PCBUILD Archives

Personal Computer Hardware discussion List

PCBUILD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
David Gillett <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
PCBUILD - Personal Computer Hardware discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:35:44 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (52 lines)
On 23 Dec 2002, at 17:00, Joe Lore wrote:

> AMD CPU's no longer are numbered by the actual speed the chip runs at, but
> rather at what equivalent INTEL cpus speed is most favorably compares to.
> This is because AMD says there ore other factors than speed that determine
> how fast a CPU really is.
>
> Confused yet?  Should be, it's kind of like a shell game because they can't
> win on the raw cpu speed issue, so they changed the way the game is played
> to favor themselves.
>
> example:
>
> the amd xp1500+  really runs at 1.33ghz.  (266 hhz bus)
>
> sorry that is the only one I have handy to compare with


  1.33ghz is not a "speed", it is a *clock frequency*.  In general, ALL ELSE
BEING EQUAL, a CPU running at a higher clock frequency will execute more
instructions in a given time period.

  But this is like saying that a car whose engine is running at more rpm
(revolutions per minute) will cover ground faster than one at fewer rpm.
Factors like transmission gear ratio and outside tire diameter figure into
the translation of engine rpm to ground covered -- a car in neutral can rev
and rev and not move at all!  ("All computers wait at the same speed.")

> This is because AMD says there ore other factors than speed that determine
> how fast a CPU really is.

  No, speed is speed.  AMD says there are other factors than raw *clock
frequency* that determine how fast a CPU really is.  And they "can't win on
raw [clock frequency]" because CPUs that run on the same clock frequency
cost about the same to produce, even if one will actually get work done
faster.


  Now, on the flip side, most of us don't have the expertise in CPU design
to really assess those other factors, nor the sort of benchmarking labs that
would allow us to measure it.  So when AMD says their CPU that runs on a
1.33 ghz clock will execute our programs as quickly as Intel's 1.5 ghz chip,
they may be exaggerating.
  So consumers are well advised to do their homework, looking for third-
party performance lab results which hopefully subject the claims on both
sides to some objective verification.

               The NOSPIN Group Promotions is now offering
              Mandrake Linux or Red Hat Linux CD sets along
             with the OpenOffice CD...  at a great price!!!
             http://freepctech.com/goodies/promotions.shtml

ATOM RSS1 RSS2