9860, would you get AMD or Intel - Page 3

I hope the people at Sager and Clevo are paying attention to this thread.

I'd like to know why the AMD has a big number and then runs at a lower speed like this: AMD Athlon XP-M 2800+ (1.60 GHz/128K L2 cache)
AMD Athlon(TM) XP-M 3000+ (1.60 GHz/256K L2 cache)
AMD Athlon(TM) 64 3000+ 1.80 GHz
AMD Athlon(TM) 64 3200+ 2.00 GHz
AMD Athlon(TM) 64 3400+ 2.20 GHz
AMD Athlon(TM) 64 3700+ (2.40 GHz)

You see the numbers and automaticaly think it would run at the highest of 3.7ghz but only at the 2.4 ghz. what is up with that? is the rest all cache and why would that be such a good thing to have lack of power?

it perform equal or greater to a p4 of that power.

so why don't they say it is a 2400 instead of 3700 or are they saying that it is equivelent to the 3.7 ghz pentium 4?

because than people would want the p4 which actually might not be as powerful.

2.4ghz of 64 bits completly thumps 3.8+ ghz of 32bits.

I installed XP64 preview on a seperate partition, and I have got to say.....XP64 is AMAZING!!!! It is so damn fast. getting drivers for it is a bitch, but other than that, my computer chews it up. I can't wait till its finalized so that i can say goodbye to 32bit computing FOREVER!!!!! I would say that XP64 is making my laptop feel like it has to be more than 2.4 ghz. I have never realized how powerful my chip is until I used XP64. I hope all upcoming games are 64bit along with all upcoming software. That would make for some extremely fast computing.

That math isn't the best I've ever heard, but I guess it's more the idea that's important. AMD has always had more efficient processor's than Intel, and at the same mhz AMD destroys an equivalent processor. But Intel chips run at much higher ghz/mhz than AMD, so AMD attachs that label specifically to show their equivalent P4 speed. Although when they started doing it, they had some other BS reason for why it was important...but the real reason is to show the speed translated into P4 terms.

So, the BIG question is.. When will sager have an AMD64 version of the 9860?

Anyone have a timeframe?


(probably not )

This has been discussed to repeatedly in computer and tech forums everywhere. If you google Intel vs AMD etc. you'll find a ton of information on the subject.

But to answer your question. Simply put to measure a CPU's performance only on clock speed (Ghz) is miss leading. You also have to take into account the amount of work that the CPU completes in a single clock cycle.

A 3.4 Ghz Intel CPU does about the same amount of work as a 2.2 Ghs Athlon does in the same amount of time hence the 3400+ rating AMD gives for comparison.

A good example would be comparing a sports car (Intel) to a pickup truck (AMD). The sports car is definitely faster than the pickup but if you needed to deliver cargo from one place to another the sports car might need to make 4 trips back and forth while the truck only needs to make one trip and they finish at the same time.

Lastly, Intel has always wanted people to believe that CPU speed (Ghz) is the sole measure of performance. They done it in advertizing and even engineered the P4 netburst architecture to allow for faster and faster speeds. But now the silicon can't sustain the speed growth that Intel wants. The chips just get too hot.

So in short, don't compare the speeds of the chips. Compare benchmarks and over all performance. AMD's rating system is a good comparison though bias at times, but it's good enough.

Hope that helps.

The amd 64 can also downclock to level far greater than the p4. That way it can get battery life, and if you live in a apartment use less electricity too! Cheaper electric bills!

My view: I would go for the AMD 64. Only because the P4 is too hot and bad right now. BUT, I still like Intel, and for any mobile computer I will get a PM. Even if AMD gets a mobile proc out, I think I will still go for Intel unless the AMD has some drastic price or perfomrance difference. Basically I will go for the best performs, taking into consideration heat and weight issues.

your information has helped out a lot, rustican. thanks for the information. But I really think it does boil down to personal prefferance and what you want to do with it. Just like cars, there are people who likes the fast cars and then there are those who enjoy the sheer torque of a truck. so i guess if you just want to have fun get the Pentium but if you want to do some massive work get the AMD.

AMD, just because I like rooting for the underdog. Besids, the size of chipzilla(intel) just reminds me too much of microsoft, and that sends chills down my spine.

I dunno windwalker, amd's are pretty fun, great for gaming.

I think the example wasn't a very good one. Fast cars do help most of the times as not many people have to carry a ton of goods everyday. If you are driving to office, a sports car is preferred and most people fall in this category. But the point is, AMD is good at even this.

Jobs that need very low CPU power run equally good (or better) on AMD and you can see it as a pickup truck that runs as fast as any sports model. On carrying loads (like gaming), AMD is the champion without a question. So, choosing an Athlon64 should be a no-brainer until Intel comes out with a x86 based 64-bit counterpart.

You're missing the point focusing too much on comparing cars. The point of the example was to show that speed (Ghz) does not equate to performance (work acomplished).

Intel and AMD chips are comparable because they perform the same even through there is a gap in clock speed. They can both play games, render pictures and encode just as well as the other though each has it's own strengths and weaknesses.

The reason why it is preferable to get an AMD64 now instead of a P4 is because for price you pay you are geting comparable performance to a P4 AS well as 64 bit abilities AS well as better virus protection built into the chip. The decision is a no brainer.

I got your point, but WindWalker got a different meaning out of it. That's why I said the example wasn't very good. He probably thought, for less CPU intensive work, Intel is better & otherwise AMD. But that's not the case. Both sports car & pickup truck have their advantages, but here I don't see any in current fastest Intel desktop processors, especially when they cost almost a fortune.

So in it could be safe to say that the intel is like a Ford pickup and the AMD is like a Dodge Ram pick up. both can do the same work load but the Dodge Ram has a hemmy under the hood LOL

Ford