I'm building a computer and I'm planning on putting a AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Venice processor in it. But it's only rated at 2.0 GHz, a freind of mine keeps saying that's it's still faster than an Intel running at say 3.7Ghz. How can this be or am i just that clueless?
your friend is half right. its not faster than a 3.7 but it is as fast as a 3.2 you cant compare mhz when comparing amd and intel. an amd cpu does more work per phz than an intel cpu. if your going to compare the 2 then just look at the amd model number eg. 3200+ is the same as a 3.2 intel p4
wtf?! only 2.0? it should be a 2.2 unless venice core ones are 2.0, which i wouldn't know. my mom has a 3200 running at 2.2ghz
I have the AMD 64 3200+ running at 2.20 GHZ. Awe-some speed and power! MovieDud 1600 FSB with 512 Ram, 320 GB HD (160 internal and 160 external) dual burner (Internal and external...both dual layer).
I'm AMD all the way, but 3.2GHz Intel woul dbe faster. Not by too much in "branchy" instruction sets, buy will perform like a high clock rate should in alot of areas. It seems, too may people get just a little carried away in the comparison. I'm not running any actually benchmarks here, but 2.2GHz 12 stage still doesn't stack up to a 3.2GHz 20 stage (depending on what core were talking about for Intel here). Intel's P4 pipeline was a huge mistake when they hit the thermal wall, but just try not to get carried away. I actually feel sorry for the guys, their architecture was looking at future clock rates of up to 10GHz, and that never happened, so they have to hide the huge mistake, and start pushing Pentium M in desktops and all. This isn't including Hyper-Threading either, any 3.2GHz P4 is going to have it. Just let it be know AMD has the superior architecture, and is much more bang for your buck. It definitely closes in on the 3.2GHz pentium 4 hyper-threading edition in the majority of everyday apps. AMD all the way baby...
just try load some cad to any intel and see how it performems after 2 hours, amd is just like that pink bunny it keeps on going & going and going,, wild intel gets slower and slower you get the picture,
there is nothing like a dual core, i just put together athlon 64 x2 4600 dual core, 2 bg ddr2 it fly´s, this make my 5th AMD pc it keeps getting better, intel is dead in the water, in performance and in cost, to get a deassent performance out of a intel you need lots more money, then what i spent in my AMD. the AMD cost $2892.00 to get the same in a intel it would cost $8947.93 so you fegure it out,and just for the CPU.
