AMD vs P4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Antoine
  • Start date Start date
A

Antoine

I'm thinking about buying an AMD 3500 (2.2ghz). I know that AMD's chips
rate, when compared to P4, cross over to higher ghz on the P4. What P4
coiuld this chip be compared to in terms of performance, speed, et all?

TIA!
 
I'm thinking about buying an AMD 3500 (2.2ghz). I know that AMD's chips
rate, when compared to P4, cross over to higher ghz on the P4. What P4
coiuld this chip be compared to in terms of performance, speed, et all?

TIA!
Click to expand...

Depends on what you are using it for. I've benchmarked my 3400+
laptop against my dual 2.66GHz Xeon server doing Verilog simulations and
FPGA place and routes. The 3400+ is almost twice as fast as one of the
Xeon processors, i.e. it's equivalent to a 5.2GHz Xeon if such a thing
existed. The P4 architecture does much better on games and multimedia
applications then it does on conventional computing tasks which is why
it's still competetive with the Athlon 64 for Windows games (which is what
the review sites all use for their benchmarks). For most Linux use the
Athlon 64 blows the doors off of the P4.
 
General> Depends on what you are using it for. I've benchmarked my
General> 3400+ laptop against my dual 2.66GHz Xeon server doing
General> Verilog simulations and FPGA place and routes. The 3400+ is
General> almost twice as fast as one of the Xeon processors, i.e.
General> it's equivalent to a 5.2GHz Xeon if such a thing existed.
General> The P4 architecture does much better on games and multimedia
General> applications then it does on conventional computing tasks
General> which is why it's still competetive with the Athlon 64 for
General> Windows games (which is what the review sites all use for
General> their benchmarks). For most Linux use the Athlon 64 blows
General> the doors off of the P4.

Good points. Another interesting data point is the P4 Prescott runs at
higher operating temperatures than the old P4's. This is another
concern also.

If your only option is a P4 prescott I would recommend the AMD because
it runs cooler.

However, for all practical purposes (can folks really be
practical) most users will never notice the difference in these
artifical benchmarks. This is for benchmarking. Some of these
differences are less than 10%, and I really wonder if a user can
notice such a small difference.

If you are running Linux then the AMD is the best option.

Good luck,

Alan
 
| On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 00:12:23 -0600, Antoine wrote:
|
| > I'm thinking about buying an AMD 3500 (2.2ghz). I know that AMD's chips
| > rate, when compared to P4, cross over to higher ghz on the P4. What P4
| > coiuld this chip be compared to in terms of performance, speed, et all?
| >
| > TIA!
|
| Depends on what you are using it for. I've benchmarked my 3400+
| laptop against my dual 2.66GHz Xeon server doing Verilog simulations and
| FPGA place and routes. The 3400+ is almost twice as fast as one of the
| Xeon processors, i.e. it's equivalent to a 5.2GHz Xeon if such a thing
| existed. The P4 architecture does much better on games and multimedia
| applications then it does on conventional computing tasks which is why
| it's still competetive with the Athlon 64 for Windows games (which is what
| the review sites all use for their benchmarks). For most Linux use the
| Athlon 64 blows the doors off of the P4.
|

The P4 does NOT do better on games and multimedia applications in general.
It does typically do better on encoding though. Here is one of tons of
exaples to support this:

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275
 
Back
Top