AMD XP2500 = 2.4Ghz Intel

[AMDBarton2500]

I see people making this comparison all the time. And I guess AMD uses that number as "comparable to Intel" thing or whatever the case is here....

The question is how do these 2 really compare (without overclocking of course, since you can do that to both)

AMD runs at like 1.83 Ghz while Intel acctually runs at 2.4 ghz. In what ways is AMD better and worst statistic wise......I need numbers here. Proof....


And if it really is comparable how does Intel get away with making so much money? $90 vs. $160

Personally I always heard good about AMD and have great experiance with AMD. I've used Intel mostly at work.......and they work great also. No bad experiances.....

And how the hell is it that my computer seems faster then my 2.8 Ghz Dell GX260 thats at work????

 

[Gravity]

There's many factors at work here. Bus speed, drive rotation speed, ram timings, etc. They all contribut to overall performance. AMD rox IMHO though.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Yeah, that's about right - XP2500+ is about the speed of a P4 2.4B (533 FSB) (it's faster than a P4 2.4A with a 400Mhz FSB).

Remember that most XP2500+ chips overclock to 3200+ speed (2.2 Ghz, 200Mhz FSB, 200MHz DDR) which is comparable roughly to a P4 2.8B or 3.06 (both have a 533 MHz FSB).

The P4 2.4B is a mixed bag but most recent steppings actually get to ~3.1 Ghz, which (since you have to run a 172 Mhz FSB instead of the stock 133 MHz to get this fast) is actually probably 5-10% faster than the XP @ 2.2 GHz (3200+). I have to admit I'm pulling this stat out of my @$$ here - I have a P4 2.4B but didn't benchmark it much because I got my "C" chip soon after, which just crushes it.


Note that the P4 C chips smoke the Athlons, especially overclocked. A P4 2.8C (800Mhz FSB, hyperthreading) is faster than an XP 3200+ at pretty much everything. Even the 2.4C is great because they pretty much all overclock to 3 GHz or above, which kills any Athlon out there (except for the Opterons/Athlon 64's).

Intel charges more for a number of reasons: mostly brand name recognition, the fact that they are the market leader, performance (only now with the "C" chips .. before it was a myth that Intel's P4 was significantly faster). AMD has to charge so much less because they unfortunately have a much smaller market share, much worse brand recognition (even today many people don't know what an "Athlon" is).


If you're looking at a P4 2.4C (or 2.6C, which is the same price) then another reason why it's more money is that it actually is a good margin faster than the 2500+ (its considerably faster before overclocking either, and gets an even bigger margin after overclocking due to the insanely high FSB/memory speed).

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Someone else can address the PR rating. Comparing your home computer to your work computer should be easy. Depending on where you are, you probably have a professioinally paranoic administrator. He or she would be happiest if you didn't use the computer at all. Mine at work has the most restrictive suite of stuff on it I have ever seen. Proxy servers, Internet restrictions, applications from the server not the local drive.

I am amazed that I can get anything done at all. I also realize that there are good reasons for each and every layer of crap that is poured onto "work" station. It's funny that the internet restriction software uses a big red hand to display your page that you cannot access. Many of these are work related. Sigh, workers with too much time on their hands have made this necessary.

Microsoft Office seems to run from the servers. I have learned to never copy and paste while using Word. It is hideously slow. Yes, your Dell at work should be rompin' stompin' fast. The shackles of IS are upon you! What can you do? Absolutely nothng except refrain from activity that will make the dungeon deeper. I heard they summarily executed the last employee that attempted to install a policy editor. That was in the Windows 95 days.

I wish we used fast, thin client applications at work. We do the same thing over and over again without much need for power of Office but yet it is there. Oh well, at least they pay me and the checks don't bounce.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Anand's review of the P4 "C" chips sums it up nicely and you can see how they get a huge performance boost over similar clock-speed "B" chips. Read the review and it should tell you all you need to know.

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
Someone else can address the PR rating. Comparing your home computer to your work computer should be easy. Depending on where you are, you probably have a professioinally paranoic administrator. He or she would be happiest if you didn't use the computer at all. Mine at work has the most restrictive suite of stuff on it I have ever seen. Proxy servers, Internet restrictions, applications from the server not the local drive.

I am amazed that I can get anything done at all. I also realize that there are good reasons for each and every layer of crap that is poured onto "work" station. It's funny that the internet restriction software uses a big red hand to display your page that you cannot access. Many of these are work related. Sigh, workers with too much time on their hands have made this necessary.

Microsoft Office seems to run from the servers. I have learned to never copy and paste while using Word. It is hideously slow. Yes, your Dell at work should be rompin' stompin' fast. The shackles of IS are upon you! What can you do? Absolutely nothng except refrain from activity that will make the dungeon deeper. I heard they summarily executed the last employee that attempted to install a policy editor. That was in the Windows 95 days.

I wish we used fast, thin client applications at work. We do the same thing over and over again without much need for power of Office but yet it is there. Oh well, at least they pay me and the checks don't bounce.

^ What the heck? Who's question are you answering here, TRUMPHENT?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Grr. Double post.

 

[AMDBarton2500]

Still no #s though....how does 2500 exactly even comper to 2.4Ghz Intel.......I dont get it.

 

[Richdog]

Heard of Google? Search for the benchmarks, it will take you about 5 minutes max, far quicker than waiting for an answer on here.:beer:

CLICK ME AND SEARCH DAMMIT

 

[Shimmishim]

hey! that's my homepage!

 

[Mloot]

Here ya go.

 

[hytek369]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Yeah, that's about right - XP2500+ is about the speed of a P4 2.4B (533 FSB) (it's faster than a P4 2.4A with a 400Mhz FSB).

Remember that most XP2500+ chips overclock to 3200+ speed (2.2 Ghz, 200Mhz FSB, 200MHz DDR) which is comparable roughly to a P4 2.8B or 3.06 (both have a 533 MHz FSB).

The P4 2.4B is a mixed bag but most recent steppings actually get to ~3.1 Ghz, which (since you have to run a 172 Mhz FSB instead of the stock 133 MHz to get this fast) is actually probably 5-10% faster than the XP @ 2.2 GHz (3200+). I have to admit I'm pulling this stat out of my @$$ here - I have a P4 2.4B but didn't benchmark it much because I got my "C" chip soon after, which just crushes it.


Note that the P4 C chips smoke the Athlons, especially overclocked. A P4 2.8C (800Mhz FSB, hyperthreading) is faster than an XP 3200+ at pretty much everything. Even the 2.4C is great because they pretty much all overclock to 3 GHz or above, which kills any Athlon out there (except for the Opterons/Athlon 64's).

Intel charges more for a number of reasons: mostly brand name recognition, the fact that they are the market leader, performance (only now with the "C" chips .. before it was a myth that Intel's P4 was significantly faster). AMD has to charge so much less because they unfortunately have a much smaller market share, much worse brand recognition (even today many people don't know what an "Athlon" is).


If you're looking at a P4 2.4C (or 2.6C, which is the same price) then another reason why it's more money is that it actually is a good margin faster than the 2500+ (its considerably faster before overclocking either, and gets an even bigger margin after overclocking due to the insanely high FSB/memory speed).

very impressive summary, thank you

 

[DragonFire]

"Still no #s though....how does 2500 exactly even comper to 2.4Ghz Intel.......I dont get it. "

Its rather simple, AMD uses shorter pipelines in its cpus meaning it can do more work per cycle over a P4. Think of it like this an AMD 2500+ is a V8 engine while a P4 2.4 is a V6. If both engines were to go up a hill, the AMD V8 would need to use less RPMS (AKA MHZ) over the Intel V6 to get up that hill. Make sense? If Intel were to use shorter pipelines in there P4 core like AMD did, Intel wouldnt have a P4 running at 3Ghz. In fact I do believe there is a article somewhere that I'll try to find that even points out that Intel had to roads with the P4, they either make there chips do lots of work per cycle or make them going blazing fast. You can guess what road Intel picked....perhaps because the avg computer user is clueless about such things and is brainwashed my all the Intel TV ADS. Whats worse is Intel has to add speical adtives to there V6 engine (SSE3, HT) in order to beat AMDs V8 that doesnt need anything extra.

Now that is just how I see it and understand it. Its also the best way I can explain it. Above all IMO. If anyone else would like to explain it in a differnet way or would like point out where Im wrong, knock yourself out.

 

[nimo]

I think the real question should be: Do 2 Athlons beat one P4C with HT?

Now if only we had an nforce 2 dual mobo for Xp

 

[AMDBarton2500]

Originally posted by: DragonFire
"Still no #s though....how does 2500 exactly even comper to 2.4Ghz Intel.......I dont get it. "

Its rather simple, AMD uses shorter pipelines in its cpus meaning it can do more work per cycle over a P4. Think of it like this an AMD 2500+ is a V8 engine while a P4 2.4 is a V6. If both engines were to go up a hill, the AMD V8 would need to use less RPMS (AKA MHZ) over the Intel V6 to get up that hill. Make sense? If Intel were to use shorter pipelines in there P4 core like AMD did, Intel wouldnt have a P4 running at 3Ghz. In fact I do believe there is a article somewhere that I'll try to find that even points out that Intel had to roads with the P4, they either make there chips do lots of work per cycle or make them going blazing fast. You can guess what road Intel picked....perhaps because the avg computer user is clueless about such things and is brainwashed my all the Intel TV ADS. Whats worse is Intel has to add speical adtives to there V6 engine (SSE3, HT) in order to beat AMDs V8 that doesnt need anything extra.

Now that is just how I see it and understand it. Its also the best way I can explain it. Above all IMO. If anyone else would like to explain it in a differnet way or would like point out where Im wrong, knock yourself out.

Interasting.....its pretty cool to see different views from different people. People with Intels swear by the stuff and so do AMD people.....

Personally I think its pointless to by any "new" or "latest" technology. Its great don't get me wrong but its just not cost effective. Your XP3200 or 3.2Ghz will be 1/2 price within 6 months......I think its better to get something in the middle and upgrade a year or 2 from now. Thats one of the reasons why I went with AMD. 90 bucks now and less then $100 for XP3200 when I need to upgrade.

Keep'em coming fellas...

 

[Jeff7181]

I can't figure out the point of this post... people have posted links to information that shows you the difference and you say you want numbers... there ARE numbers if you click those links... but you're still not satisfied and you're asking for more... what kind of info are you looking for?

 

[AMDBarton2500]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I can't figure out the point of this post... people have posted links to information that shows you the difference and you say you want numbers... there ARE numbers if you click those links... but you're still not satisfied and you're asking for more... what kind of info are you looking for?

I read the links......many of these are very one sided though.....I just want to see more opinions thats all.

 

[BlvdKing]

From the benchmarks I have seen in mainboard reviews on Hardocp, the performance of the 2500+ is sometimes better and sometimes worse than the 2.4C, but not by much either way.

Each CPU is better at certain apps. The apps you use determine which is better for you.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

"And how the hell is it that my computer seems faster then my 2.8 Ghz Dell GX260 thats at work???? "

From the initial post of the thread. His work computer is probably heavily managed, monitored, monogrammed and muzzled by the network administrator. His home computer is probably very opposite.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: AMDBarton2500

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I can't figure out the point of this post... people have posted links to information that shows you the difference and you say you want numbers... there ARE numbers if you click those links... but you're still not satisfied and you're asking for more... what kind of info are you looking for?

I read the links......many of these are very one sided though.....I just want to see more opinions thats all.

AnandTech's isn't one sided... numbers don't lie and they show you the numbers.

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: AMDBarton2500

Originally posted by: DragonFire
"Still no #s though....how does 2500 exactly even comper to 2.4Ghz Intel.......I dont get it. "

Its rather simple, AMD uses shorter pipelines in its cpus meaning it can do more work per cycle over a P4. Think of it like this an AMD 2500+ is a V8 engine while a P4 2.4 is a V6. If both engines were to go up a hill, the AMD V8 would need to use less RPMS (AKA MHZ) over the Intel V6 to get up that hill. Make sense? If Intel were to use shorter pipelines in there P4 core like AMD did, Intel wouldnt have a P4 running at 3Ghz. In fact I do believe there is a article somewhere that I'll try to find that even points out that Intel had to roads with the P4, they either make there chips do lots of work per cycle or make them going blazing fast. You can guess what road Intel picked....perhaps because the avg computer user is clueless about such things and is brainwashed my all the Intel TV ADS. Whats worse is Intel has to add speical adtives to there V6 engine (SSE3, HT) in order to beat AMDs V8 that doesnt need anything extra.

Now that is just how I see it and understand it. Its also the best way I can explain it. Above all IMO. If anyone else would like to explain it in a differnet way or would like point out where Im wrong, knock yourself out.

Interasting.....its pretty cool to see different views from different people. People with Intels swear by the stuff and so do AMD people.....

Personally I think its pointless to by any "new" or "latest" technology. Its great don't get me wrong but its just not cost effective. Your XP3200 or 3.2Ghz will be 1/2 price within 6 months......I think its better to get something in the middle and upgrade a year or 2 from now. Thats one of the reasons why I went with AMD. 90 bucks now and less then $100 for XP3200 when I need to upgrade.

Keep'em coming fellas...

Good point thats why I bought my 2.4C for ~$140 so I can throw in a 3.2 later. Oh wait my 2.4C is at 3.5... No need to upgrade so I save that extra cash and make my decision to switch from the Athlon to the P4 even sweeter.

 

[AMDBarton2500]

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: AMDBarton2500

Originally posted by: DragonFire
"Still no #s though....how does 2500 exactly even comper to 2.4Ghz Intel.......I dont get it. "

Its rather simple, AMD uses shorter pipelines in its cpus meaning it can do more work per cycle over a P4. Think of it like this an AMD 2500+ is a V8 engine while a P4 2.4 is a V6. If both engines were to go up a hill, the AMD V8 would need to use less RPMS (AKA MHZ) over the Intel V6 to get up that hill. Make sense? If Intel were to use shorter pipelines in there P4 core like AMD did, Intel wouldnt have a P4 running at 3Ghz. In fact I do believe there is a article somewhere that I'll try to find that even points out that Intel had to roads with the P4, they either make there chips do lots of work per cycle or make them going blazing fast. You can guess what road Intel picked....perhaps because the avg computer user is clueless about such things and is brainwashed my all the Intel TV ADS. Whats worse is Intel has to add speical adtives to there V6 engine (SSE3, HT) in order to beat AMDs V8 that doesnt need anything extra.

Now that is just how I see it and understand it. Its also the best way I can explain it. Above all IMO. If anyone else would like to explain it in a differnet way or would like point out where Im wrong, knock yourself out.

Interasting.....its pretty cool to see different views from different people. People with Intels swear by the stuff and so do AMD people.....

Personally I think its pointless to by any "new" or "latest" technology. Its great don't get me wrong but its just not cost effective. Your XP3200 or 3.2Ghz will be 1/2 price within 6 months......I think its better to get something in the middle and upgrade a year or 2 from now. Thats one of the reasons why I went with AMD. 90 bucks now and less then $100 for XP3200 when I need to upgrade.

Keep'em coming fellas...

Good point thats why I bought my 2.4C for ~$140 so I can throw in a 3.2 later. Oh wait my 2.4C is at 3.5... No need to upgrade so I save that extra cash and make my decision to switch from the Athlon to the P4 even sweeter.

I got a XP3200 for 88 bucks.......