PDA

View Full Version : Processro runnin at 5 Ghz



vasanth
01-20-2004, 10:07 AM
Have a look at this.... and the video they have created.. Boy thats some hectic work..


http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031230/index.html

Brian2
01-20-2004, 12:31 PM
I have a thing against tomshardware. They are soo biased to intel they only ever mention AMD in a negative light.

ZerOrDie
01-20-2004, 01:31 PM
Because we all know AMD is sooo much better than intel :rolleyes: Oh wait intel has 80% of the processor market share gosh darn i guess everyone likes buying expensive crap processors.

Brian2
01-20-2004, 01:34 PM
What's your point? Internet Explorer has 99% of the market share. If you want more performance per pound/dollar, then AMD it is.

ZerOrDie
01-20-2004, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Brian2
What's your point? Internet Explorer has 99% of the market share.

My point is the market is not wrong. If intels where worse than amd you would quiclky find the market share for amd increasing but instead it is still shrinking... I know this is a hard concept for amd fanboys to grasp...

Waldo2k2
01-20-2004, 01:45 PM
>>My point is the market is not wrong. If intels where worse than amd you would quiclky find the market share for amd increasing but instead it is still shrinking... I know this is a hard concept for amd fanboys to grasp...

what are you 12?

you need to stfu once in your life and realize that the market isn't always right...microsoft for instance...definetly not the best, has 99% of the market. *nix, *bsd are both way more stable (not to mention free) yet they have marginal use in the desktop area. So, why don't you go take a basic economics class and stop spewing all over this thread, it's about overclocking a processor to 5ghz...not your stupid flamewar.


as for the processor, i'd like to see if it actually ran anything stable, all it showed was the bios, no way of really telling if it was stable beyond 4ghz

as for toms be biased, hell yeah they are, but so is almost every other hardware review site on the planet, best bet is to know what you need and not read crap articles on this and that. (well...they were all right on rambus sucking though :))

vasanth
01-20-2004, 01:45 PM
i have had both systems AMD and Intel based......I found the AMD ones good but not good to overclock since they gave out too much heat.. My friend has a couple of burnt AMD processor where as he ran the intel processor without the fan and i worked fine for quite some time :D:D..

ZerOrDie
01-20-2004, 01:51 PM
microsoft for instance...definetly not the best, has 99% of the market.


Yeah windows is such a horrible product for the home users. You know XP pretty much never crashes even your grandmother can operate it. You can play games on it, pop a cd in wait a bit and voila. You have support for all the newest hardware. Microsoft is the best for 99% of people and this is why they have 99% of market share.

Now you know *nix is just perfect for the home user! Everyone wants to wait months for their new hardware to be supported oh and i want to see you run alll the newest games on there. PS Xeyes does not count.:rolleyes:

ober
01-20-2004, 02:05 PM
ZerOrDie, STFU.

Marketshare means nothing. It means one has better PR than the other. Your argument about MS is simply worthless. The reason MS is doing so well is that people have gotten used to using Windows. Sure, in most cases, Windows is an easier OS to learn and operate. I won't argue that point. That doesn't mean it's the better system.

You must understand that "better" is completely relative when it comes to computing needs. AMD has had some heat problems in the past. I won't argue there either. But when I can buy an AMD chip for $200 USD cheaper and have the same speeds and in some cases better performance... I only think for about 2 seconds before choosing. I have an AMD chip at home and I've never had a single problem with it. My next chip will be an AMD too.

Besides... performance on various chips is all relative too. AMD trumps Intel on various benchmarks. Intel whoops up on others. What if you only did one or the other.... then HEY... why not buy a chip that suits your needs?

OH, and getting back to your Windows argument... let's step back 4 years when MS was producing wonders like ME and 98. BSOD city, my friend. *nix users have been crash free since the late 70's.

STFU.

vasanth
01-20-2004, 02:09 PM
ohh boy... i wish like before the poeple who created the threads had the permissin to delete them :(:(

-KEN-
01-20-2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by vasanth
ohh boy... i wish like before the poeple who created the threads had the permissin to delete them :(:(

PM a mod and they would glady remove this crudfest.

PS: ZerOrDie is wrong. Why do MS and IE have so much market share? Because they come preinstalled and why would Joe Computer bother changing?

Govtcheez
01-20-2004, 02:45 PM
> PM a mod and they would glady remove this crudfest.

Sorry vasanth, I'm going to let this sit here, since ZerOrDie has so graciously taken this chance to remind us what a moron he is.

-KEN-
01-20-2004, 03:18 PM
But it's almost sad to read...:( He's really trying so hard.

viaxd
01-20-2004, 03:41 PM
>>Microsoft is the best for 99% of people and this is why they have 99% of market share.

Where did you get the statistics from?

EvBladeRunnervE
01-20-2004, 03:53 PM
But when I can buy an AMD chip for $200 USD cheaper and have the same speeds and in some cases better performance

well, according to pricewatch, the current equivalent processors:

$395 Athlon 64 3400
$394 - Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800

your argument is now mute. Also, from a collage of the reviews I have looked at, a P4 and AMD at the same Performance rating, non overclocked, pretty much are head to head with eachother, w/ only certain applications favoring either(PS has better support for P4, business winstone tests support AMD).

Take into consideration that in order to overclock an AMD at all, you have to fork over another 50 dollars for a good HSF unit while I can OC a P4 a good half a gighertz with the retail fan, and you get what every overclocking site will tell you:

P4 > AMD for overclocking

however:

SETI /Folding/etc.:

AMD > P4

the shame is, I used to like AMD when they used to be 200 dollars less for the same performance.

nickname_changed
01-20-2004, 05:08 PM
$395 Athlon 64 3400
$394 - Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800

I wouldn't exactly call these equivalent, since ones a 64bit processor and the others only 32.

Only a slight difference ;)

ober
01-20-2004, 05:40 PM
Now, for those of us who aren't idiots:

From www.pricewatch.com:

COMPARABLE (32-bit) processors:

AMD XP 3200 (aka equivalent 3.2 GHz power): $240
Intel PIV 3.2 GHz: $394

As any sensible human can see, that's a difference of $154. Granted, my estimate was somewhat high... but holy $$$$. I'm not going to pay an extra $150 for the same bang... even if I have to buy a better fan than the retail version (only for OCing), I'm still ahead of the game.

OHHHHHH... look at that! My point is un-mooted! (or un-"mute"ed as you so intelligently pointed out)

And now I ask you to join ZerOrDie in the corner STFUing.

nickname_changed
01-20-2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by ober5861
AMD XP 3200 (aka equivalent 3.2 GHz power): $240
Intel PIV 3.2 GHz: $394

Well not really, an XP 3200 doesn't really run at 3.2GHz, more at about 2.2GHz (Or close to)... but yes your right, $240 for a 3200XP is an awesome deal when compared to the intel processor.

Personally if I had the money, I'd get the athlon64 before touching that pentium 4.

golfinguy4
01-20-2004, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by stovellp
Well not really, an XP 3200 doesn't really run at 3.2GHz, more at about 2.2GHz (Or close to)... but yes your right, $240 for a 3200XP is an awesome deal when compared to the intel processor.

You fail to mention that although the AMD runs at a lower clock speed, it is more efficient with its clock cycles so that a 2.2 ghz performs similarly to a 3.2 ghz P4.

Iamien
01-20-2004, 11:19 PM
Why do people hold so much loyalty to a brand name. Why no just buy what works better for your and laugh at those you feal spent 200 bucks more then you. if intel came out with a Low cost Efficent processor that did beat intel and cost the same , would you get it? or would you stick too your brand name, just beacause?

I'm on neither side but just a curiosty about why people act this way

golfinguy4
01-20-2004, 11:24 PM
Heh, both of my boxes run intels. I was just making a point.

RoD
01-20-2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Govtcheez
> PM a mod and they would glady remove this crudfest.

Sorry vasanth, I'm going to let this sit here, since ZerOrDie has so graciously taken this chance to remind us what a moron he is.

Thats the best thing in this thread, it warrents quoting.

ober
01-21-2004, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by golfinguy4
You fail to mention that although the AMD runs at a lower clock speed, it is more efficient with its clock cycles so that a 2.2 ghz performs similarly to a 3.2 ghz P4.

Umm... actually, I think I did mention that. That whole... (aka... equivalent) bit I put in there...yeah. That's why AMD switched to that naming convention. Intel had to ramp their clock speed up to make up for their pipe length which is at least twice that of AMD's.

EvBladeRunnervE
01-21-2004, 07:41 AM
Umm... actually, I think I did mention that. That whole... (aka... equivalent) bit I put in there...yeah. That's why AMD switched to that naming convention. Intel had to ramp their clock speed up to make up for their pipe length which is at least twice that of AMD's.

Yet they still beat out AMD in performance/price ratios, what with a 2.4C at 160 dollars being pretty much guaranteed to overclock to 3.4-3.6 ghrz, while bartons are lucky to get 150-300 mhrz OC. the best thing AMD had going for it was its 1700+ tbred b, which for 50 dollars and w/ certain steppings, was able to approach 2.3 ghrz.

I personally own several AMD boxes, and several Intel boxes, and while I like both, there is a reason why I use Intel in my performance needed apps(photoshop,lightwave,games,etc.).




That's why AMD switched to that naming convention.

Bad move on their part, as one of the reasons people bought them alot was looking at the reviews stating a 1.4 ghrz amd beating a 2.2 ghrz p4, then they came along with that PR garbage, and so its comparing a 2200+ to a 2200mhrz p4 and there isnt a difference, so they lost their "edge".

ober
01-21-2004, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by EvBladeRunnervE
Yet they still beat out AMD in performance/price ratios, what with a 2.4C at 160 dollars being pretty much guaranteed to overclock to 3.4-3.6 ghrz, while bartons are lucky to get 150-300 mhrz OC. the best thing AMD had going for it was its 1700+ tbred b, which for 50 dollars and w/ certain steppings, was able to approach 2.3 ghrz.

How many people do you know that OC? A handful? I doubt if it's that many. And I never said anything about OCing. I'm talking about average usage. And if you want to continue on that point, how many OCers are looking for an extra GHz??? I'm sure there are your NFS (if I may steal the term) freaks out there, but what do you need that kind of processing power for right now?



I personally own several AMD boxes, and several Intel boxes, and while I like both, there is a reason why I use Intel in my performance needed apps(photoshop,lightwave,games,etc.).
As I said earlier in the thread... both processors are not optomized for the same thing.



Bad move on their part, as one of the reasons people bought them alot was looking at the reviews stating a 1.4 ghrz amd beating a 2.2 ghrz p4, then they came along with that PR garbage, and so its comparing a 2200+ to a 2200mhrz p4 and there isnt a difference, so they lost their "edge".
You know that. I know that. The average user doesn't. When Joe Blow walks into a store and buys a processor... he's looking for similar numbers and then a better price. He doesn't care that one performs just as good with fewer cycles.

Silvercord
01-21-2004, 09:44 AM
What happened to students being poor? Buy the cheaper stuff, AMD is still really good, and it's obviously arguable which is actually faster/more stable/better to overclock/etc

I've had a 1.4GHz athlon for like, what, two years now, and it still does justice as far as I'm concerned.

EvBladeRunnervE
01-21-2004, 09:46 AM
I'm sure there are your NFS (if I may steal the term) freaks out there, but what do you need that kind of processing power for right now?

it's called HL2, Doom3, SETI, and F@H.

ober
01-21-2004, 09:48 AM
I got news for ya pal... most people are going to be upgrading entire systems to play those games.

Silvercord
01-21-2004, 09:51 AM
i went to SGI over the summer, and their processors don't even run faster than 700MHz, but they have some of the largest super computing systems in the world. I mention this, because SETI probably has a similar setup, and strive for maximum stability, not raw per processor speed.

EvBladeRunnervE
01-21-2004, 10:53 AM
SETI probably has a similar setup, and strive for maximum stability, not raw per processor speed.

im talking about SETI @ home, which is SETIs attempt to leech machine cycles off of people. and one SETI workbench takes 2 hours to complete even with top of the run computers, the reason SETI doesnt use the brand new computers is one stability like you said(but hell,NASA still uses 80386s for "stability"), and another because they have very poor funding..

Silvercord
01-21-2004, 12:09 PM
ohhh yeah I think those systems are cool, that's how they were able to calculate the newest mersenne prime! The numbers themselves were too large to be computed by a single computer.

EvBladeRunnervE
01-21-2004, 12:39 PM
that's how they were able to calculate the newest mersenne prime!

lets see, prime95 which is a distributive computing application to find Mersenne primes is another example of something high speed computers are good for in tandem.

golfinguy4
01-21-2004, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by ober5861
Umm... actually, I think I did mention that. That whole... (aka... equivalent) bit I put in there...yeah. That's why AMD switched to that naming convention. Intel had to ramp their clock speed up to make up for their pipe length which is at least twice that of AMD's.

Ober, chill dude and look at who I quoted. ;)

ober
01-21-2004, 02:11 PM
ahh... my bad d00der. Sorry :)

TravisS
01-23-2004, 12:44 AM
Well, I'm not going to jump into the AMD vs Intel thing on this (though I have seen many MANY wrong "facts"...)

So back on topic. What Tom's did is nothing special at all. 5 GHz? So what, that was done a LONG time ago. The stupid thing is... where are the benchmarks? Without actually going back and looking at this again, it was stable enough to bench at something like 4.5 GHz... so why no results?

This whole thing was a mistake, IMO, on Tom's part. It's old news to Intel fans and just gives AMD fans another reason to flame Tom's (like there's not already enough...).

VirtualAce
02-20-2004, 04:05 AM
Sorry vasanth, I'm going to let this sit here, since ZerOrDie has so graciously taken this chance to remind us what a moron he is.


:D

Cheez....I'd vote for you as President if you ran.

:D

Shadow
02-21-2004, 09:20 PM
> it's called HL2, Doom3, SETI, and F@H.
Actually, it's called MAME, which requires processor speeds which won't be out for probably another 4-5 years.

Among a few other PCB kits, try emulating this (http://www.system16.com/sega/hrdw_stv.html) in software mode, handling input output, and the whole list of functions a circuit board for a game system does, inside an operating system, only being able to be ran on one cpu in sotware mode due to accuracy. Cotton Boomerang 2 is lucky to hit 35% on my AMD 2000+. Sanfransisco Rush runs 30% on a 3ghz Pentium 4.

Man, if I only liked PC games, building computers would be cheap and easy. :D

> Cheez....I'd vote for you as President if you ran.
..made me laugh too.

CornedBee
02-22-2004, 05:58 AM
Some hardware magazine overclocked an Athlon 64 FX to 3.2 GHz and it ran stable :)
Mind you, they used a special motherboard which allowed an impressive multiplicator and compressor cooling to keep the CPU at -20C.