what intel speed would match amd 64?

[Perris Calderon]

wow

So we hope our findings put an end to all of the discussion about who’s got the fastest processor on the market, that processor is none other than AMD’s Athlon 64 FX55. Due to diminishing returns the Pentium 4 processor needs a whopping 5.2GHz clock speed to keep up with AMD’s flagship processor. So was it a good decision on Intel’s part to announce it will not be shipping a 4GHz processor? We think so, as the Pentium 4 was just never going to best AMD’s Athlon 64. Craig Barret clearly had guts and vision when making that decision, or, and that’s just as likely, he knew the 4GHz Pentium 4 needed another 1.2GHz to soundly beat AMD’s fastest, and that just wasn’t feasible.

 

[Steevo]

Mebey they should take the heatsink off and try that test again.....





My next will be a AMD64 again though. Mebey I should sell my current rig......

 

[FishBoy]

intel and amd are the same except that intel is making faster processors and amd is making higher quality processors, other than that they are the same

 

[LordOfLA]

Fishboy I'm of the firm conclusion you need to learn to read

Intel are not making faster processors. Sure they tick faster, but all they achieve is greater heat output they dont actually do anything with those extra ticks.

The quote from perris says it all. An Intel chip would need to tick 5.2 billion times per second to do just as much calculation as an AMD ticking at 2.4 billion times per second.

That means it has to work twice as hard to get the same throughput of data. I figure dit'd have to tick faster still to offset energy loss as heat.

 

[Lee]

Going to need liquid Nitrogen to cool them chips soon. (Probably already someone has tried, no doubt.)

 

[LordOfLA]

I believe CRAY used to in their XMP series of super computers and some crazy dudes in australia have done too

 

[zeke_mo]

Mebey they should take the heatsink off and try that test again.....





My next will be a AMD64 again though. Mebey I should sell my current rig......

It would be nice to have a little intel bbq, we could throw a few hotdogs, and some hambugers on it. I'm shocked that intel hasn't picked that up for marketing yet. "Not only will you be buying second best, but you can cook and heat your house with it too!"

 

[Perris Calderon]

...you can cook and heat your house with it (intel chip)too!"

this is funny because it used to be amd that were the infernos

 

[Steevo]

It would be nice to have a little intel bbq, we could throw a few hotdogs, and some hambugers on it. I'm shocked that intel hasn't picked that up for marketing yet. "Not only will you be buying second best, but you can cook and heat your house with it too!"

Intel uses on die throttling. And my box makes a terrible cooker, it is much better at dehydrating.:laugh:

 

[ming]

Going to need liquid Nitrogen to cool them chips soon. (Probably already someone has tried, no doubt.)

At the rate Intel is whizzing through the clockspeed spectrum, even liquid nitrogen may not be able to cool them in the next decade. lol

 

[LeeJend]

Actually, Intel and AMD are both now offering tricks from their laptop processors to cool off the desktop CPUs. Speed throttling is now in both product lines and being heavily publicized. Of course speed throttling does nothing to help with temp's if you are doing multimedia editing, gaming, folding at home etc.

Intel has already announced they are going to dual chip CPUs to fight back against the AMD 64 speed advantage. But that means OS and application changes to use the dual chip design. Of course AMD is going multi-chip too.

The clear winner in all this will be Microsoft (we're the clear loosers) since we'll all need to upgrade OS and applcations to take advantage of 64 bit and dual chip cpu's.

 

[FishBoy]

Fishboy I'm of the firm conclusion you need to learn to read

Intel are not making faster processors. Sure they tick faster, but all they achieve is greater heat output they dont actually do anything with those extra ticks.

The quote from perris says it all. An Intel chip would need to tick 5.2 billion times per second to do just as much calculation as an AMD ticking at 2.4 billion times per second.

That means it has to work twice as hard to get the same throughput of data. I figure dit'd have to tick faster still to offset energy loss as heat.

oh, cool
but the architecture stays the same right?

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

Fishboy what are you going on about?

LOL make no wonder your in Ontario !!

 

[LordOfLA]

2 very different architectures to run the same code. AMD has the more efficient architecture. Intel hasn't changed core design since the pentium pro besides chucking "bolt-ons" at the core.

They increased the pipeline to offset heat generation from increased clock speed. As a result they had to have the core perform 4 operations per clock tick so the chip generated more heat, so they increased pipeline depth until heat generation was at an acceptable level then they added more stuff so it went up again.

All the while not actually achieving much of a performance gain. Just a heat gain.

While I'm not incredibily accurate, and know absotivley posolutley noting about cpu design, I know a case of "lazy R&D" when its sitting in my PC.

Intel has the size and resources to come up with a really knocout CPU design. I dont understand why they dont come up with it. I'm sure they could re-enginner the x86 core to be awesome.

Someone needs to take the rose tinted lenses off of their heads

 

[Elektro Slime]

ahh i hate Intel!!!!!! Sh*t! why dont they sell Amd's here!!!!

oh funny thing.... i went to my local comp shop and was having a look at the motherboards when the gigabyte 3d1 limited editon(amd64 939 socket mobo with a dual core 6600gt graphics card included) caught my eye, the thing cost 2,900 riyals. Then when i asked the sales guy about the prices of A64 processors thet told me they dont sell Amd procs!!!!