Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: How does AMD equal to or compare to Intel model numbers




  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default

    Oh, well AMD was just lying. :D
    Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors
    That means to each other, not to Intel. There isn't much correlation between the model numbers of Athlon XPs and the clock speeds of P4s. P4 are simply better at a certain point, but most aren't better for their price. As I said, if you want to outperform the higher end P4s, get an Athlon 64.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Winnipeg, Canada
    Posts
    848

    Default

    When amd says a pr number like say xp2600, they mean that it would perform like a thunderbird 2.6 ghz would have had it existed.
    athlon xp-m@2456mhz(12x204)
    tt aquariusII liquid cooled/ arctic silver ceramique
    asus a7n8xe-dlx
    thermaltake xaserIII lanfire
    bfg 6800gt
    seagate sataII 250gb/seagate 7200rpm 160gb ide
    samsung dvdrw
    2x1024 kingston hyper-x pc3200/ windows xp pro sp3
    logitech mx518/ logitech wingman rumble
    2x samsung 955df 19"/ canon i960
    creative x-fi fatal1ty 64mb/ altec lansing 251-5.1
    mushkin 550w

    opteron 146 @ 2850 (10x285)
    DFI infinity nf4 ultra
    thermaltake tsunami dream -black
    seagate sataII 500gb
    evga 8600gt oc ssc edition
    samsung sata dvd-rw
    2x1024 ocz black
    logitech ifeel/ nec accusync 75f
    ocz fatal1ty 550w

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Correcto!

    Tom's...well, they suck and have a blatant bias toward Intel. The articles are crap, the writing is crap, and they basically give awards to only a few companies, regardless if something from someone else performs just as good or better and is cheaper.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    man.

    personally I'ts in your own opinion.

    I have read so many articles relative to the cpu debate, that I am not sure which are bias and which are not.

    A great article to be read in my opinion is
    from toms hard ware
    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/index.html

    it clearly states that one processor topples the other in certain tasks.

    I don't beleive that one processor is superior to the other, but that intel and intel related products, ie motherboard, are more expensive than amd

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    The best processor you can buy right now is a Pentium 4 Extreme Edition @ 3.4ghz. Nothing stands up to it in performance (or price). And no Athlon XP will beat a Pentium 4 3.0ghz, only an Athlon 64.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default

    You're an idiot. The FX-53 beats it in performance (in most applications and synthetic benchmarks, but the P4 wins some here and there) and price (it costs between $200 and $400 less, depending on where you look). Maybe you should actually read benchmarks and prices before posting things.

    I also don't see why people think the articles at Tom's Hardware are so biased. The P4s beat the Athlon XPs in their benchmarks, but the ones that did win out are considerably more expensive than their Athlon XP equivelents. Oh, and they [i]were[i] better in the tests that said so, based on similar guides on other sites. On top of that, the Xeon vs. Opteron article gave the Opteron a clear win (again, in most applications and synthetic benchmarks).

    I don't even see how THG could be considered biased in anything else, at all. The benchmarks comparisons on other hardware (such as video cards) seem accurate when compared to those of other sites.

    Perhaps it was bad in the past, but I haven't seen anything that looked at all biased in recent times.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yawgm0th
    I also don't see why people think the articles at Tom's Hardware are so biased. The P4s beat the Athlon XPs in their benchmarks, but the ones that did win out are considerably more expensive than their Athlon XP equivelents. Oh, and they [i]were[i] better in the tests that said so, based on similar guides on other sites. On top of that, the Xeon vs. Opteron article gave the Opteron a clear win (again, in most applications and synthetic benchmarks).

    I don't even see how THG could be considered biased in anything else, at all. The benchmarks comparisons on other hardware (such as video cards) seem accurate when compared to those of other sites.

    Perhaps it was bad in the past, but I haven't seen anything that looked at all biased in recent times.
    THG's last **** up was when the A64 1st came out and they copped such a flaming over how Intel biased they were when very few of their results matched those stated by other sites plus by loading the P4 testbeds's with CAS2 memory while the A64's had to run with only CAS3 memory.
    THG usually clean themselves and behave for a while but every now and again they loose the plot.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    38

    Default

    In my opinion, I think the AMD 3200+ XP processor is well worth it for the cost. As you can see in results, the processor isn't that far behind P4 3.2G.

    No one plays a game in 640x480 mode anymore. The frames per second go down dramatically when you raise the resolution with the P4, and they don't go down as much with the AMD. That says a lot in my book. Three Cheers for AMD and their efforts.

    By the way, I am a proud owner of an AMD 3200+ with a Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe MB, Dual Channelling 512MB X 2 (DDR400) with a Radeon 9600 (soon to be upgraded to 9800 pro). I am very pleased with the frame rates I am getting with the games I play.

    Mike

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,296

    Default

    While the AMD model numbers are PR ratings and do not "officially" correlate to Intel's clock speeds, there is an unspoken consensus (wink,wink, nudge, nudge) that they are assigned with direct comparison in mind. Did anyone ever read an article that compared say, an XP2400 with a P4 3.0? Or an XP3200 with a P4 2.4? Every new cpu that comes out gets compared to the other guy's cpu which matches the PR or clock speed. Seldom does either cpu show up as the clear winner in all catagories of computing. It does become obvious which to choose on the basis of application performance or price/performance ratio. All technicalities aside, all cpus with similar PRs and clock speeds are in a similar class.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Exactly. AMD has stated that the rating is in comparison to the relative performance to a CPU of the Thunderbird core if it were running at a specific speed. I.e. an XP2400 would be like a T-bird at 2.4GHz.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •