AMD and Intel CPU Comparison Question?

[mar122999]

What allows an AMD XP CPU to give a similiar performance on some tests than the Pentium 4 CPU when the AMD's processor speed is lower?

For example, a Pentium 4 2.6Ghz gives similiar FPS results than the AMD Athlon XP 2600+ CPU. The AMD advertises the CPU to run at (1.9Ghz I believe) and the Pentium 4 2.6Ghz runs at 2.6Ghz. How can a 1.9Ghz CPU keep up when the processor speed is lower? Is it the FSB, L1 or L2 cache, pipelines, ..etc.?

(I read the end of year CPU performance guide on Tom's Hardware Guide website)

[Ryanoffski]

basically, it has to do with the way the CPU is built. The architecture of the AMDs allows them to perform at the same quality as "faster" Intels.

[MitaDC]

I would like to know too, anybody have a link for something like this or have a good explination?

[mar122999]

Here is the link to the CPU specs:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...-guide-16.html

[Omardeth]

here is how i explain it .

amd = 6 cylinder engine
intel = 4 cylinder engine

both put out 250 horse power . to get 250 hp out of the amd it has to run at 2000 rpm . th intel needs to do 4000 rpm to get 250hp . they both can do 250 hp but the intel has to spin faster to get there .

[batmeat]

If I remember right, it has to do with the pipelines of each chip. Intels have more, so if there's an error they have to waste more cycles to flush the pipelines, wehre as AMD's have less pipelines so if there is an error not as many cycles are wasted flushing the line which allows it to run faster then the intel chip.

[Smidley]

Great analogy!

I've been looking for an analogy like that to explain to people but I didn't really know why AMDs were faster, anyway.

Now I know.

I suppose that by using this logic, a 2.0 ghz Athlon 64 would be like a V10 - V12 and a 2.0 ghz Pentium 4 would be like an inline 4...?

[bill1971]

Smidley:

I believe the Intel pipeline error thingy is more appropriately called "branch prediction." (Someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Another way of explaining the difference is that, the AMDs execute more instructions per clock cycle than the Intel chips. But I do like that 4 cyl - 6 cyl. analogy.

Most around here think very highly of AMD chips, as far as price/performance. And as I've always said, if not for AMD, we'd stilll be paying $300 for a PIII 500. $50 - $60 for 2+ GHz performance - that's the effect of competition. And we all benefit.

- Bill

[John Prophet]

I have sometimes looked at it with the analogy of an engine and a transmission....intel has the better engine but AMD has a higher gear ratio


so the intel engine has to run at 7500 rpms to get what the AMD gets at say, 5500 rpms.

----

basically the way the chips are made...the AMD "does more work per cpu cycle".....so the intel has to run faster to do the same work.

----

the intel is like a drag racer...it goes great in a straight line (cuz of the long "pipeline") but the AMD is more agile in the corners like an indy car..it can switch directions a lot better.

---

or you can look at it like an assembly line...the intel assembly line (pipeline) is longer...so when you stay one on "run" you can really get it rolling...but then when you have to "re-tool" to make another product (say, when you close solitaire and open word)...the AMD can "re-tool" quicker cuz the assembly line is shorter.

-----

here are some great tech articles if you want to do some reading http://arstechnica.com/cpu/index.html


JP

[Omardeth]

Smidley it is not so much the size of the engine i used to explain it , more the rpm's part .

the "pipelines " is the true answer . amd has shorter "pipelines" more is done per cycle than intels longer "pipelines"

JP put it good . but i use the engine analogy because most guys understand cars .

and lets face it 250hp outta a 4 banger is scream'n