Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why do people rave about unequal cpus?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 17, 2006 1:13:45 AM

what is the purpose of running tests for an AMD vs. Intel CPU if they aren't even equal?

CPU 1 @ 3.0ghz vs CPU 2 @ 4.0+ghz..regardless if they are dual core look at the speed..even though they are dual core, CPU2 still has 1ghz more than CPU1 thats a big advantage, so how could anyone actually say "CPU2 is now the kill of dual core!!"

try comparing two dual core CPUs at the same ghz..then try, don't give one 800+ mhz more and expect the slower one to win.


i see that being unfair, i would have the same opinion if it was reversed and someone tested an AMD 3.0 vs. Intel 1.8..try and keep the ghz close together and test before you go and claim a faster cpu the new king of the hill.

AMD 3.0 FX-62 vs. Intel Core 2 Duo EE 3.78+..hmm almost 800mhz faster there..yeah i see the fair fight there :) 

if AMD had a 3.78 FX-62 THEN compare and see the new results..if intel still wins then thats just fine with me.
October 17, 2006 1:20:57 AM

Quote:
AMD 3.0 FX-62 vs. Intel Core 2 Duo EE 3.78+..hmm almost 800mhz faster there..yeah i see the fair fight there :) 

if AMD had a 3.78 FX-62 THEN compare and see the new results..if Intel still wins then that's just fine with me.

Since this is your first post, let me correct your thinking here.
You are totally missing the point. Have you even stopped and taken a good look at the benches or tests? They test equivalent processors. Meaning that they compare processors that share the same price or will be aimed at the same market or share similar characteristics.
Are you advocating that we stop comparing CPUs by any chances?
October 17, 2006 1:25:36 AM

Quote:

Meaning that they compare processors that share the same price or will be aimed at the same market or share similar characteristics


but 800mhz does help ALOT in a test wouldnt you agree?
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2006 1:26:02 AM

www.wikipedia.org

type CPU and read some =)

FYI a 3.8GHZ P4 might get his ass handed over by a 2.4ghz CPU in many different scenario.

Do some reading please =)
October 17, 2006 1:27:50 AM

Quote:

Meaning that they compare processors that share the same price or will be aimed at the same market or share similar characteristics


but 800mhz does help ALOT in a test wouldnt you agree?

What if you could buy 2 processors for the same price, but 1 was 800MHz "faster". Is it a faster processor? How do you know? Just because it has more MHz doesnt garuntee better performance. It has to be tested.
October 17, 2006 1:28:00 AM

You need to do some research about architectures and platforms before making such assumptions.
Do that and then tell me this same stuff.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2006 1:30:12 AM

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=274...

Read this you will understand more.

What would you choose 3000 persons carying one beer each or 2000 carrying 2 beer each?

(Assuming they bring the beer to you?)

Also thought about a girl analogy but did'nt work perfectly and ,well young people are reading
October 17, 2006 1:31:37 AM

You must not fully understand CPUs. Clockspeed between Intel and AMD has nill to do with how they match up to eachother.

Take for example the AMD FX-60 @ 2.6 Ghz. (Dual Core)
vs. the Intel Pentium EE 965 @ 3.73 Ghz (Dual Core)

Prior to Core 2 Duo and AM2, these two CPU's were the best of the best and duked it out as "equals." They were in the same price range, both the companies flagship model and traded blows in benchmarks.

You can't expect a benchmark comparison between the FX-60 and a Pentium 4 2.6Ghz. That would be rediculously one sided and would be of no value to anyone.

DaSickNinja said it right, you are missing the point.

Prepare to be dominated from every angle by more knowledgable people than myself...
October 17, 2006 1:41:19 AM

Here is some friendly information. In these benches you have the AMD 2.8Ghz FX-62 Windsor against the Intel 3.8Ghz Pentuim EE Presler. Both are noted in red:

Advantage: AMD 2.8Ghz FX-62

Advantage: AMD 2.8Ghz FX-62

Advantage: AMD 2.8Ghz FX-62

Advantage: AMD 2.8Ghz FX-62

Advantage: AMD 2.8Ghz FX-62

Advantage: AMD 2.8Ghz FX-62

Advantage: AMD 2.8Ghz FX-62

Advantage: AMD 2.8Ghz FX-62

See the difference?
October 17, 2006 1:43:10 AM

Gigahertz frequency of a processor is useless at showing the performance level. You need benchmarks and tests to really see what a processor can do. Different chipsets cannot be compared directly by their cpu frequency, because they are built differently, have different manufacturing processes, and have different architectures. So how do you compare two different chips? Through standardised benchmarks and tests using software. Only then can you differentiate between the performance of the processors. If you don't know this, then you have a lot of catching up to do in terms of knowledge on processors.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2006 1:44:01 AM

You shouldnt do all the work for him, that's not how we learn!!

/slap ninjas hand
October 17, 2006 1:45:18 AM

Quote:
You shouldnt do all the work for him, that's not how we learn!!

/slap ninjas hand


:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
October 17, 2006 1:49:10 AM

Quote:
You shouldnt do all the work for him, that's not how we learn!!

/slap ninjas hand

He didn't know where to look, so I threw him in the right direction. I can see where he made that assumption but such and idea had to be corrected quickly.

Now leave my hands alone... :wink:
October 17, 2006 1:54:36 AM

They test CPU's so we can be informed consumers. No one is trying to hurt anyones feelings here. :roll:
October 17, 2006 2:00:07 AM

I'm not even going to bother.
October 17, 2006 2:04:06 AM

This strikes me as an argument that MIGHT have made sense 10 years ago. Back then clock speed was pretty much the core decider of performance. Now, not so much.

The Core2Duo processors are the current king of the hill and they have MUCH lower clock speeds than the Pentium 4s that it totally wipes the floor with.

Back in the late 90's AMD started the IPC crusade. Thats Instructions Per Clock cycle. They had a nationwide tour and everything. That was because at the time AMD Athlon processors had lower clock speeds and higher performance than Intel Pentium 3 processors. This was the entire reason why AMD's XP series of Athlon processors used their crazy XP ratings instead of clock speed ratings.

These days saying that clock speed should be all that matters is a bit like a hillbilly telling a BMW dealership that their cars are driven by fewer actual horses so are therefore slower. Its antiquated logic being inaccurately applied to an industry that has changed dramatically.

I don't mean to insult you because I doubt you are stupid, just not well informed in this matter. I encourage you to spend some time studying this stuff. If you are like me, then you will probably find it fun and interesting.

Good luck and have a good day.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2006 2:16:18 AM

:oops:  lol,ok, if you insist.... :oops: 
October 17, 2006 2:18:53 AM

What would you rather have, a hot and not as fast 2.8GHz chip that is $800 or a cooler, faster 2.4GHz chip for $300 :wink:
October 17, 2006 2:20:59 AM

Quote:
:oops:  lol,ok, if you insist.... :oops: 

Now where is he anyways?
October 17, 2006 2:26:24 AM

October 17, 2006 2:31:59 AM

Now that's just wrong....
October 17, 2006 2:37:07 AM

Quote:
Now that's just wrong....



Ahhhh. But sometimes I just cant stop myself :roll:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2006 2:39:06 AM

Well hopefully he's reading!!!

@turpit
Lol, way to much time on your heand
October 17, 2006 5:39:51 AM

This is a priceless post right here. Especially his tone! How he's "rebuking the idiots at THG forumz" in his eyes. Priceless. :lol: 
October 17, 2006 6:06:15 AM

Quote:
Now where is he anyways?


My guess would be
1. hiding in shyness
2. registering new ID
3. google for any cpu related articles..

Instead of posting with such 'tone', he should have asked what's it's all about
October 17, 2006 6:31:12 AM

Quote:
what is the purpose of running tests for an AMD vs. Intel CPU if they aren't even equal?

CPU 1 @ 3.0ghz vs CPU 2 @ 4.0+ghz..regardless if they are dual core look at the speed..even though they are dual core, CPU2 still has 1ghz more than CPU1 thats a big advantage, so how could anyone actually say "CPU2 is now the kill of dual core!!"

try comparing two dual core CPUs at the same ghz..then try, don't give one 800+ mhz more and expect the slower one to win.


i see that being unfair, i would have the same opinion if it was reversed and someone tested an AMD 3.0 vs. Intel 1.8..try and keep the ghz close together and test before you go and claim a faster cpu the new king of the hill.

AMD 3.0 FX-62 vs. Intel Core 2 Duo EE 3.78+..hmm almost 800mhz faster there..yeah i see the fair fight there :) 

if AMD had a 3.78 FX-62 THEN compare and see the new results..if intel still wins then thats just fine with me.


My first thought: Asymmetric CPUs? 8O
October 17, 2006 7:02:19 AM

Oh dont you love it when the nublets come out?
October 17, 2006 7:59:12 AM

October 17, 2006 11:56:17 AM

....Thats just wronger...
October 17, 2006 12:21:04 PM

Guys, dont be mean at him...
He's just the living proof that MHz still sell! ;) 

Now, to explain you with a metaphore, MHz for a CPU are like RPM for a car... for example, you can have a gasoline engine which has 200HP at 7000RPM, and a diesel engine which has the same 200HP at 4000RPM...
This is because, power in a car comes from Torque * RPM, and in a CPU, from Clockspeed * IPC (instruction per clock).
Diesel engines have much more torque than gasoline ones, and a Core 2 CPU has a much higher IPC than a Pentium 4...
October 17, 2006 12:25:22 PM

Quote:
....Thats just wronger...
Turpit's never (edit:rarely) wrong. He has a knack for picking pics that get the point across. :p 
October 17, 2006 12:43:33 PM

My $23k Acura RSX Type S has an engine that'll turn 8200 rpms... clearly this is a faster engine than a $45k Corvette... using clock speed to compare CPUs in 2006 is just as pointless as using RPMs to determine performance. If you really think clock speed still matters, why do you think C2D processors are selling so well? Most are running at 50% lower clocks than the previous generation of Intel CPUs.
October 17, 2006 12:43:39 PM

Knack for getting a point across. I certainly agree with that point.

@Pippero
And that is another reason Intel can unload that stock of 3.8 P4's.
If this is us when we're a little mean, I'd hate to be on the recieving end when we release the full fury.
The same argument can be made for RWD vs AWD.
October 17, 2006 6:51:47 PM

Quote:
....Thats just wronger...


O come on now. You didnt find that in the least bit funny? I know my sense of humour is....slightly skewed, but I hope that didnt come of as a "STFU noob".

I saw Buckillers 'nublets' and the green giant niblets just popped into my head. I couldnt help but laugh. Same thing with the rave. Ive been to the warehouses-turned-rave clubs before, and the OPs 'rave' title just struck me--a laser lit warehouse full of people protesting "stop the unfair benchmarking". I couldnt help but laugh

I'll bust peoples chops, but I've never used the term "noob' deragatorily. At least intenionally. That would be a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black. If what I didnt know about computers and Uarch was water, and what I did know was land, the earth would be 1 giant ocean.
October 17, 2006 7:14:44 PM

No, you misunderstood me. I'd never pass judgement on you of all people. I meant it in jest. I should have put the :wink:
I apologize.
October 18, 2006 6:53:35 AM

Quote:
No, you misunderstood me. I'd never pass judgement on you of all people. I meant it in jest. I should have put the :wink:
I apologize.


I wasnt sure if you realized I was just dropping some innocent humour, and I didnt want too offend, thus the explanation...just to make sure :lol: 
!