Question on processor speed.....

[webe3]

That is great news.....but the thing I was getting at is that they are called xp3200.....which is SUPPOSED to be on par with an intel 3.2 ghz not just a 3.0 ghz! Also the newest intel chip runs at 3.06 ghz! So again, it seems that for now at least, the intels are faster! But when the new 64 bit AMD chips come out, then it might be another story!

[Beefy]

That is great news.....but the thing I was getting at is that they are called xp3200.....which is SUPPOSED to be on par with an intel 3.2 ghz not just a 3.0 ghz!

I wish people would stop saying that. The PR rating system was designed to compare newer Athlon CPUs to the original Thunderbird cores. As the newer cores had improved performance per Mhz, they needed some way to show how they performed in relation to previous Athlons.. not Intel CPUs...

[Woody_87th]

but the thing I was getting at is that they are called xp3200.....which is SUPPOSED to be on par with an intel 3.2 ghz not just a 3.0 ghz!

I said it was faster than a 3.0GHz so maybe the performance is on par with the P4 3.2GHz. I don't have any 3.2GHz P4s laying around to test. Also keep in mind the Intel technology is much newer than the NForce2 and Athlon technology. Next month things will be different and AMD will have the newest stuff on the market. Still, I would tend to support Beefy's statement and stop comparing apples to oranges.

Also the newest intel chip runs at 3.06 ghz! So again, it seems that for now at least, the intels are faster! But when the new 64 bit AMD chips come out, then it might be another story!

This is not accurate. The older 3.06GHz P4 runs on a 533MHz FSB while the 3.0GHz P4 runs on the 800MHz FSB. The newer and faster technology is in the 3.0GHz P4 which is the CPU and chipset I was talking about as having been tested by Maximum PC magazine.

I would say that both systems are top of the line and very competitive. It really depends on personal preference which one you buy. The main point of my statement was to give you AMD fans a little ammo to toss at your Intel buddies for fun ;) and to reiterate that megahertz is not everything!

[The__tweaker]

I love both chips, and I usually get the clone for budget builds and the original one for more expensive performance builds. Intel is very intresting nowadays as you can utilize all their insane bandwith without having to pay for expensive Rambus memory. Memory is the same for both chips now so it's really only the cpu/mobo that differs a bit in price.. Also the fact that my apps are way better run by Intel due to their SSE2 makes them my nr1 choise.

Now if only my new sweet XP2600+/Nforce2 can show up in me mail.. :cry:

[webe3]

I wish people would stop saying that. The PR rating system was designed to compare newer Athlon CPUs to the original Thunderbird cores. As the newer cores had improved performance per Mhz, they needed some way to show how they performed in relation to previous Athlons.. not Intel CPUs...

The reason people "keep saying that" is because they don't know that the AMDs PR system are supposed to be compared to the thuderbird cores! Most people when they look at an AMD 3200 think....Oh gee....that must be on par with a 3.2 gig intel...WRONG! The point I am trying to make is that if amd is going to keep this system, they need to explain to the public that they are NOT SUPPOSED to be compared with intel chips! But it seems like more and more that is what people do! Heck, I used to do that until I found out that they were not supposed to be compared to intel on this forum! It really is confusing to the average joe...if you know what I mean!

[theyneverknew]

I doubt they will ever try and explain this to the public because its a very useful marketing gimmick for AMD. After all if you know nothing about comps and your trying to decide between an AMD 3200+ and an Intel 3.2, which from the names seem to be about the same speed AMD hopes the average Joe will choose the cheaper AMD proc :bounce2: .

[Woody_87th]

After all if you know nothing about comps and your trying to decide between an AMD 3200+ and an Intel 3.2, which from the names seem to be about the same speed AMD hopes the average Joe will choose the cheaper AMD proc :bounce2: .

Last I heard the 3200+ was more expensive than the P4. Of course that was last month! :rolleyes:

I'm a big fan of Athlon CPUs but I would never recommend the 3200+ based on it's high price. The 2500+ on the other hand is an outstanding value and even more so if you can clock it up to a 3200 speed as I have done.

[theyneverknew]

Well even if the 3200+ is more expensive the PR is still a useful marketing gimmick for their other cpu models, which are the ones that the average Joe is more likely to buy so it'll probly be around for a while :cheers:

[Woody_87th]

It's not a gimmick. Intel has the public convinced that CPU core frequency is the single most critical measurement of an entire system's speed. This makes sense for Intel at the moment for obvious reasons but they are so obsessed with MHz and Moore's law they may be limiting the true power potential of their CPUs.

Those that read these forums know better.

AMD simply cannot afford to market their CPUs head to head with Intel by playing the same game as Intel so they are forced to come up with a different game. We all know that any of the new Athlons will outperform any Pentium of the same core frequency so it makes sense for AMD to stress the performance of their CPUs from a relative perpective.

AMDs scheme is actually less confusing than Intel's since most people have a very hard time understanding why a 3.0GHz P4 is faster than a 3.06GHz P4 but have no trouble grasping that a 2500+ may outperform a 2400+ which runs at a higher frequency (some of you may dispute this).

The truth lies in the benchmarks but it's still very hard to determine which CPU/ chipset is going to be faster in most situations.

[Beefy]

Well said. :thumb:

[JSR]

and other than itanium, they're outta the 64 bit game........who'd upgrade to a 32 bit processor nowadays.......they'd have to be givin' them away, and regardless, your's truly here is buying a 64 come first quarter 2004 (dual channel & longhorn beta) :thumb:

[minibubba]

who'd upgrade to a 32 bit processor nowadays.......

Anyone on a realistic budget. There is an unbelievable amount of people out there with sub-par systems who can't afford a few hundred dollars to upgrade their systems and have been waiting for an opportunity like this. I, for one, will be all too happy to go pick up a new speedy AMD 32-bit cpu once the Athlon64 takes off. The Athlon64 may be the 'next-big-thing' but I have no intention of getting one until a few revisions and price drops. If the fanatical and wealthy just have to have the latest and greatest, that's fine with me, just don't forget about the rest of the real world.

[Chezman29]

There are literally millions of people out there that don't need the performance.
The majority of computers I have built for people are being used primarily for net surfing. Theres no need to have the latest and greatest.

Chez

[JSR]

but, c'mon.....this has been out for some time http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews...lld19JRD01MzY=
and, hey......no skin off my nose, i'm a gamer, not a surfer, biggest gun, bam you're toast (due to system inadequacies), simple as that :thumb:

[minibubba]

I am well aware of the the 1700+ potential, but you assume too much, not everyone is an overclocking zealot

...and even that comes back to what I said earlier.