I wonder why?

[euroclydon]

when it comes to testing and comparison of performance between Intel and AMD processors I wonder why AMD is compared with a faster clockspeed Intel. I'snt it unfare to AMD (although AMD usually comes out faster). Why not test and compare the two,AMD and Intel, with same clockspeed. And what keeps AMD reaching a 3.8Ghz clockspeed, can they?

 

[apache_lives]

everyone at one point or another asks that question.

P4 was designed for high clock speeds (cause hey - what sounds faster, an AMD at 1400 or a P4 at 1800?) where as AMD didnt bother so much, Intel's trade off for high clock speeds is that it does less per cycle then AMD, so that 3.8ghz is less efficent, where as an AMD at 2600 does more per clock cycle and is more efficent clock per clock (more performance per mhz).

Also there are the delays - pipeline length, P4's are like 30+ stages long (takes longer for data to get from A to B) where as AMD's are like 12? Long pipelines also mean higher clock speeds.

Intel ran with the clock speeds for years but now it caught up to em - the heat at high speeds gets worse and the lower clock speeds of the AMD paid off.

Correct me if i am wrong.

 

[Guest]

Yea, Its a marketing thing, I guess

 

[Scout]

Well the root of Intel's strategy was to push the clock speed up into the 4 to 5 GHz range where they felt they would have the performance lead. But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum... Intel's manufacturing process had too much "leakage" which turned into heat and therefore the name "Preshot" was coined.

It's an interesting question to think about what if Intel used the AMD/IBM manufacturing process which seems to do much better on leakage current... we may well have seen 4+ GHz. P4's and a closer battle for ultimate performance.

So don't pity AMD... they are doing just fine against the faster clocked Intel chips. I look forward to seeing how both companies respond over the next year or so when Intel brings out their new designs.