cpu?

[hakgipc]

hi hackings

my friend just bout the AM2 +5000 cpu, he asked me if he has a five 5ghz cpu i said no is 2.5/2.6 he said why and i said cause windoes does not yet utilize both cores with the one app running, are my statements tru

if not tell me ur answer for his quesiton

cheers

[Sparda]

Clock speed != processor power

The clock speed of the CPU no longer increases your ePenis size. The name of the CPU is more of an indicator as to your actual ePenis size.

You are correct (for for the wrong reason) in saying it is not a 5GHz clock speed. AMDs CPU names (3200 5000, what ever) never indicated the CPU clock speed. For example, my Athlon 64 3200 runs at 2GHz,

[hakgipc]

yer but the +5000 is rated at what equivilent to a intell clock spped will be

[moonlit]

yer but the +5000 is rated at what equivilent to a intell clock spped will be

But that doesn't mean it's anything close to 5GHz, the numbers mean jack these days, even less than they used to.

[hakgipc]

so the +5000 am2 amd has 2.5x2 clock speed yer?

[atmo]

5000+ is 2.6ghz w/ 2x512kb l2 cache

[Shaun]

The numbers on AMD processors originally were intended to show approximate equivalence to an Intel processor's speed in MHz, however since they both stopped playing the MHz race quite some time ago now (AMD way earlier), the numbers don't really mean much. I suppose maybe they are trying to use it now to show how much work it can do as if it were a single core CPU or something, but if that is the case than what single core CPU? The numebrs on AMD chips were originally based on Pentium 3 speeds I believe, would it be equivalent to a 5GHz P3? Clock speeds mean so little now (not that they really meant a lot to start with) it really doesn't tell you much, and I doubt those number are anywher near accurate. In general it's better to just take it as an arbitary rating of processor power.

[deleted]

The numbers on AMD processors originally were intended to show approximate equivalence to an Intel processor's speed in MHz, however since they both stopped playing the MHz race quite some time ago now (AMD way earlier), the numbers don't really mean much. I suppose maybe they are trying to use it now to show how much work it can do as if it were a single core CPU or something, but if that is the case than what single core CPU? The numebrs on AMD chips were originally based on Pentium 3 speeds I believe, would it be equivalent to a 5GHz P3? Clock speeds mean so little now (not that they really meant a lot to start with) it really doesn't tell you much, and I doubt those number are anywher near accurate. In general it's better to just take it as an arbitary rating of processor power.

Are you sure?

[moonlit]

Are you sure?

MHz ratings tell you little about the actual real world performance of the CPU so yes, he's right. The numbers in the model number mean nothing, it's just that, a model number. Horza was also right about the original reason for the xxxx+ AMD model numbers, they were supposed to compare a product to its comparable Intel product. Right now, with 64bit multi-core CPUs it means nothing, the numbering scheme no longer works for current technology.

hakgipc: You've asked a very similar question before, the answer to your question is no, 5000+ does NOT equal a 5GHz CPU in any possible way.

[deleted]

Sorry, i got confused.

[VaKo]

There was talk of AMD doing reverse hyper-threading, IE allowing multiple cores to act as a single high-speed core. Would have allowed massive performance boosts for applications that weren't any good on SMP.

[Atari6502]

There was talk of AMD doing reverse hyper-threading, IE allowing multiple cores to act as a single high-speed core. Would have allowed massive performance boosts for applications that weren't any good on SMP.

Intel is supposed to be implementing dynamic acceleration technology to the Penryn core. If your running a single threaded app, and not utilizing the second core, it will effectively overclock itself.

[killzone]

**THREAD JACK>?**

So, If clock cycles mean nothing, and model numbers mean nothing, and core architectures / performance are so different even within one company, how can we help people decide on and or compare CPU's>?

[SomeoneE1se]

**THREAD JACK>?**

So, If clock cycles mean nothing, and model numbers mean nothing, and core architectures / performance are so different even within one company, how can we help people decide on and or compare CPU's>?

benchmarks

[metatron]

Clock speeds aren’t key anymore but I would argue they still have a place, look at the IBM Power 6 which I believe runs at 5GHz (6GHz in the lab) or the Cell processor which I think is 3.2 GHz.

[killzone]

thansk Someoneelse, i was trying to get someone to post something useful and easier to say then a paragraph about researching, reading-up, and comparing ect. ** I was too tired and busy to write it all up**

[VaKo]

Clock speed equates to brute force, and the architecture is the brains of the thing. This is why a high-end Pentium 4 could still beat its equivalent AMD model on things like encryption or encoding. In all honesty, the best way is to spend ages reading up on microprocessor technology.

[tanda333]

if you want to know which ones perform better, clockspeed can tell you which ones preform better within a single chip design, for example, a 2ghz core 2 duo is less powerful than the 2.6ghz model. however when you branch out clockspeed is not an indicator. ex: intel p4 3ghz < core 2 duo 2ghz. and even worse when you go into different manufacturers.

its hard to compare amd to intel nowadays, because although with the new core 2 duo lineup, intels processors are more powerful, amd has lowered the prices on all their proccessors, to effectively make thier hig end processors compete with midrange intel line-ups. so now its getting close performance to price ratio-wise. which brings me to my next point. price. the more expensive, the better. GENERALLY. also, if you have a processor that is between pentium III and pentium 4/D AMD comparable proccessors (price wise) are better. if you have anything newer or older, intel simply blows amd out of the water.

i have heard reputable reports that for pentium 3's and 4's to compare to amd's processors, if the pentium is 70%-140% higher clockspeed, it is generally abouty the same performance wise.

but like SomeoneElse said, and VaKo basically elaborated on, you cannot just look at a catalogue to understand which proccessors are better just by thier stated numbers. you must do some research into it and compare benchmarks. a site i find useful for this, as it is quite extensive and yet fairly easy to understand, is www.xbitlabs.com

but even if you look at performance, there are other factors you have to look at. amds processors, are a lot less efficent power consumption wise, than intels processors, but if you go back to the p4 era, the trend is reversed.

in final, research, dont be lazy/compulsive about your decisions on chips, take the time to find out what they can and cant do, and how they compare, dont just be a n00b and compare ghz, or model numbers.

(sorry for long post)