Im building a Gaming PC and having alot of fun learning along the way. One thing confuses me. Everyone I ask says the best CPU at the moment is the AMD 64-FX62. I checked and this is a 2.8Ghz chip. What confuses me is that there are Intel chips at 3.4Ghz that are half the RRP.
How can a slower CPU be more efficient?
Is there more to it than the clock speed?
2006-08-31 06:03:00 · 11 answers · asked by bruvvamoff 5 in Computers & Internet ➔ Hardware ➔ Other - Hardware
"Is there more to it than the clock speed?"
Yes
2006-08-31 06:08:09 · answer #1 · answered by savs 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Interested dude pretty much hit the nail on the head. Check the other numbers on those CPUs. The highest quality AMDs have 256KB of L1 cache (128+128). Most Intel chips have a grand total of 28KB (12+16). That's a huge difference and the reason why low clock speed AMDs wipe out most Intel processors.
Currently the best CPU is actually the Intel Core 2 Duo. I'm not clear on what architecture causes it to be so much better at the moment, but all tests and benchmarks show it being faster than the AMD 64-FX62. Up till about 5 months ago the FX 62 was by far the best processor out there.
2006-08-31 13:16:37 · answer #2 · answered by taskr36 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's an easy analogy for you. A car that has a high rev'ing engine doesn't necessarily mean that it will be beat a car with a low rev'ing engine. It's a matter of how much power you can get out of each rev that's important.
Same is true for a CPU. The fact that CPU can crank out higher frequency doesn't mean that it will be faster than a machine that has a slower clock speed.
IPC = Instructions Per Clock is better on AMD 64-FX than on Pentium 4. All instructions do not execute at 1 tick of the clock. Some take several clock ticks to execute.
If a machine running at 2 Ghz takes 2 clock ticks to execute most instructions, it will be practically running at the same speed as a machine that runs at 1 Ghz and executes most instructions in 1 clock tick.
You need to consider more than the clock speed to get the whole picture.
Addendum: Intel Core 2 Duo is about the same or better in terms of IPC than the Athlon 64FX. Intel Core 2 Duo is a highly optimized version of the Pentium M core which was based on the old Pentium III core and not the Pentium 4 (NetBurst Architecture). They improved upon the Pentium M core by improving the cache architecture and also optimizing execution of some SIMD commands (SSE).
2006-08-31 13:15:58 · answer #3 · answered by cantankerous_bunch 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the clock speed of the microprocessor is not the only thing that you should look at when you buy a new computer. AMD are has a different architecture than Intel. This architecture doesn't allow them to increase the clock speed but the performance in games are better than an Intel processor. If you are a Intel fan you should try the new Intel core 2 extreme processors because they are built on a new architecture, similar to the amd architecture
2006-08-31 13:13:34 · answer #4 · answered by tosacu_andrei 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it may be faster, but it depends on the tests being run
the AMD is a64 bit processor, therefore certain opeartions will run faster
its more modern that the intel design so probably has better integration of cahces and memory access
however if your programas are 32 bit then I doubt if you see any true speed benefit. Undoubtably 64 bit softyware is coming (therer has been a 64 bit Linux OS around for at least 12 months), there is some applciation software but not much.
so perhaps the more important question is which computer system will be most effective at running my softwrae and that is a complex matter
2006-08-31 13:12:32 · answer #5 · answered by Mark J 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Theres also Win XP 64 edition !!!
AMD tend to be better for gaming but there will be 1000's of Pentium owners saying different (I have a P4 3.0 Ghz)
2006-08-31 13:31:55 · answer #6 · answered by the thinker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Intel and AMD chips handle tasks differently, and AMD handles calculations better than Intel chips, modern games have lots of calculations that need processed and so AMD chips handle them more efficiently.
2006-08-31 13:10:53 · answer #7 · answered by xenobyte72 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just throgh the quality of the build. AMD make and XP range, and my XP2400Mhz PC is only 2000Mhz, but is called 2400XP becasue it performs at the same rate as in Intel 2400Mhz processor.
2006-08-31 13:08:59 · answer #8 · answered by john frinton 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not how many cycles per second, but instead the amount of work performed per cycle. The AMD chips perform more work per cycle, As such they perform better even at a lower clock speed.
2006-08-31 13:08:31 · answer #9 · answered by Interested Dude 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it depends on the actual model of the processor. a celeron with 2.6gh is worse than a intel duo 1.73 ghz because of the type of processor.
2006-08-31 13:09:12 · answer #10 · answered by pain_made_me_beautiful 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋