1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

lost track a bit...who is who?

Discussion in 'AMD Overclocking' started by SL, Jan 20, 2005.

  1. SL

    SL Guest

    I liked the days up until about a year ago on the keeping up with current
    processors. I am an avid AMD user who currently has a 3000+ chip on a kt400
    motherboard. Yep, its at 333fsb.

    But I am losing touch with the competition, Intel. I followed every chip
    that both camps were making. But now its gettting a little fuzzy on which
    one stacks up against which one?

    I can understand the reasons that I read from each for their justification
    of the ratings they use. And it makes sense from both. But then try to put
    a side by side comparison, and its not that easy. Will this trend continue?
    Ive had friends who dont know that much, but can see the "3200+" written on
    their new Dell or Compaq and get it. The Intels tend to confuse them. Its
    starting to do so for me as well. Im not as in tune with the changes as I
    was when I was 20...Im 36 now. Yes, I know, 36 is almost like a baby :)

    Any good comprehensive sites on the net I might want to look at (not
    reviews)?

    Thanks all,
    Sl

    AMD 3000+ (333fsb)
    Abit Kd7a
    80 gig HD
    9800 Pro
    1 gig pc 3200 (at 400mhz)
    All parts running stock speeds and performing excellently.
     
    SL, Jan 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. SL

    Wes Newell Guest

    And that's the way they want you. The numbers mean very little these days,
    even with AMD, as they've started using 2 different PR rating systems, one
    against the P4 and another agaunst the celeron (AMD Sempron series). and
    then at the top end, they just use model numbers. About the only way to
    really compare them is to look at the benchmarks. Luckily, there's many
    sites that do this for you. That's how you need to base the comparison.
    You can't even compare AMD's to AMD's own model numbers anymore if you
    want an accurate comparison. A real good explw is the socket 754 3400+. It
    has a clock speed of 2.4Ghz. Now compare that to the 939 4000+. It too is
    2.4GHz, But it has dual channel ram and a larger 1M L2 cache. Does it
    deserve a 4000+ rating? Not IMO. The 3400+ will actually outperform it in
    certain apps. So what software you are going to run plays a huge role in
    which cpu is best. Why would you want to pay over $700 for a 4000+ when an
    under $200 3400+ will run the software you use most faster? Sorry, there
    just isn't a simply way to compare, but the main thing to be concerned
    with with the cpu within each group of cpu's is the raw clock speed.
    That's where real performance comes from. Extra cache and dual channel
    don't provide near the performance boost as the clockspeed does. This does
    not mean compare intels clockspeed to AMD's as they aren't anywhere close
    to being in the same group. They aren't even the same base core.
     
    Wes Newell, Jan 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.