Did you know?

[diurnal]

Ok XP 1500 is really 1.33GHZ. Im sure yall know this but do you know why its this , well because AMD claims its equilvant to a pentium 1.5GHZ.
To me thats False Advertisement. AMDXP 1500, but know its only 1.33 GHZ.
MAn whats up with that.?!

------------------
Murph's Law: 1.Everything takes longer than you think
2.If anything can go wrong it will
3.Nothing is as easy as it looks

[rond36]

MHz isn't a good measure of processor speed anymore AMD just became tired of comparing apples to oranges. The AMD Athlon XP 2000+ (1670MHz) does more operations per clock cycle then the Intel Pentium 4 2.0 (2000MHz). If you compare the two processors on work done in a given amount of time the Athlon XP kicks the P4's butt even though the Athlon XP has a slower clock rate. Check out this link to an article on Tom's Hardware Guide (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/index.html)

------------------
I think Windows XP and Microsoft use more of my bandwidth than I do!

[Gallaeglagh]

Actually the test results showed the new P4 solidly ahead in all the tests with the exclusion of compiling Linux and running office apps and both those were fairly close.

------------------
When in doubt search on Google

[Randy_tx]

The folks at AMD have been describing there CPU's as being "faster" than the actual MHZ rating for quite a while [think they picked up the idea from Cyrix]. The reason they have done so, is their cpu's have consistantly had a larger L2 cache (until P4)and would usually whip the Intel at the same MHZ rating. From everything I have seen the XP version of Athalon is faster than the Intel in nearly every test you can imagine right now. Many folks like me could care less......shoot, once you get up to about 1000 mhz you are going fast enough.

------------------
XP didn't save Me !

[pentachris]

Yeah, I think Cyrix started it with their P rating, like the P166 that ran at 133 mhz. Whether it performed like an Intel chip running 33 mhz faster or not is debatable. Whether it approached temperatures 33 degrees hotter than any Intel chip, well... http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/eek.gif

I wouldn't call it false advertising, just confusing for folks who aren't "in the know." AMD isn't saying the XP 1500 runs at 1500 mhz any more than Ford is saying their F350 truck has 350 horsepower. The only people it really matters to anyway are folks setting jumpers on mobo's for the chips - and their the ones "in the know."

------------------
...
If my computer were the eighth dwarf, it would be Dumpy.
-Chris

[yawningdog]

Whoa Randy tx. Are you saying that P4 has more cache than Athlon? Word from my wholesaler (who sells both) is that P4 has less cache than even the P3. Just a little over 200k if memory serves. (Pun intended)

------------------
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach him to use the net, and he wont bother you for weeks.

[hiredgoonz]

On the topic of benchmarks...the 2200Mhz P4 was ahead of the XP 2000+ in most benchmarks...as it should be...

On the other hand, a XP 2200+ would most likely be ahead of a 2200Mhz P4 on most benchmarks...

To me, this seems like a pretty good indication that AMD's performance ratings are accurate. The numbers are just to give you an idea of relative performance of their chip compared to the Mhz speed of a P4...

Intel knows that the vast majority of computer buyers look only at the Mz speed and the price of the system. So they designed a chip that has only one purpose in life: to ramp to insane clock speeds without comparable performance...



------------------
When all else fails, read the instructions.

[rond36]

Whoa Randy tx. Are you saying that P4 has more cache than Athlon? Word from my wholesaler (who sells both) is that P4 has less cache than even the P3. Just a little over 200k if memory serves. (Pun intended)
The new P4 Northwood has a 512KB L2 cache
My statement in my first post in this thread was meant to compare the XP 2000 and the P4 2000 and exclude the two Northwood chips the 2200A and the 2000A tired to edit but kept getting server errors till it was too late

------------------
I think Windows XP and Microsoft use more of my bandwidth than I do!
WindowsBBS.com (http://www.WindowsBBS.com/index.php?referrerid=115)

[JadedC36]

The P4 does indeed have less total cache, as the L1 is smaller. It doesn't use the level 1 cache the same as the PIII, or the AMD's do, and therefore cannot be compared.

------------------
Mike