can anyone give me there knowledge about these processers.

i heardthe AMD is 32bit and the pentium is 16
also some AMD's have 1600 and 2000 front side bus
while the pentiums are as much as 800

what does all this mean as far as performance,thanks alot


TD



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

"apdicenzo" <apdicenzo@cox.net> wrote in message news:<Vuapd.4029$SA.484@lakeread02>...
> can anyone give me there knowledge about these processers.
>
> i heardthe AMD is 32bit and the pentium is 16
> also some AMD's have 1600 and 2000 front side bus
> while the pentiums are as much as 800
>
> what does all this mean as far as performance,thanks alot
>
>
> TD

I can see that what you really want to know is what performs better.

I'm 90% sure of the following!

The AMD XP is 'equivalent' to the P4.
You have to match up the speeds.
The AMD Athlon XP 3000+ is 'equivalent' to the P4 3000MHz

Note, when AMD say their processor is 3000+, it's not 3GHz, it's
actually a bit over 2GHz, but since more work is done by the AMD
processor in each cycle(Hz), it works out to be equivalent to a P4
3GHz processor. The 3000+ is a PR (performance rating).

P4 processors do quad pump the FSB, whilst AMD Athlon XPs only dual
pump theirs. Intel also makes use of the dual inline facility of their
dual inline memory modules, AMD does not. But for some reason, the AMD
Athlon XP works out equivalent to the Intel P4 in terms of
performance. (No doubt they each have their strengths and weaknesses
for specific types of applications). Each has a large fan base.

see table here
http://www.quepublishing.com/article...39470&seqNum=2
P4s and AMD Athlon XP both interface with a 64-bit data bus and have
32-bit registers. So there's no difference there. Only the latest
processors have 64-bit registers.

> also some AMD's have 1600 and 2000 front side bus
no, that is a PR rating for the processor clock. Nothing to do with
the FSB or max speed of FSB that is supported.

The FSB is the bus that connects processor to the memory controller
which is in the northbridge.
The memory bus connects the memory controller to memory.

The athlon 64 has the memory controller on the die (on the processor).
The processor and memory are connected directly. There is no FSB, and
probably no 'memory bus'. The names are different.


P4 FSB speeds supported vary. Those p4 processors supporting 200MHz
FSB quad pump it, so market it as 800MHz. That is where you got that
800 number from.
And AMD Athlon XP with a 133MHz FSB dual pumps it to 333MHz. The
latest AMD Athlon XP has a 200MHz FSB dual pumped to 400MHz.

"apdicenzo" <apdicenzo@cox.net> wrote in message news:<Vuapd.4029$SA.484@lakeread02>...
> can anyone give me there knowledge about these processers.
>
> i heardthe AMD is 32bit and the pentium is 16
> also some AMD's have 1600 and 2000 front side bus
> while the pentiums are as much as 800
>
> what does all this mean as far as performance,thanks alot
>
>
> TD

I can see that what you really want to know is what performs better.

I'm 90% sure of the following!

The AMD XP is 'equivalent' to the P4.
You have to match up the speeds.
The AMD Athlon XP 3000+ is 'equivalent' to the P4 3000MHz

Note, when AMD say their processor is 3000+, it's not 3GHz, it's
actually a bit over 2GHz, but since more work is done by the AMD
processor in each cycle(Hz), it works out to be equivalent to a P4
3GHz processor. The 3000+ is a PR (performance rating).

P4 processors do quad pump the FSB, whilst AMD Athlon XPs only dual
pump theirs. Intel also makes use of the dual inline facility of their
dual inline memory modules, AMD does not. But for some reason, the AMD
Athlon XP works out equivalent to the Intel P4 in terms of
performance. (No doubt they each have their strengths and weaknesses
for specific types of applications). Each has a large fan base.

see table here
http://www.quepublishing.com/article...39470&seqNum=2
P4s and AMD Athlon XP both interface with a 64-bit data bus and have
32-bit registers. So there's no difference there. Only the latest
processors have 64-bit registers.

> also some AMD's have 1600 and 2000 front side bus
no, that is a PR rating for the processor clock. Nothing to do with
the FSB or max speed of FSB that is supported.

The FSB is the bus that connects processor to the memory controller
which is in the northbridge.
The memory bus connects the memory controller to memory.

The athlon 64 has the memory controller on the die (on the processor).
The processor and memory are connected directly. There is no FSB, and
probably no 'memory bus'. The names are different.


P4 FSB speeds supported vary. Those p4 processors supporting 200MHz
FSB quad pump it, so market it as 800MHz. That is where you got that
800 number from.
And AMD Athlon XP with a 133MHz FSB dual pumps it to 333MHz. The
latest AMD Athlon XP has a 200MHz FSB dual pumped to 400MHz.

can i just add my 2c worth, i love my P4's, but i'm working with some big
number crunching programs, and we're thinking about getting a couple of
64bit processors, now here's the thing, for the average user (gamer too)
there is no advantage as far as i can see (maybe i'm short sighted?) in
using 64bit? it doesn't actually work any faster, it just allows you to use
very very very large numbers without splitting a number into smaller 32bit
pieces, so unless you crunch serious scientific data then 64bit won't do
much for you, at least until we start getting more 64bit systems and
programs. buy a P4 if you can, one of the other comparable factors (and
quite importantly) is the L2 cache size, everyone knows that when you have
more memory your computer runs smoother, same for the memory cache,
especially when you are loading a system up (games, dvds, cds, mp3s you name
it) and also the hyperthread technology is pretty cool, it doesn't let you
do things faster, it just allows you to do two things "kind of at the same
time" so if something crashes it doesn't necesaarily take out all your
procesor time.

in short, if you want a great value easy flowing processor that kicks butt
in everything (except HUGE numbers) try and get ahold of a P4 hyperthreaded
extreme edition, has more L2 cache, better "effective" FSB, and kick butt
power, not to mention all of the other builtin multimedia bits and pieces
that i don't really know much about.

can i just add my 2c worth, i love my P4's, but i'm working with some big
number crunching programs, and we're thinking about getting a couple of
64bit processors, now here's the thing, for the average user (gamer too)
there is no advantage as far as i can see (maybe i'm short sighted?) in
using 64bit? it doesn't actually work any faster, it just allows you to use
very very very large numbers without splitting a number into smaller 32bit
pieces, so unless you crunch serious scientific data then 64bit won't do
much for you, at least until we start getting more 64bit systems and
programs. buy a P4 if you can, one of the other comparable factors (and
quite importantly) is the L2 cache size, everyone knows that when you have
more memory your computer runs smoother, same for the memory cache,
especially when you are loading a system up (games, dvds, cds, mp3s you name
it) and also the hyperthread technology is pretty cool, it doesn't let you
do things faster, it just allows you to do two things "kind of at the same
time" so if something crashes it doesn't necesaarily take out all your
procesor time.

in short, if you want a great value easy flowing processor that kicks butt
in everything (except HUGE numbers) try and get ahold of a P4 hyperthreaded
extreme edition, has more L2 cache, better "effective" FSB, and kick butt
power, not to mention all of the other builtin multimedia bits and pieces
that i don't really know much about.

why do i sound like a retard a week later?

why do i sound like a retard a week later?

the anonymity of usenet results in a phenomena whereby instead of
people talking to themselves, they can post here instead ;)

seriously though, it was an interesting read - in a good way.
Often I tend to sound like a retard when I read it the next day

the anonymity of usenet results in a phenomena whereby instead of
people talking to themselves, they can post here instead ;)

seriously though, it was an interesting read - in a good way.
Often I tend to sound like a retard when I read it the next day

why do i sound like a retard a week later?

the anonymity of usenet results in a phenomena whereby instead of
people talking to themselves, they can post here instead ;)

seriously though, it was an interesting read - in a good way.
Often I tend to sound like a retard when I read it the next day