why does amd have half the front side bus speed of intell and does it matter

[eats only heads]

When looking at the amd boards the front side bus speed is either 200 or 266 mhtz with intel boards it is 400 or 532. Are they just measured differently are are Amd processors actually half as fast. How exectly does the bus work anyway?

[stallion]

intel has speed, amd has performance. benchmarks show that AMDs perform better than Intel, but Intel just has the higher hertz. That's the basics of it.

[TravisS]

It kinda goes back and forth like this. When the Athalon came out AMD ran at 200 and 266 MHz bus while the PIII was at 133. When AMD's next generation processor comes out (soon) it will most likely be up around the PIV.

And the FSB is the path between the processor and the RAM. The quicker the two can talk, the faster your PC is. A 3 GHz processor running on a 100 Mhz bus would be not much faster than say, a 1 GHz processor. There would be so much latency it would be rediculas.

That's how the bus works. Oh, and as of right now, the fastest Intel (with the 532 Mhz bus and RAM to support it) is faster than the fastest AMD ;)

[stallion]

Originally posted by TravisS
Oh, and as of right now, the fastest Intel (with the 532 Mhz bus and RAM to support it) is faster than the fastest AMD ;)

that doesn't make a difference. speed is not everything, and it's almost nothing compared to what's really important for a processor.

do you know what benchmarks are? well, amd has better numbers in the benchmarks. a 1600+ destroys a 2.0A+ processor in mips and mflops and integer conversions. amd does a lot better than intel in a multimedia benchmark.

so, if all you're looking at is hertz, then the average person would say "of course intel is better, they're faster!" but, if you do a little research on results and tests then you would realize there's more to processors and AMD just is better with that.

intel has numbers, amd has performance. that's it, and that's what it comes down to. if you want to impress your friends with a 2.5GHz cpu, and laugh at a 2000+, then you'd better step back and take a look at the bigger picture.

[Hillbillie]

Yeah.

Performance = IPC (Instructions per clock cycle) * Clock Speed;

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/performance-4.pdf

[TravisS]

Originally posted by stallion
do you know what benchmarks are? well, amd has better numbers in the benchmarks. a 1600+ destroys a 2.0A+ processor in mips and mflops and integer conversions. amd does a lot better than intel in a multimedia benchmark.

so, if all you're looking at is hertz, then the average person would say "of course intel is better, they're faster!" but, if you do a little research on results and tests then you would realize there's more to processors and AMD just is better with that.

I'm talking about in benchmarks ;)

Intel has been ahead of AMD in hertz for quite some time, but the fastest Intel has always BENCHMARKED worse than that average AMD. Untill now. The fastest of each company, as of about a month ago, Intel benchmarked faster than AMD. Not by much, but it was in PC World magazine, m'kay?

[stallion]

just in case anybody's is curious as to what Hillbillie is talking about, Intel uses CISC and AMD uses RISC. summed up, cisc is complex and risc is rapid. i'm pretty sure that's correct.

[Hammer]

Originally posted by stallion
just in case anybody's is curious as to what Hillbillie is talking about, Intel uses CISC and AMD uses RISC. summed up, cisc is complex and risc is rapid. i'm pretty sure that's correct.
CISC (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci213854,00.html)

RISC (http://search400.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid3_gci214266,00.html)

[Hillbillie]

>Intel uses CISC and AMD uses RISC. summed up, cisc is complex and risc is rapid. i'm pretty sure that's correct.<

Hmm...did not know that.

Ya learn something new everyday...

[stallion]

debates between better processors can go on forever, based on the fact that there are so many facets to cpus and what they deal with, it's such of a copias amount of information.

[JoeSixpack]

>Intel uses CISC and AMD uses RISC. summed up, cisc is complex and risc is rapid. i'm pretty sure that's correct.<

No. Both may have a RISC like core (which doesn't necessarily mean they are RISC processors (http://www.mackido.com/Hardware/x86RISC.html)), but as both are x86's they can't be different as both share the instruction set.

[RoD]

point is this:

Intel is faster.

Intel is more stable.

Intel is more reliable.

Intel holds up much better in overclocking situations.

Intel chips can pass 3ghz already, amd can't. The first 3ghz P4 was done 2 days after the release of the P4.

Booya, AMD can suck a fat one.

[Cgawd]

point is this:

Intel is faster.

Intel is more stable.

Intel is more reliable.

Intel holds up much better in overclocking situations.

Intel chips can pass 3ghz already, amd can't. The first 3ghz P4 was done 2 days after the release of the P4.

Booya, AMD can suck a fat one.

And the truth is said, pwnd.

[Eibro]

Originally posted by Ride -or- Die
point is this:

Intel is faster.

Intel is more stable.

Intel is more reliable.

Intel holds up much better in overclocking situations.

Intel chips can pass 3ghz already, amd can't. The first 3ghz P4 was done 2 days after the release of the P4.

Booya, AMD can suck a fat one.
Ignorance at it's prime. I suggest you read the links Hillbillie and Joe posted. I know I learned a lot.

[stallion]

Originally posted by Ride -or- Die
point is this:

Intel is faster.

Intel is more stable.

Intel is more reliable.

Intel holds up much better in overclocking situations.

Intel chips can pass 3ghz already, amd can't. The first 3ghz P4 was done 2 days after the release of the P4.

Booya, AMD can suck a fat one.

i don't want to create enemies and i don't plan on doing it. but...you're wrong. tell me, do you overclock? well, i do. i am an accomplished overclocker. and i have an amd processor. sure, they generate more heat, but if you don't have the necessary cooling, you shouldn't overclock.

>> Intel chips can pass 3ghz already, amd can't. The first 3ghz P4 was done 2 days after the release of the P4. <<

you know, i get a kick out of this. didn't you read any above posts? speed doesn't matter!!!

it's proven that amd is better for multimedia (do you want to see numbers? i can post benchmark results if you like) and in most cases, integer/floating operations.

i knew this would turn into a heated debate, and amd guys aren't going to convert to Intel, and vice versa. so, let's try to keep this as civil as possible.

[Cgawd]

notice how all the AMD fanboys always tend to say clock speed doesnt matter, because AMD is always behind on clock speed....hmmm what a coinkidink:p

[RoD]

Originally posted by stallion
i don't want to create enemies and i don't plan on doing it. but...you're wrong. tell me, do you overclock? well, i do. i am an accomplished overclocker. and i have an amd processor. sure, they generate more heat, but if you don't have the necessary cooling, you shouldn't overclock.

>> Intel chips can pass 3ghz already, amd can't. The first 3ghz P4 was done 2 days after the release of the P4. <<

you know, i get a kick out of this. didn't you read any above posts? speed doesn't matter!!!

it's proven that amd is better for multimedia (do you want to see numbers? i can post benchmark results if you like) and in most cases, integer/floating operations.

i knew this would turn into a heated debate, and amd guys aren't going to convert to Intel, and vice versa. so, let's try to keep this as civil as possible.


Yep i overclock, and also consider myself acomplished. Tell me this, how many cpu's have u worked with in this manner? Because 9 of the total 10 AMD processors i have overclocked have cracked, several of them with liquid cooling.

Speed does matter. And, not to hurt your feelings, so does size.

And benchmarks mean jack. New gforce's bench higher than Voodoo 5's, but do all of them out-perform it in everyday life? No, most don't. Same thing here, but as you said, neither are going to agree with the other.

[Hillbillie]

>Intel is faster.<

In clock speed, for the most part: yes. In benchmarks and performance: *chuckles*

>Intel is more stable.<

Your opinion.

>Intel is more reliable.<

In some cases. In others, not.

>Intel holds up much better in overclocking situations.<

How so?

>Intel chips can pass 3ghz already, amd can't.<

Isn't the 3 GHz Intel chip an overclocked old one? :rolleyes:

>notice how all the AMD fanboys always tend to say clock speed doesnt matter, because AMD is always behind on clock speed....hmmm what a coinkidink<

If you were knowledgable in this area of computers, you wouldn't be calling us "coinkidinks"; you'd be calling youself one. Oh, and by the way, you're also childishly calling Intel a "coinkidink"; they agree with AMD that clockspeed isn't everything.

[RoD]

Originally posted by Hillbillie
>Intel is faster.<

In clock speed, for the most part: yes. In benchmarks and performance: *chuckles*

>Intel is more stable.<

Your opinion.

>Intel is more reliable.<

In some cases. In others, not.

>Intel holds up much better in overclocking situations.<

How so?

>Intel chips can pass 3ghz already, amd can't.<

Isn't the 3 GHz Intel chip an overclocked old one? :rolleyes:

>notice how all the AMD fanboys always tend to say clock speed doesnt matter, because AMD is always behind on clock speed....hmmm what a coinkidink<

If you were knowledgable in this area of computers, you wouldn't be calling us "coinkidinks"; you'd be calling youself one. Oh, and by the way, you're also childishly calling Intel a "coinkidink"; they agree with AMD that clockspeed isn't everything.

>>How so?

Well that one is simple to answer. The design of intel chips allow them to better handle heat and stress, whereas AMD chips, specially the K6 models, tend to "crack".

>>Isn't the 3 GHz Intel chip an overclocked old one? :rolleyes:

The 3ghz chip is two chips. The first was a P4 2.2GHZ Northwood that was done by tomshardware. The second is made by intel, but its not yet stable. THG's was stable due to extensive Liquid Cooling.

[Hillbillie]

>Well that one is simple to answer. The design of intel chips allow them to better handle heat and stress, whereas AMD chips, specially the K6 models, tend to "crack".<

As long as you adequately cool the processor, you shouldn't see any problems. As for the K6: blah! :D Don't compare processors from the past. :p

Anyway, I've got an Athlon T-Bird 1330 @ 1500 (No, not a huge overclock...) with a HSF that is barely enough for a 1330...and the processor does fine. It never hangs up. It never gets above 50C even during things like CS.

And the newer Athlons (XPs) are a LOT better at preventing overheating. Not only do they have significantly lower temperatures than their T-Bird brothers, but they also make use of a feature that will shut off the motherboard if the temperature becomes dangerous.

[RoD]

I compared the K6 because its the most common, as P3 is with intel. I've never been able to push an AMD to almost twice its starting state, i believe the highest was a 333 K6 @ 400 and sumthing, i was, however, able to get my p3 500mhz to 925, which is a very significant amount of change imo.

[stallion]

about the "crack"ing, i assume you've built a computer? when you put the heatsink on...were you gentle? because the die of a cpu isn't supposed to withstand great amounts of force. i thought that was a give-in.

and about heat, sure amds get hotter, but if you have any knowledge of computers and what's necessary, then you need better cooling!

>> And benchmarks mean jack. <<

i just had to laugh when i read this. what do you think they make up numbers? or what? you think that they're partial to certain models/brands? they come up with hard numbers! you can't compare anything to that.

[stallion]

oh, and Hillbillie is absolutely correct here. the new TBred Bs are a lot cooler than previous intels. they're default vcore is about only 1.5v, where as amd is used to 1.75 or maybe more (if you overclock). and he's also right about mobos, like my epox, it has temperature warnings and shut down if too hot.

but your processor shouldnt get 10C close to that! that is, if you have proper cooling. with a good silver compount (asIII), and a fine heatsink with good air-flow, heat is not a problem.

if you want to keep that little generic intel heatsink on your cpu because it's fine cooling, then go right ahead. that's some quality product there :rolleyes:

[RoD]

>>because the die of a cpu isn't supposed to withstand great amounts of force. i thought that was a give-in.

No ****. I didn't push to hard 9 times, they got too hott when i really began to push them.

>>and about heat, sure amds get hotter, but if you have any knowledge of computers and what's necessary, then you need better cooling!

I have alot of knowledge, you can't get any ****ing cooler then Liquid Cooling.

>>i just had to laugh when i read this. what do you think they make up numbers? or what? you think that they're partial to certain models/brands? they come up with hard numbers! you can't compare anything to that.

I didn't say they made them up, i said in daily life, ACTUAL use of the product and how it performs there is more important and sure as hell more accurate to its quality then numbers. You can throw numbers all day long, but you gotta have the go to back it up, imo AMD doesn't, period.

[RoD]

if you want to keep that little generic intel heatsink on your cpu because it's fine cooling, then go right ahead. that's some quality product there

Who said i kept the old HS? I have a custom Heatsink, i needed one for the LC'n, i also have 6 high-flow orb fans in the case. The EXACT same setup i used for all the AMDS, its the same damn parts, and guess what, my intel still works.

[Eibro]

I didn't say they made them up, i said in daily life, ACTUAL use of the product and how it performs there is more important and sure as hell more accurate to its quality then numbers.
Then why are you pitching the fact that intels chips run at a higher frequency? Benchmarks are an amazing way to show the performance of components. These numbers matter, those such as MHZ don't. The frequency of a chip gives you a relative idea of how well it can perform, but as this value rises... it gets harder to accuratly judge its performance.

If you would have read that link HB put up, you'd see that AMD isn't trying to push out chips with the highest frequency possible, they're trying to dispel the myth that mhz = performance.

Oh, and AMDs are cheaper :)

[RoD]

>>Oh, and AMDs are cheaper

can't argue that one.

[Cgawd]

cheaper materials, less research & development= cheaper price :p

[RoD]

Cheaper materials - 10% savings.

Low-grade research - 5% savings.

Less advertising - 50% savings.

The look on your wifes face when she married a pentium user.........PRICELESS!

[Cgawd]

hahha, they defianately spend less on advertisement, because they didnt realize that their slogan could be used in a really funny way- AMD me!
More like **** ME!

[Eibro]

Facts anyone? No?

[Cgawd]

just the obvious, stupid fanboy, seriously, i wish i would be an AMD fanboy because i would save lots of money, but i cant get AMD because, in real life, they suck, i wont use them because they suck, thats why i pay more for intel, why would anyone pay more for something that u guys say is worse then amd if it really was.hmmmmmmm think about it

[Hillbillie]

Don't ya love the amount of intelligence in this thread? I can feel myself getting smarter just being here. :rolleyes:

You've got no basis saying "AMD processors suck." It's sort of amusing because everyone reading this thread can see the amount of stupidity you're boasting as argument.

>just the obvious, stupid fanboy<

Okay, then how about you show us "oblivious to the obvious fanboys" what the obvious is.

Give us one good argument on how AMD sucks. Oh, that's right - you can't.

[Cgawd]

something sucks when you use it and it just sucks, just face it, they suck.

[Hillbillie]

>something sucks when you use it and it just sucks, just face it, they suck.<

Something sucks when you use it...and it just sucks? Wow, that's over my head. :rolleyes:

I'm thinking this thread sucks because of the sucky crap sucky people are throwing around as sucky arguments. I think I might just quit this sucky debate before my intelligence quotient begins exponentially decreasing. I mean, that would really suck, huh?

:rolleyes:

[Cgawd]

yah, fanboys tend to lose their intelligence after time, this thread should be closed to save you all.

[Hillbillie]

>yah, fanboys tend to lose their intelligence after time, this thread should be closed to save you all.<

Damn, talking about your all-time generalized, unintelligent, non-based statement. Not to mention bold...

[Cgawd]

blah, blah, blah. Eat it.

[Fordy]

Quit the petty bickering or this is getting trashed

[TravisS]

Intel has is better in video editing, and things of that nature. AMD is better at, well, pretty much everything else.

Intel, as much as the company themeselves hates it, is better at overclocking. Is cooler, and will SAFELY (yes SAFELY) run without a heatsink. That isn't even close to possible for an AMD. You can actually run a PIV with no heatsink and you won't fry your chip. Try that with AMD, and it's just a matter of seconds.

So, it depends on what you want. Intel has it's benefits (as few and useless as they are) and AMD had it's benefits. I have an PIII right now, and have no complaint. My next will likely be an AMD though, because AMD's benefits outweigh intels.

[RoD]

Originally posted by TravisS
Intel has is better in video editing, and things of that nature. AMD is better at, well, pretty much everything else.

Intel, as much as the company themeselves hates it, is better at overclocking. Is cooler, and will SAFELY (yes SAFELY) run without a heatsink. That isn't even close to possible for an AMD. You can actually run a PIV with no heatsink and you won't fry your chip. Try that with AMD, and it's just a matter of seconds.

So, it depends on what you want. Intel has it's benefits (as few and useless as they are) and AMD had it's benefits. I have an PIII right now, and have no complaint. My next will likely be an AMD though, because AMD's benefits outweigh intels.

I don't see how amd's "benifits" outweigh intel.

Intel is better for;

Editing.

Gaming. Yes gaming because of its ability to run faster and cooler is is better then any amd processor at gaming.

Music and Multimedia. You can claim its not all you want, its the day to day application and use of an intel that proves it is.

Multi-tasking. Do i even need to elaborate here?

The only thing AMD has over intel is cheaper prices, and thats because they aren't as good.

If amd was so kick ass and so much better then pentium, then they'd be the leading chip in production pc's, but guess what, they're not.

If amd was so good they'd be the leading chip among the video game community, but guess what, they're not.

And if amd was so damn good, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, because more then 10% of the population would be using them.

[Compuboy]

&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh, for goodness' sake! At the hardware level, the AMD processors are Intel clones. They use the same instruction set and do the same things. The only thing in question is which one is cheaper for its clock speed, which one is more efficient, and which one overheats easier. As far as high-level tasks (multimedia, gaming) are concerned, they don't know they're doing them, so neither one can be so selective! All they know is that they're churning instructions. They both churn the same instructions, so you can't say one is better at games and the other is better at multimedia, it's purely a matter of the speed at which they both churn.

&nbsp;&nbsp;In the hope of settling the matter, here are the facts as I know them:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Intel processors:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Are more expensive for their clock speed.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Have more safety mechanisms.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Overheat with difficulty.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;AMD processors:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Are less expensive for their clock speed.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Have virtually no safety mechanisms.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Overheat easily.

&nbsp;&nbsp;It's a simple matter of compromise. You can have it cheap or you can have it ultra-safe. It's up to the buyer. I don't really mind either way, so long as it works!

[Eibro]

Oh the bliss! Thanks for the help vVv.

Nice reasoning on RoD and Cgawds part; AMDs suck because they suck. Go READ a book, or a technical article... your time would be better spent enlightening yourselves instead of trying to convince these extremely intelligent people that AMDs "suck".

This is hopeless, next time try presenting some facts or evidence for your claims.

[JoeSixpack]

They both churn the same instructions, so you can't say one is better at games and the other is better at multimedia, it's purely a matter of the speed at which they both churn.

I don't think this statement is particularly accurate. They both provide the x86 ISA, but this doesn't necessarily mean that they are churning the same instructions in there core. Or that each ones method of churning these instructions is the same. There core implementations may well be pretty similar, but I wouldn't rely on clock speed alone to attempt to differentiate between them.

[Sang-drax]

According to Tom's Hardware, Intel has the highest preformance, but AMD has better performance/price ratio.

http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020826/p4_2800-12.html
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020826/p4_2800-16.html#conclusion_change_in_power

[Cgawd]

According to Tom's Hardware, Intel has the highest preformance, but AMD has better performance/price ratio.
and thats whats stuck up fanboys butts, they dont have the money to buy intel so they are stuck with AMD and try to defend it.

[Hillbillie]

I think it's funny that an AMD AthlonXP with a clock frequency of 2133 whipped an Intel Pentium 4 with a clock frequency of 2600, albeit by one point (and in data compression)...but still...

[Eibro]

Originally posted by Cgawd
and thats whats stuck up fanboys butts, they dont have the money to buy intel so they are stuck with AMD and try to defend it.
Oh, I see what you're doing... leaving all the facts and intellectual observations until the end, in an effort to take us all by surprise.

[Sang-drax]

Originally posted by Hillbillie
I think it's funny that an AMD AthlonXP with a clock frequency of 2133 whipped an Intel Pentium 4 with a clock frequency of 2600, albeit by one point (and in data compression)...but still...
What matters is that Intel's fastest processor currently is faster that AMD's fastest. When AMD releases a new one that fact is likely the opposite until Intel releases a new one, ad infinitum.

[Fountain]

Originally posted by TravisS
Intel has is better in video editing, and things of that nature. AMD is better at, well, pretty much everything else.

Intel, as much as the company themeselves hates it, is better at overclocking. Is cooler, and will SAFELY (yes SAFELY) run without a heatsink. That isn't even close to possible for an AMD. You can actually run a PIV with no heatsink and you won't fry your chip. Try that with AMD, and it's just a matter of seconds.

So, it depends on what you want. Intel has it's benefits (as few and useless as they are) and AMD had it's benefits. I have an PIII right now, and have no complaint. My next will likely be an AMD though, because AMD's benefits outweigh intels.


I am kind of with you here Travis, but lets cut the crap about running with no heatsink. Why would you want to? Beggars belief.

I happily run my 1900xp AMD with NO problems whatsoever.

If people get reliability etc with whichever CPU they use..so be it.

But, why pay more for the priveledge? Answer me that one Intel gods.


N.B. No, I have no stability/speed/setting on fire and burning my house down issues with my AMD. And nobody I know has a duff AMD xp chip. (If they have left it alone)