats kind of a lame arugment. Saying well if the P4 didnt have sse2 it wouldnt be capable of competeting. Thats like saying well if the athlon didnt do more work per clock cylcle then it wouldnt have a chance at competeting. Thats a pointless argument since, it does have it. Btw as Moridin has pointed out the most important optimizations for the P4 has nothing to do with SSE2.

Unless I missed something, isn't it clear that the 3.06 is the fastest chip out there. :confused: As far as all this real world stuff, I think the only thing that matters is what you do. All I can say is AMD is good for what they are, a company who has the best prices and offers great performance at those prices. :) 2100+ @ 2.4GHz for $90 can't be beaten. :cool:

Yes it is as simple as I play unreal2k3 and the athlon is awsome at that game or I use lightwave, and 3dsMax and the P4 kicks but in these applications. The simple point is that from a practical standpoint for what most of us and the rest of the world do the Pr ratings of the athlon will hold up against the P4 of course some times this isnt true but for 97% of us this will remain true throughout our cpus life. Again once enough applications are written to be optomized for the p4 then AMD will have already stepped up and gained many of these same things and again someone will make the initial move and software companies will again catch up. Oh and kirky dude games are nto the only thing that will bring a cpu to its knees. Have you ever used intensive CAD programs or rendered a movie or did and an advanced filter in photoshop how about running setti or simply crunching numbers or being a server. All of those things can bring a computer to its knees. Games wont even fully bring a cpu to 100% because the graphics card is doin most of the work just because your taskmanager says cpu is at 100% doesnt mean crap it just means every clock is being used not that every clock is being used ot its max which is why when sc4 lists at 100% and sc2k lists as 100% you can clearly say sc4 is actually doing more.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kirkyg
you waste all that time microanalyzing everything i said trying to make a point and ended up proving mine thanks bro ;)



Indeed they do...because the rare times that your processor is maxed out 100% resources pumping full capacity is when your playing a game or doing some sort of graphics editing/viewing....thats the ONLY time your processor is maxed. Just proved my point. In real world when you have your system maxed out when you really need the power the AMD clock for clock will DESTROY p4 for the same clock. I would buy a 3.06 over a 3000+ because it has hyperthreading and is slightly faster than the 3000+ for the same price. But the 2100+ is EASILY a better buy than anything p4 has to offer on the cheaper end.

kirkyg

---

I demonstrated that on properly optimized code the P4 performs similar to the Athlon clock for clock. How dose that support your point in any way? As for "microanalyzing" all I have done is take you unsubstantiated claim and refute it. You have yet to provide any evidence to counter that.

No they don't because the games you are pointing to are based on game engines who's development began before P4 optimization guidelines were available, so they couldn't possibly be taken into account. This is why application benchmarks CANNOT provide evidence for your claim. By definition an application benchmark cannot give you any information beyond that specific application using that specific data. (If you have questions reguarding what benchmarks can and cannot tell you feel free to ask)

I think the lightspeed results are clear indication that the Athlon does not necessarily "destroy" the P4 clock for clock in processor intensive graphics applications.

P4 3.06=$543 XP 3000+=$555(No HS/fan)

P4 2.8=$345 XP 2800+=$360

P4 2.66=$233 XP 2600+=$246

P4 2.4=$160 Xp2400+=$130


Price is the same and which kind overclocks better?,,do we even have to go there?