This is just a thought. Why does AMD have lower clocks than Intel? You can get a processor almost the same price of an Intel for over 3GHz. I ended up buying a Intel processor and have 3.6GHz and could have bought a AMD for 2.4GHz. I don't know if I'm satisfied now. What do you guys think?

hard to come to a reason , but I run AMD and have some good over clocks on them. and am every happy with them. I have never really been happy with intel. You like what the chip is giving you?

Quote: Originally Posted by fhsfiremanco1 hard to come to a reason , but I run AMD and have some good over clocks on them. and am every happy with them. I have never really been happy with intel. You like what the chip is giving you?

I have a Pentium D processor and it runs at 3.6 GHz. How well does yours overclock? what is yours running at?

there is a very good reason for older pentium 4 chips to have very high clock speeds and amd chips to not.

amd didnt need the high speed to get the same level of work or instructions per cycle done.

intel used netburst technoloy which while allowing for incredible speeds, did nothing good for processor strength in day to day activites over amd. intel dropped all that and went to Conroe or a version of the p3 architecture which while overclocking insanely as well, they are sppeed clocked with amd chisp and do a tad more work per cycle than the current crop of amd chips.

long and short of it. the intel older p4 chips were grossly inefficient when it came to heat produced and power needs. the pressler chips (last netburst chips) are much better at this, the core chips (conroe) are much better than amd atm in sinlge and dual core options.

my x2 4200 stock is 2.21 it has about a 10% over clock for 2.30 don't feel like going very high on a fast chip as is

There are alot of ppl hitting 2.7ghz and much higher on thier Opterons here. Myself, my Opteron 148 stock 2.2ghz is at 2.7, perfectly stable.

It's all to do with the PR (performance rating) system developed by AMD , here's a link that should clear it all up ...

I like to think of it in cars.

The P4 is the honda that may have 500hp but cant get it to the ground.

The AMD 64 is that charger with 500hp but has slicks.

Quote: Originally Posted by Jager there is a very good reason for older pentium 4 chips to have very high clock speeds and amd chips to not. amd didnt need the high speed to get the same level of work or instructions per cycle done. intel used netburst technoloy which while allowing for incredible speeds, did nothing good for processor strength in day to day activites over amd. intel dropped all that and went to Conroe or a version of the p3 architecture which while overclocking insanely as well, they are sppeed clocked with amd chisp and do a tad more work per cycle than the current crop of amd chips. long and short of it. the intel older p4 chips were grossly inefficient when it came to heat produced and power needs. the pressler chips (last netburst chips) are much better at this, the core chips (conroe) are much better than amd atm in sinlge and dual core options.

It also has to do with Pipelines. AMD has way more pipelines than Intel which allows more work per cycle to be done. I myself like AMDs Philosphy on the CPU war (aka, Lets do more work per cycle rather than clock this SOB as high as we can). Of course if a CPU had both a large number of pipelines and high speed as well, the results would be great.

Ok, one question. What do you guys prefer more. AMD or Intel?

right now AMD 64 chips are on top, in less than 3 weeks, conroe comes out and itll change to intel.

but most of us are not after the most bleeding edge hardware. we just want it to work and work well.

that and conroe systems are out of my price range atm.

heres hoping for a review

I haven't really studied this lately. But in the past Intel's ran at a higher Frequency but performed less
instructions per cycle (3 GHz = 3000 cycles). And AMD's run at a lower Frequency but they perform
more instructions per cycle. So a lower speed AMD could keep pace with a higher speed Intel in
most instances. Nowadays AMD has taken a big lead in gaming performance but Intel maybe catching
up/or passing them with their new chip. Only time will tell :-)

Like Jager states.... "Netburst" will soon be "obsolete"... So I think, in a few weeks, things will be MUCH clearer.... when we'll find out the "actual standings" between AM2 & Conroe...

TDR

Quote: Originally Posted by raydub Ok, one question. What do you guys prefer more. AMD or Intel?

AMD For me, Some people are Bi Sexual when it comes to CPU's...

ADD: I used the term bi-sexual in no means to be offensive (although, I dont know who would), but it best describes are how some people are when it comes to CPUs.

I prefer AMD myself all the way over Intel.

AMD for a desktop. Pentium M or P3 or core duo for laptop.

AMD doesnt seem very well suited for portability.

Quote: Originally Posted by post_break AMD for a desktop. Pentium M or P3 or core duo for laptop. AMD doesnt seem very well suited for portability.

What about thr Turion?

Quote: Originally Posted by Nerdz What about thr Turion?

Look at some reviews, Core Duo's spank Turions as a mobile solution without a doubt...

Quote: Originally Posted by EvilClown Look at some reviews, Core Duo's spank Turions as a mobile solution without a doubt...

True, but having said that, the Turion is still a very capable mobile solution and with a top part clocked at 2.4ghz, it's very competent in single-threaded apps.

I run AMD the only chips i well buy (as it stands now) but i have a P3 rig. One of my friends give me a whole computer so i choped and moded it.

and if anyone wants to know i have two AMD rigs. One intel rig that was given to me.