View Full Version : Why do people say Intel's are faster than AMD.
I just don't understand it, somebody said that a 3Ghz AMDx2 6000+ is a bit slower than a 2.53GHz Intel core2duo processor. I just seems to make non sense what so ever! How can something that runs at 3GHz some how run slower that would be against the 1968 Trade description act saying a processor runs at 3GHz when it actually runs at only 5/6th of the speed said.
I can see why people say they are more efficient as the Manufacturing process is smaller i.e AMD are 90-65nm and Intel are 45nm but is this what affects the speed? I am confused please can somebody explain.
It is all about how many instructions per cycle (mhz) a processor does, Intel chips do more per cylce than AMD,
Now, before the Core2 processors AMD chips did more per cycle than Intel chips.
GHZ is not a benchmark of performance, and isnt claimed to be, while wetstone/drystone are a benchmark of cpu performance. AMD and intel always have used different technologies that mean that the performance is different clock for clock.
Try these articles, they may help:-
*raises hand* That'll be me who said that :P
Fact of the matter is, Intel and AMD's CPU designs are entirely different. Intel's Core architecture can do more work per MHz. Think of the frequency as the number of times an action repeats in a given space of time. I'm about to go a bit on a tangent and make an analogy.
Two neighbours return home at the exact time from the supermarket with the same number of bags (lets say 6) and with the same contents in them. One man's called AMD, the other Intel.
Mr AMD is tall, lanky (add glasses for nerd effect), but is a good runner. He picks up two bags from his car's boot, sprints to the house, drops them off, returns and repeats. He has to do this 3 times before he's moved all his bags into the house. He's also burnt more energy in the process.
Mr Intel is a bit chubbier (add a food stain for effect) walks but can carry more. He picks up three bags and waddles to the house and back. He only has to carry out the action twice.
Now returning to CPU's, this is why Intel's Core 2 Duo is faster. It can carry out more work per clock cycle due to higher efficiency of the CPU. Furthermore they consume far less power (65W vs 125W) and put out less heat. Another advantage of the Core 2 Duo is it's large Unified Level 2 cache. This fast set of memory allows some applications to load fast. In situations where only one of two cores can be utilised, all 2/3/4/6mb of cache (depending on CPU) is available whereas on the Athlon 64 X2, only one 1mb L2 bank out of the 2mb L2 total is available.
It's impossible to compare the two based on clock speed alone.
Basically the Intel processors at the moment are more efficient than the AMD ones. :rolleyes:
Ahhhh so they are the same speed?? i.e a 3GHz intel can do the same work as a 3Ghz AMD? That is what was implied by the tangent story, which was very usefull! Thank you for that!
I understand why Intel are more efficent because the manufacturing scale is alot smaller (45nm). So at the moment Intel are better just because they produce less heat?
Just going back to what I said before, AMD and Intel do run at the same speed but Intel produce less heat for the work that it does?
Oh dear, my analogy must've gone tits up because it should've implied that a 2Hz Intel man can do the same work as the 3Hz AMD man.
Generally speaking the Core 2 Duo 2.53GHz will match and sometimes beat the X2 6000+ but at a lower power consumption and lower heat output, yes.
No, you've miss understood again, an intel dual core @ 3.0Ghz will do more work than an AMD dual core @ 3.0Ghz the die size (ie 45nm) menas it consumes less power that also relates to less heat.
wowza simple google searches help me in situations where i cant understand things
yep google is always your best friend for that sort of thing...
LOL i did that and i just got a million articles that didn't make much sense to me :( well they just said that Intel was better but I couldn't work out why. But i shall re-read that thing about the too men. AHHHHH i think i have got it. Can a Intel do more work than a AMD (with the new cores) per cycle? So that a 3ghz intel can move 2 bricks per cycle a AMD can only move 1 brick per cycle? So they do just as many cycles but less is moved in them?!
Has Shed finally understood? :mrgreen:
looks like it, its a little more to it than that but thats the basics of it
Yep that's right. Good stuff :P
YUSSSSSSS I am happy wooo
Thanks alot people!
so why didnt the amd or intel guy jump to next version and get mrs intel or mrs amd to move the shopping?
lol please don't confuse me your "sendin' me west" ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.