Pentium 4 vs. Athlon XP

[Kicket]

seems like these days AMD processors performs extremely well. Let's compare these 2 kind of processors, Pentium has higher clocked speed and 400~533 FSB and AMD has lower clocked speed and only 266~333 FSB.

But for some reason, an AMD XP1600 at speed of 1.40g 266FSB
will have the almostsame performance of a P4 at speed of 1.7g 400FSB. But the AMD XP1600 cost under $60 bucks.

i saw those benchmarks compares Athlon XP with P4, it's just amazing how well those Athlon's scores are. I don't get it, why?
ff

 

[crwpulsar]

AMD use quantispeed technology whih means the processor has a higher IPC(instruction per clock) number.A pentium 2.0Ghz does 2 billion binary instructions per second while the AMD does 1.6 billion but using quantispeed it can utilise this clocks much better, ie do more work.
Both processors run on the same technology 0.13micron but Intel has been testing 0.09 micron technology this year, no doubt AMD are to.
Intels run on speedstep so the frequency will drop if the temp goes higher, AMD dont!
Really it depends on your preference of which chip you want to use...some like AMD, some Intel.I myself prefer Intel but in saying that im biased as I do quite well from Intel Corp!check out

http://www.tomshardware.com

for more info.
HTH
)
David

 

[Kicket]

i see, i didn't realize that Quanti-Speed Tech does that much of effects. Does most AMD like XP1600 still on 0.18 micron? i thought only those new Thoroughbred are using the new .13 micron chip. And the .13 micron only give a 5% increase in performance and this thing gets kind hot.
ff

 

[mithrilhall]

I know that AMD is working on a new x86-64 architecture that will be backward compatibile.

I've heard that Intel is working on a 64bit architecture as well but it won't be backward compatible. ====================================
I love people. They taste just like
chicken!

http://mithrilhall.redirectme.net

 

[crwpulsar]

It does run hotter, as you drop the level on which you manufacture the transistor you have to drop voltages and such but it has to be at a certain level or else the MOSFETs in the core wont work as it should and thats were the heat problem comes in!...really boring stuff
but u could be right regarding the current technologies used by AMD....not really sure!
The new intels are hyper-treading based CPU's which allows the CPU to precess 2 pices of data at once...problem is software has to be designed/redisigned for hyper-treading.
I dont the exact difference in IPC but i think it is 4/5 to 3 in favour of the AMD.

 

[ceh4702]

AMD has been using 64 bit registers for a long time in their processors. And yes they are of course designed to be backward compatable.

I still like intel better.
If you do not like my post feel free to point out your opinion or my errors.

 

[mithrilhall]

http://www.x86-64.org/

I personally like AMD better but that's just my opinion.

I like the fact that Intel is around and I'm sure those people that LOVE Intel appreciate AMD being around because if either company were not around the price of CPUs would be much higher. ====================================
I love people. They taste just like
chicken!

http://mithrilhall.redirectme.net

 

[Kicket]

lol, that IS TRUE.
i personally hope more people like Intel =)
for my money's sake



ff

 

[cdogg]

Another big difference between the Athlon XP and the Pentium 4 is their core architecture. AMD is still using an architecture that dates back to late 1998. The P4 came out in mid-2000 using a completely revamped pipeline architecture. It uses a much longer pipeline which gives the advantage of processing larger chunks of data/instructions at once. However, many applications (office apps, some games) don't need the longer pipeline.

In fact, it actually hurts them. It gets kind of complicated, but there is a lot of caching and "guessing" as to what the user will do next in an office application. If the wrong thing is cached, the entire pipeline has to be flushed before the next instruction can go through. Longer pipelines take a longer time to flush, which explains why the Athlon excels at certain apps. The P4 usually excels at audio encoding, some games, etc, where it's just straight processing large chunks of data and doesn't rely on "guessing".

I'm not trying to get too technical, but just know that neither architecture is superior to the other. They both have their advantages. The only real advantage that Intel has is sheer "horsepower". The P4 architecture will carry them into the 5GHz range eventually topping out around 10GHz. The Athlon XP, as many already know, is coming to the end of the line.

Sure, it might take 300 more MHz from the P4 to match the Athlon, but Intel has plenty to spare. In the end, we're the ones who benefit from such heated competition.


~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein