Author |
Message |
SuperGenius
|
Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:50 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
I'm thinking about a new computer... one which would have an Athelon 2800+ chip, 64 bit. What exactly, are the advantages of 64 bit machines? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sponsor Sponsor
|
|
|
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
Neo
|
Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:19 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
Hey I was just wondering how do you convert athlon processor speeds like 3000+ into pentium procress speeds like 3.2ghz? I keep getting confused when you say athlon speeds. |
|
|
|
|
|
wtd
|
Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:31 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
Neo wrote: Hey I was just wondering how do you convert athlon processor speeds like 3000+ into pentium procress speeds like 3.2ghz? I keep getting confused when you say athlon speeds.
You don't. The AMD numbering system compares a processor's performance to that of a 1GHz "Thunderbird" Athlon.
A 3000+ is at least 3 times faster than a 1GHz Thunderbird. |
|
|
|
|
|
Neo
|
Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:47 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
wtd wrote:
You don't. The AMD numbering system compares a processor's performance to that of a 1GHz "Thunderbird" Athlon.
A 3000+ is at least 3 times faster than a 1GHz Thunderbird.
So is a 1GHz Thunderbird better or worst than a 1Ghz pentium? Sorry if this is such a newbie question. |
|
|
|
|
|
wtd
|
Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:51 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
Neo wrote: wtd wrote:
You don't. The AMD numbering system compares a processor's performance to that of a 1GHz "Thunderbird" Athlon.
A 3000+ is at least 3 times faster than a 1GHz Thunderbird.
So is a 1GHz Thunderbird better or worst than a 1Ghz pentium? Sorry if this is such a newbie question.
They're different processors. They'll run the same software (for the most part), but inside they're dramatically different. You can't really say one's "better" than the other.
I tend to believe AMD engineers their processors better than Intel, and gets more performance out of them at the same clockspeed. |
|
|
|
|
|
apomb
|
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:55 am Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
so is there a clear one that is better at lets say _overclocking_ for example? |
|
|
|
|
|
Andy
|
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:40 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
an athlon 64 3000+'s performance is comparable to an intel 3.4 ghz... but its actual clock speed is at like 2 ghz.. this is because the p4 chip wastes alot of its clock cycles... thats y they bsed that crap about hyper threading... it doesnt really give u better performance.. it just makes the chip slitelyless crappier where as the hyper transport associated with the amd chips actually boosts performance cuz now u have an 1600 mhz bus... the new intel extreme edition boosted their fsb to 1066 which is fairly nice.. the 266 mhz increase should help but the 3.46 clock speed isnt really much of an advancement from their previous 3.4 ghz. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sponsor Sponsor
|
|
|
wtd
|
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:54 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
dodge_tomahawk wrote: an athlon 64 3000+'s performance is comparable to an intel 3.4 ghz... but its actual clock speed is at like 2 ghz.. this is because the p4 chip wastes alot of its clock cycles... thats y they bsed that crap about hyper threading... it doesnt really give u better performance.. it just makes the chip slitelyless crappier where as the hyper transport associated with the amd chips actually boosts performance cuz now u have an 1600 mhz bus... the new intel extreme edition boosted their fsb to 1066 which is fairly nice.. the 266 mhz increase should help but the 3.46 clock speed isnt really much of an advancement from their previous 3.4 ghz.
In tests, the 1066MHz FSB doesn't help.
It's still not the top performer in that category either. The 2.5GHz PowerPC 970s in Apple's top of the line G5 have two independent 1.25GHz FSBs. |
|
|
|
|
|
Andy
|
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:58 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
aha, thats some funny stuff... yea i'd go wit a g5.. but its not too mainstream... bleh.. once again we proved that the ppl at intel are a bunch of money grabbing asses |
|
|
|
|
|
apomb
|
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:59 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
wtd wrote: It's still not the top performer in that category either. Wink The 2.5GHz PowerPC 970s in Apple's top of the line G5 have two independent 1.25GHz FSBs.
that.... is ... huge! |
|
|
|
|
|
wtd
|
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:00 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
Aside from being expensive (though not outrageously so compared fairly), what's not mainstream about the G5?
Games? Get a GameCube/PS2/XBox. |
|
|
|
|
|
Andy
|
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:01 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
haha yea thats true.. oh wells |
|
|
|
|
|
SuperGenius
|
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:39 pm Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
In that other thread I saw something about a 64 bit linux distro... that would be what I want if it is easy enough to install and use because I don't know anything about linux... can someone please give me a link to a website about this? |
|
|
|
|
|
apomb
|
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:17 am Post subject: (No subject) |
|
|
quote ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|