General discussion

Locked

CPU Comparisons

By bldsm ·
Hi

I have a laptop with an AMD Athlon XP 2.8Ghz CPU. I am looking at an AMD Athlon 64 processor 3000+.

A shop told me that the 3000+ had a ghz rating of 2.6 ghz.

Questions:

1. Is the 3000+ faster than my laptop 2.8 Ghz?

2. Does the 3000+ run at 3.0Ghz (as I thought it would)?

3. For photoshop work is it better to buy a P4 3200+ or an AMD Athlon 64 3000+?

4. Some laptops have a CPU rating of 1.3 Ghz and I wonder why anyone would buy a slow CPU when the new ones are out at 3.2 Ghz? What is the reasoning behind this (maybe the 1.3 Ghz is a new sort)

I have looked up many sites to explain these but its all far too complicated.

Thanks
Bruce (very confused)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

12 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

by Absolutely In reply to CPU Comparisons

Athlon XP processors have ratings up to 3200+, but their actual rating is less. I'm not precisely sure about mobile Athlons, but my desktop Athlon XP 3200+ runs at 2200GHz. Whenever you look at an AMD chip model, numbers followed by + are NOT the processor's clock frequency. Those numbers ARE based on an algorithm used to compare performance to previous AMD chips. It's a system AMD started using when they fell behind Intel in CPU speed, but it is also considered a reasonable indicator of performance in most common applications.

1. 3000+ is probably not faster in frequency than your laptop, but will finish tasks faster for you due to other improvements in the chip's architecture.

2. 3000+ does not run at 3.0GHz.

3. Pentium does not use + with their processors. The general rule I use is to consider the number AMD uses, put my finger over the +, and compare to an Intel chip with a frequency that matches AMD's number. Deciding on price this way has left me with AMD for several consecutive processors.

But you have not mentioned your motherboard, and close with (very confused), so I have to ask if you are planning to purchase a new one. If not, you need to know that AMD and Intel processors do not fit into the same motherboards. I don't use Photoshop myself, but you are talking about pretty current processors, which means they will both be adequate for a similar time. The reason that AMD's algorithm and use of + does not cause them trouble for false advertising is that overall it is a good inidicator of comparative performance. It may be faster for some tasks and slower in others, but the differences either way are minor enough. I'd personally favor the AMD 64 just because I have the impression it will be supported longer and better, so you can upgrade the processor without another new motherboard. However, the processors themselves should be very comparable.

4. Slow is the norm for very small laptops that are designed for maximum portabil

Collapse -

by Absolutely In reply to

Sorry. TR told me this post was too long and I would have to shorten it, thus the second message and this one being cut off.

Collapse -

by bldsm In reply to

thanks for your effort - appreciate it.

Collapse -

by Absolutely In reply to CPU Comparisons

Whenever you look at an AMD chip model, numbers followed by + are NOT the processor's clock frequency. Those numbers ARE based on an algorithm used to compare performance to previous AMD chips. It's a system AMD started using when they fell behind Intel in CPU speed, but it is also considered a reasonable indicator of performance in most common applications.

1. 3000+ is probably not faster in frequency than your laptop, but will finish tasks faster for you due to other improvements in the chip's architecture.

2. 3000+ does not run at 3.0GHz.

3. Pentium does not use + with their processors. The general rule I use is to consider the number AMD uses, put my finger over the +, and compare to an Intel chip with a frequency that matches AMD's number. Deciding on price this way has left me with AMD for several consecutive processors.

But you will also have to consider what motherboard will be matched with this processor. I don't use Photoshop myself, but you are talking about pretty current processors, which means they will both be adequate for a similar time. I'd personally favor the AMD 64 mostly because I have the impression it will be supported longer and better, so you can upgrade the processor without another new motherboard. However, the processors themselves should be very comparable.

4. Slow is the norm for very small laptops that are designed for maximum portability, and only (relatively) basic functionality. The thinness prevents the airflow that would be required to keep a brand new, high-end CPU from overheating, and then the computer would reboot every few minutes.

Collapse -

by bldsm In reply to

thanks for your effort - appreciate it.

Collapse -

by softcorp.us In reply to CPU Comparisons

Hello Bruce...

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT CPUs

- AMD uses the nnnn+ labelling because their CPU architecture produces greater performance than Intel's at the same clock speed.

- The AMD nnnn+ numbers indicate about what the comparable Intel CPU would be. So, if you have an AMD Athlon 3000+, it is about the same speed as an Intel Pentium 4 running at 3000MHz = 3GHz.

- By analogy: You have two cars, one in first gear, and the second in 3rd gear, and both are travelling at 30 MPH. The engine in the first car will be running a lot faster (RPM) than the engine in the second car. The Intel CPU is the first car. The AMD CPU is in the second car.


ABOUT LEVEL 2 CACHE (L2)
The CPU often has to wait to get access to RAM. It asks for the contents and then waits until it arrives across the memory bus. These tiny little waits add up significantly and slow down performance. The purpose of L2 cache it to speed up access to RAM by storing a small amount of it for quick access. The L2 cache is very fast and the CPU doesn't have to wait as long, or not at all, in order to get information out of it. When the CPU requests memory, if it is already in the L2 cache, it comes back right away. Generally, the larger the L2 cache, the less the CPU waits and the faster it performs.

(continued in a comment...)

Collapse -

by softcorp.us In reply to

ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS

Q1. Is the 3000+ faster than my laptop 2.8 Ghz?
A1: The CPU will be about 7% faster. If all other things are completely equal, you won't notice this difference.

Q2. Does the 3000+ run at 3.0Ghz (as I thought it would)?
A2: No. But, it will perform about the same as an Intel 3.0GHz Pentium 4 CPU. It doesn't matter, but the clock speed of an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ CPU is 2GHz.

Q3. For photoshop work is it better to buy a P4 3200+ or an AMD Athlon 64 3000+?
A3: The P4 CPU will be about 6.6% faster. If all other things are identical, there will be no perceptable difference. Both will perform very well.

Q4. Some laptops have a CPU rating of 1.3 Ghz and I wonder why anyone would buy a slow CPU when the new ones are out at 3.2 Ghz? What is the reasoning behind this (maybe the 1.3 Ghz is a new sort)
A4: I presume the 1.3 GHz CPUs you are speaking about are the so-called "Pentium M" ones. These Pentium M CPUs have additional L2 cache that makes them actually perform a lot faster than a 1.3 GHz Pentum 4 CPU (that has less L2 cache). A comparable Pentium 4 CPU would be about 2.0 GHz. So, a Pentium 4 3.2 GHz will be significantly faster than a Pentium 4 2.0 GHz, or a Pentium M 1.3 Ghz. However, there are other considerations when it comes to choosing a notebook CPU. The Pentium M draws a lot less power and therefore you get much better battery life for the same battery weight. Or, in order to get great battery life with a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 notebook, it would require a very heavy battery.


AN EXAMPLE: MYSELF
I have two computers that I use regularly, a notebook and a desktop. The notebook has a Pentium M 1.4 GHz and great battery life (easily several hours, weighs less than 4 lbs). The desktop has an AMD Athlon 2200+ (1.8 GHz). The notebook performs very well and does not seem slow at all. I do PhotoShop photo editing and other CPU-intensive things with the notebook just fine. The desktop is a little faster than the notebook, but not

Collapse -

by softcorp.us In reply to

AN EXAMPLE: MYSELF
I have two computers that I use regularly, a notebook and a desktop. The notebook has a Pentium M 1.4 GHz and great battery life (easily several hours, weighs less than 4 lbs). The desktop has an AMD Athlon 2200+ (1.8 GHz). The notebook performs very well and does not seem slow at all. I do PhotoShop photo editing and other CPU-intensive things with the notebook just fine. The desktop is a little faster than the notebook, but not a lot.

Collapse -

by bldsm In reply to

thanks for your effort - appreciate it.

Collapse -

by wlbowers In reply to CPU Comparisons

Laptops run a completely different structure on their cpu's. They can't stand the heat generation of a standard say P4.

AMD's have always had a performance advantage. As others have stated the AMD's performance is rated as a comparision to the Intel line as far as speed goes.

Try this site for some good reading.
http://www.anandtech.com

Comparing processors by the speed they run at doesn't get it any more.

Consider the Apple RISC PowerPc processor. It constantly kicks intels butt.

Now for the 64 bit processors. I could ramble on but if you go here:
http://tinyurl.com/dxw3o
You will get all kinds of comparision data.

Windows is releasing the 64 bit XP OS. You know that Adobe either has or will have 64 bit capable software.

I currently run a AMD 64 3200+ on an ASUS A8V Deluxe motherboard with 1gig of ram. I use it with Photoshop and video ripping software.

I can run multiple rips at the same time.

The perfect combination at this time would be Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
http://tinyurl.com/6jq6d
Dual SLI VGA cards
http://tinyurl.com/dtxcz
Max it out with Qualified Ram
High Capacity SATA drives in raid config
http://tinyurl.com/6hqyp

Good Luck Lee

Back to Hardware Forum
12 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums