Questions about amd athlon 64 processors

titewad_2

I am confused about processor sizes,namely the number against their names not actually being the size or speed it runs at,so my question is

...Is an amd athlon64 3000 processor really 3ghz? and if so, will it run at 3ghz using windows xp, or only if using the new 64bit o/s?

woo

take a look at http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/athlon64-3000/index.x?pg=1
it runs at 2 GHz, AMD used their numbers to show not processor speed but equivalent intel speed.
It will run at 2GHz whichever op sys you use, though not all the architecture will be fully utilised unless you use 64bit win xp.

blinky

The Socket 939's 3000+ run at 1800MHz (full clock, 1000 when in Cool and Quiet Mode - same for all AMD processors.) - all have 512Kb Cache and support Dual Channel RAM.

For the Socket 754 it depends....

Most common is running at 2000MHz with 512Kb cache, but only supports single channel RAM (hence the higher clock speed).

For the AMD64's the + rated speed is the P4 clock speed they are equivalent to.

For the Sempron processors their + ratings are compared to Celeron processors.

The clock speed isn't dependant on the OS. The only thing which will affect the clockspeed (other than overclocking ) is if you enable Cool N Quiet. In Cool N Quiet mode if the processor isn't busy, it drops the processor voltage and speed to save power. You can also get it to drop the fan speed down too (hence quiet).

The AMD64 is a more efficient design hence it only needs a lower clockspeed. The best analogy is between moving house either using a van or a sports car. The sports car (Intel) does the journey fast, the van (AMD) does it more slowly but can carry much more.

There is more to the performance of a processor than it's clockspeed. Don't be put off by the + ratings. Even Intel, after years of denouncing speed ratings, have started rating processors due to the confusing nature of their processor line up.

The most significant change in the AMD64 is not the 64 bit capability but putting the memory controller in the processor. This allows for quicker memory access.

I think a few people with extreme cooling solutions have broken the 3GHz clock with the AMD64.

In general AMD64's perform better in games than the P4, whereas the P4 tends to have the edge in video encoding.

I've been using an AMD64 3000+ Socket 939 (Winchester core) for months and I am very happy with the performance.

titewad_2

this hurts my head,duhhhh..So an amd athlon 64 3000 runs at 2ghz but is the equivelent speed of a p4 3ghz ???

woo

pretty much, yep.

wolfman

Like Blinky said, it's a different architecture, but AMD just use the 3000+ as guidance compared with Intel as that's what most people are familiar with.

Truth is the AMD64 is in most cases superior to the Intel Pentium 4 (Prescott core). I've had both but have stuck with my AMD64 3500+.

Intel are still good, and better at certain tasks but for me AMD are:

- Cheaper.
- Run much cooler, it's a known problem with the Pentium Prescott core that it runs very hot.
- Better performance with games and most applications.
- I actually find my AMD to be faster at encoding video than the Pentium I had. This is using XviD codec though instead of DivX (which Pentiums are quite a bit faster with). XviD is a better codec anyway.

One thing I did like about the Pentium was hyperthreading. If you're running Photoshop, Encoding, and trying to play a video, the Pentium won't slow up, whereas the AMD does a little. I never really run that many intense processes at the same time though so it's not an issue.

Check out these tests:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-12.html