CPU confusion.

?

  • That would rock!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • That´s crazy talk!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
1,030
Best answers
0
I've been confused for some time about my CPU power, so I thought it was about time to ask. Alright. I have an AMD CPU, 2200+. It says I have a box 1.8 GHz. It was said to me that my PC was like if I had a Intel with 2.2 GHz. Is this true?

Example:AMD CPU Sempron 64 3200+ Socket AM2, L2 Cache 128KB, Box 1800MHz. This isn't my CPU, just an example i took from their prices.
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cols="1" frame="void" rules="groups"><tbody><tr><td align="left" height="17" width="512">




</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
 
New Member
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
904
Best answers
0
In a way, yea. AMD labels their processor (2200+, 2400+, etc), in comparison to the equal Intel processor. Well, at least before the whole dual core thing came about. Then it got kind've screwy.

Alice_goku_ssj4 said:
u cannot compare a 64 bit CPU with a 32 bit CPU
You can when the 64bit capabilities aren't at use.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
1,030
Best answers
0
Mine is 32 CPU. But is 2.2 GHz the same as 2200+ in POWER!?

EDIT: didn't see Mr. Zorg's post. Well thank you guys for such speedy answers.
 
New Member
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
904
Best answers
0
As I said, in a way, yea. AMD processors have, for a long time, done more operations per clock than the comparative Intel processor. So, while they may be clocked lower, they could still push out the same amount of data as the higher clocked Intel processors. This isn't necessarily true today, though, with Intel's most recent line.
 
Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
345
Best answers
0
Actually AMD never Intentionally used the PR (Performance Rating) System, As a way to compare against Intels processors.
AMD actually uses a special benchmark, Which is used to indicate performance, And thus earn a PR rating.
For instance the Athlon XP 1800+ is Faster than a 2Ghz Pentium 4, Yet its 500Mhz slower, Yet if we go with a Pentium 4 3.2ghz vs a Athlon XP 3200+ The Pentium 4 Wins hands down, Yet Replace the Athlon XP 3200+ with the Athlon 64, And you may find it beats the Pentium 4 3.2ghz.


"Alica_goku_ssj4 u cannot compare a 64 bit CPU with a 32 bit CPU" Yes you can by only using it on a 32bit software.

"MD CPU, 2200+" You indeed have a "2200+" Processor, by which all means is What you should be using to indicate your processors performance.

My old Ancient system had a 2000+ Athlon running at something like 1.69Ghz, I managed to get that stable at 1.94Ghz Even though it was only a minor increase in clock speed, the performance advantage (Back then) was huge.
 
New Member
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
904
Best answers
0
Wikipedia said:
The PR rating system was developed by AMD in the mid-1990s as a method of comparing their x86 processors to those of rival Intel.
Wikipedia said:
The PR number was originally believed to show the clock speed (in megahertz) of an equivalent Pentium 4 processor, but this was never confirmed by AMD. As part of its marketing, AMD even made sure that motherboard manufacturers conspicuously showed the PR number of the microprocessor in the motherboards' POST and not include the processors' clock speeds anywhere except within the BIOS.
Wikipedia said:
The Athlon XP (as well as the Athlon 64) PR rating scheme is not intended to be anything more than a comparison to the same family of processors, and not a direct comparison to Intel or any other company's processor speeds (in raw MHz), despite what skeptics may believe.
That means an XP vs a <s>Winchester/Newcastle</s> (Willamette/Northwood) and a 64 vs Prescott.
Smith| said:
In a way, yea. AMD labels their processor (2200+, 2400+, etc), in comparison to the equal Intel processor.
I was close =p.
 
New Member
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
904
Best answers
0
Haha, I got my CPU names confused =p. Winchester and Newcastle are AMD 64s. And I don't know what you're trying to show with the chart? If anything, that proves my point.
 
Member
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
345
Best answers
0
As it does mine.
"Actually AMD never Intentionally used the PR (Performance Rating) System, As a way to compare against Intels processors.
AMD actually uses a special benchmark, Which is used to indicate performance, And thus earn a PR rating.
For instance the Athlon XP 1800+ is Faster than a 2Ghz Pentium 4, Yet its 500Mhz slower, Yet if we go with a Pentium 4 3.2ghz vs a Athlon XP 3200+ The Pentium 4 Wins hands down, Yet Replace the Athlon XP 3200+ with the Athlon 64, And you may find it beats the Pentium 4 3.2ghz."

It was never really a viable way of telling performance from that of Intel and AMD.
And in fact the 1.4Ghz Pentium 3 Tualatin could best the Pentium 4 1.8ghz.
Lets just say that the Pentium 4 Sucked through its entire life, And that the Athlon XP Sucked towards its end.
And everyone knows how the Presshot vs the Athlon 64 went. Wasn't pretty, Yet because of Intels clever marketing, Fooled people into thinking clock speed mattered.

So Dan, YES! Your processor indeed performs as fast as a 2.2ghz. Even beating the 2.4ghz or faster Pentium 4's.
None of the Athlon XP's were a slouch considering, what the alternative was.
 
New Member
Joined
May 14, 2003
Messages
904
Best answers
0
Smith| said:
If anything, that proves my point.
As it does mine.
So... it does prove my point? Alrighty, then.
Pemalite said:
And in fact the 1.4Ghz Pentium 3 Tualatin could best the Pentium 4 1.8ghz.
Lets just say that the Pentium 4 Sucked through its entire life, And that the Athlon XP Sucked towards its end.
And I don't know why you keep pulling that bit of knowledge out when I addressed it with...
Smith| said:
In a way, yea. AMD labels their processor (2200+, 2400+, etc), in comparison to the equal Intel processor.
I.e., not one that's faster, not one that's slower, but to the comparable Intel processor.

I don't even know why this thread is still going on when his question was answered so long ago.
dan_esf_fanatic said:
EDIT: didn't see Mr. Zorg's post. Well thank you guys for such speedy answers.
He got his answer. Thread closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top