I currently have a 3.0 ghz P4, and was wondering what the AMD equivalent of this processor was.
I always get confused when I see AMD processors because they list them under other names than the processor speed.
Someone please explain.
0
Comments
Straight_ManGeeky, in my own wayNaples, FLIcrontian
edited December 2004
Well, sometimes they use a marketting name, but Opteron is a two-pipe or more CPU. P4 is partly there in effectiveness overall to be at parity, but not all the way. Guess to closest parity with a 3.2 GHz real clocked and stable and HT enabled P4-- about a 2.7-2.9 GHz two-pipe Opteron (overall, given what all is available now). I'll let someone else tell the AMD numbering for that, but Opteron works faster for some software sets than does the P4, while P4 works faster or at least as fast with other software sets and needs in place. Opteron is beeter for a pure 32 bit software environment than is P4 HT. AND that Opteron should be as easy or easier to cool than the P4. Right now the Opteron piping is better for most software out there, with a few exceptions.
Let's say we had and had in use a P4 3.6 HT enabled configured stably and cooled enough-- that P4 would outperform a Opteron of speeds I spoke of above.
There is no absolute pure equivalence, because the CPUs are structured enough different that EACH has strnegths and relative weaknesses versus the other that do not allow pure oranges to oranges comparison on a one-to-one for all software sets. BUT, if you want something that is multipiped and 64 bit capable, right now price Opteron versus P4 at the realitive speeds shown above, and you will end up with a very good result if the overall box is configured right.
I happen to have two P4 HT capable boxes (each running at about 3 GHz true and with one not even a truely HT capable CPU) running, so far this month they have done 5,790 folding points in completed WUS and by mid-day tomorrow at the absolute latest, the pointage should be very close to 6400 points for December 2004 alone. Both those boxes do many other things, gaming not included. If you are a gamer, and you want the equiv of a P4 that probably will game better also, try Opteron. If you are doing non-gaming things, either will work. That is for now, for future we will have to see what happnes first to see close equivs. Guess??? Minimum a year before the P4 can beat Opteron, if then, for gaming plus other things.
If you want cheaper, will let other folks talk some, this is a community thread....
Athlon XP can beat current P4s with a 400MHz clock deficit in anything BUT applications that are:
-Constantly filling the pipeline (Media encoding (DiVX/XViD/MP3/MPEG2))
-SSE2-optimized
-SIMD-optimized
-SSE3-optimized
The margin widens in the Athlon favor on programs that:
-Are FPU intensive (Such as raytracing or folding)
This means that an Athlon XP 3200+ at 2.2GHz is pretty much faster than a 2.6GHz P4, with the exceptions above noted.
The Athlon 64 of any sort can beat current P4s with a 1.1GHz clock deficit in anything BUT applications that are:
-SSE3-optimized
-Constantly filling the pipeline (Again, media encoding)
The margin widens in the Athlon's favor when applications:
-Use significant memory bandwidth
-Favor low-latency memory access
-Are FPU intensive
-Use significant system bandwidth
-Favor high-speed inter-CPU links (IE, SMP server tasks)
This means that an Athlon 64 4000+ at 2.4GHz is faster than a 3.5GHz p4 (Generally faster than a 3.6).
What does AMD always lose at?:
XViD, DiVX, MPEG2, and MP3 encoding (Though there are a few exceptions).
SSE3-optimized tasks.
And anything else that uses Intel-only instructions and/or keeps the P4's grotesque pipeline filled.
I currently have a 3.0 ghz P4, and was wondering what the AMD equivalent of this processor was.
I always get confused when I see AMD processors because they list them under other names than the processor speed.
Someone please explain.
I think someone told me once that, for instance, a P4 3.0 ghz will max out at 3.0 if it's tweaked right...otherwise it generally performs at a lower operating frequence than that, whereas AMDs will tell you what they're running at right in your face. My AMD 3400+ says it runs at 2.2 Ghz and the programs tell me it runs at 2.2 GHz.
I haven't used Intels for a while now though...I think AMDs are better for gaming performance (or so people tell me) and that's what I'm looking for.
P4's also have HT which makes a big difference in multitasking. Sad to say, but I find myself using my p4 box more often for everyday things due to this. For gaming I perfer my AMD box though.
Good Thread- I have had the same dilemma. I use my PC for about 90% internet gaming, so would an AMD run most games faster? I am not sure where "gaming" falls in the specifications Thrax listed...I have a P4 1.5GHz and I am thinking of upgrading to a newer (i.e. faster) chip...
Athlon XP can beat current P4s with a 400MHz clock deficit in anything BUT applications that are:
-Constantly filling the pipeline (Media encoding (DiVX/XViD/MP3/MPEG2))
-SSE2-optimized
-SIMD-optimized
-SSE3-optimized
The margin widens in the Athlon favor on programs that:
-Are FPU intensive (Such as raytracing or folding)
This means that an Athlon XP 3200+ at 2.2GHz is pretty much faster than a 2.6GHz P4, with the exceptions above noted.
The Athlon 64 of any sort can beat current P4s with a 1.1GHz clock deficit in anything BUT applications that are:
-SSE3-optimized
-Constantly filling the pipeline (Again, media encoding)
The margin widens in the Athlon's favor when applications:
-Use significant memory bandwidth
-Favor low-latency memory access
-Are FPU intensive
-Use significant system bandwidth
-Favor high-speed inter-CPU links (IE, SMP server tasks)
This means that an Athlon 64 4000+ at 2.4GHz is faster than a 3.5GHz p4 (Generally faster than a 3.6).
What does AMD always lose at?:
XViD, DiVX, MPEG2, and MP3 encoding (Though there are a few exceptions).
SSE3-optimized tasks.
And anything else that uses Intel-only instructions and/or keeps the P4's grotesque pipeline filled.
Comments
Let's say we had and had in use a P4 3.6 HT enabled configured stably and cooled enough-- that P4 would outperform a Opteron of speeds I spoke of above.
There is no absolute pure equivalence, because the CPUs are structured enough different that EACH has strnegths and relative weaknesses versus the other that do not allow pure oranges to oranges comparison on a one-to-one for all software sets. BUT, if you want something that is multipiped and 64 bit capable, right now price Opteron versus P4 at the realitive speeds shown above, and you will end up with a very good result if the overall box is configured right.
I happen to have two P4 HT capable boxes (each running at about 3 GHz true and with one not even a truely HT capable CPU) running, so far this month they have done 5,790 folding points in completed WUS and by mid-day tomorrow at the absolute latest, the pointage should be very close to 6400 points for December 2004 alone. Both those boxes do many other things, gaming not included. If you are a gamer, and you want the equiv of a P4 that probably will game better also, try Opteron. If you are doing non-gaming things, either will work. That is for now, for future we will have to see what happnes first to see close equivs. Guess??? Minimum a year before the P4 can beat Opteron, if then, for gaming plus other things.
If you want cheaper, will let other folks talk some, this is a community thread....
bottomline, most A64s are up to par with a 3ghz p4 in game benchmarks. other benchies are a different story
Athlon XP can beat current P4s with a 400MHz clock deficit in anything BUT applications that are:
-Constantly filling the pipeline (Media encoding (DiVX/XViD/MP3/MPEG2))
-SSE2-optimized
-SIMD-optimized
-SSE3-optimized
The margin widens in the Athlon favor on programs that:
-Are FPU intensive (Such as raytracing or folding)
This means that an Athlon XP 3200+ at 2.2GHz is pretty much faster than a 2.6GHz P4, with the exceptions above noted.
The Athlon 64 of any sort can beat current P4s with a 1.1GHz clock deficit in anything BUT applications that are:
-SSE3-optimized
-Constantly filling the pipeline (Again, media encoding)
The margin widens in the Athlon's favor when applications:
-Use significant memory bandwidth
-Favor low-latency memory access
-Are FPU intensive
-Use significant system bandwidth
-Favor high-speed inter-CPU links (IE, SMP server tasks)
This means that an Athlon 64 4000+ at 2.4GHz is faster than a 3.5GHz p4 (Generally faster than a 3.6).
What does AMD always lose at?:
XViD, DiVX, MPEG2, and MP3 encoding (Though there are a few exceptions).
SSE3-optimized tasks.
And anything else that uses Intel-only instructions and/or keeps the P4's grotesque pipeline filled.
I haven't used Intels for a while now though...I think AMDs are better for gaming performance (or so people tell me) and that's what I'm looking for.
Thanks.
an xp 3000+ or an A64 3000+ is the eqivelent, or better then the P4 3.0
Athlon XP 512K CPU running at 2.1-2.2ghz
Athlon 64 512K CPU running at
Athlon 3000+ = P4 3.0 GHz
wow thrax, nice write up