Question on AMD processors

[Fenix_2]

How are AMD Processors able to go at faster speeds even though their clock speeds are lower. For example how is a AMD64 3000+ @ 2ghz able to preform like a Intel Pentuim 4 3Ghz?
I dont think these XP or PR ratings are accurate because I have AMD 64 3200+ and my brother has a Pentuim 4 3.2Ghz and his computer seems to be much much faster then mine. He opens games and programs faster than me and shuts down and boots up faster. My PC and his PC also have roughly the same hardware like both of us have a 512mb ram, a 160gig HD, and a 128mb video card.
Me and him also have mostly the same programs and games on our PC's and the same systems tasks running so its not a matter of different hardware and conditions on each PC. His processor's temparature is also much lower than mine, mine is usually 44C at idle and his is usually 36C at idle, we have the same kind of cooling systems installed so my processor should be around the same temp as his but mine is hotter.
So why does it seem his PC is way faster than mine. I thought the AMD XP/PR ratings were accurate but it sure doesnt seem that way.

[sr4470]

Re: Question on AMD processors

Thats got nothing to with the processor. Your hard disk may not be defragged, xp may not be set up optimally (read up on www.tweakguides.com). I wont go into an exhaustive list there.

As for temps, clean off the old thermal material on the heatsink (preferably with 99% isopropyl alcohol) and apply arctic silver 5, then check the airflow through the system isnt blocked by cabling etc.

If you ever run benchmarks or run applications (such as winrar, that have measurable performance) you'd find that most of the time the rating is correct. (or sometimes understating, in games)

[Fenix_2]

Re: Question on AMD processors

I know about defragmenting all that computer maintenance stuff and I do regularly defragment/check for viruses,registry errors and spyware. I take very good care of my machine as my brother does his and since we run the same programs and have mostly the same hardware excpet processors, I strongly believe its my processor. My PC isnt "slow" its just that my brothers seems to be much faster even though we should be getting the same perfromance as per 3200+ and 3Ghz.
But my question still goes unaswered: How are AMD Processors able to go at faster speeds even though their clock speeds are lower. For example how is a AMD64 3000+ @ 2ghz able to preform like a Intel Pentuim 4 3Ghz?

[meesta_sparkle]

Re: Question on AMD processors

Intel and AMD Mhz are different. The processors don't have to run at the same Mhz rating to be equal. The different architecture inside the processors and the way the Mhz are calculated are why they have different Mhz speeds yet preform the same. People think that the higher the Mhz then the faster the processor which is why AMD has numbers like 3200 or 3500 after their processors to indicate there speed relative to an Intel at 3.2Ghz or 3.5Ghz. The AMD FX-55 runs at 2.3Ghz yet is one of the fastest processors available. As for the reason why your brothers seems faster could be that he has dual-channel memory, while your comp doesn't as the AMD 3000 doesn't support it. As for boot time there are many more factors than the speed of the processor. I have seen old P3 boot XP faster than new P4s. Try running Bootvis (its in the XP guide at tweakguides.com) it can speed your boot time by quite a lot. To see if there is a "real" difference run a benchmark like 3dMark to see what you each score. Hope this helps.

[sr4470]

Re: Question on AMD processors

Oh, i forgot that bit about memory, thanks Fenix..well yeah it depends what applications, plus the P4 has hyperthreading

[Fenix_2]

Re: Question on AMD processors

No my brothers doesnt have HT, I have checked, thats why I didnt write HT after 3Ghz in his computer description. What are you talking about --> "that bit about memory". What I want to know is the secret that makes the AMD 3000 processors able to compete with Intel 3ghz procesors. I know they have different architectures but whats the main thing that enables the AMD's to preform like Intels that are at higher clock speeds?

[Amd_Lover2004]

Re: Question on AMD processors

The AMD FX-55 runs at 2.3Ghz yet is one of the fastest processors available. As for the reason why your brothers seems faster could be that he has dual-channel memory, while your comp doesn't as the AMD 3000 doesn't support it.

The FX-55 runs stock 2.6GHz...
And the bit about dual channel, there are socket A boards that have dual channel on them, the controler is just not built in to the CPU like on the A64's.

[Yawgm0th]

Re: Question on AMD processors

Let me clear up one little bit of confusion here:
The AMD PR ratings are not meant to coincide with Pentium 4 clock speeds. That said, they often do.

As for how they run faster, you need to understand that there's a lot more to a processor than its clock speed. Have you ever heard of Hyperthreading? How about 3DNow! and 3DNow!+? What about SSE3? Do you know what SOI is? How about L1 cache? Front side bus? Those are just some of the other "specs" you can look at, but there are so many other architectural differences that truly explaining exactly how processors perform the way they do is impossible.

In any case, if your machine runs slower and hotter than there has been some human error on your part somewhere along the road. Either you are using an inferior cooler, an inferior thermal compound, or inferior case cooling, or any combination. That's assming you get accurate temp reading, but neither of you have temps worth worrying about, anyway. As for being slower, there must be either some difference you aren't telling us (and there's plenty about both machines you haven't told us). It doesn't help that you're using a socket 754 Clawhammer, which can't utilize dual-channel and barely outperforms Newcastles of the same speed (which would have a 200 point lower PR rating, even though they aren't much slower), but there shouldn't be a huge difference in anything but applications where one CPU is supposed to greatly outperform the other (e.g. gaming for the Athlon 64 and video encoding for the Pentium 4).