Edit: ignore this more than usual.
Edit: ignore this more than usual.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Before Core 2 Duo there was the Pentium D, who's competition came in the form of AMD's X2 CPU's.
Now aside from it being common knowledge that X2's walked all over Pentium D's (including in video editing), according to this...
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=439&chart=185
... it took a 3.2GHz clocked Pentium D to defeat the entry level X2 (3800+) which was clocked at just 2GHz.
And before that the single core AMD 64's laughed at Pentium 4's.
It's true that before Core 2 Duo, Intel cores were 'good' at number crunching, but only 'good' as far as they didn't get royally owned by AMD CPU's *as much* in tasks of this nature.
Don't be such a mindless fanboy, the fact is that AMD CPU's have been 'better' than Intel's for the past few years and it's only down to Core 2 Duo that this is now no longer the case.
EDIT: Sorry for messing up your thread but nvening below has done a good job of explaining what you need to know.
Basically clock speed is only a valid comparison between processors belonging to the same family.
For example in a comparison between two C2Ds clocked at 3GHz and 3.5GHz the 3.5GHz would be faster. However if you then tried to compare it to a net burst (aka pentium 4) even a 4GHz model would be much slower than a 3GHz C2D.
This is because of differences in how the processor works (that's the technical bit )
Also you have to factor in other differences for example the number of cores and the cache sizes.
Bottom line is your 2GHz AMD64 will be a lot slower than a C2D 2.13GHz despite the small difference in clock speed.
And DirectX 10 is to do with graphics cards not processors.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Thats a little bit of a one sided assessment.
The original Katmai core Pentium III's with there external, half core speed, L2 cache were definately behind the Slot A Athlon's.
The Coppermine core introduced on-die L2 running at full speed as well as fixing a pipeline stall issue in the P6 microarchitecture and clock-for-clock were definately competitive with the even the early socketed Athlon's.
Some of the Coppermine CPU's were legendary overclockers. I still have fond memories of my Pentium III 700MHz SL45Y.
Using a Slocket + Abit BE6-II RAID that was able to scale over 1GHz stablely with a decent aircooler and a bit of a voltage bump.
Athlon XP vs. Pentium 4 Northwood as clockspeeds scaled up the Pentium 4 was the one to have, it was commonly acknowledge that the Pentium 4 3.0/3.2GHz had the upper hand over the Athlon XP 3000/3200+ chips.
Even with early Athlon 64's it was certainly close in benchmarking terms.
The Pentium 4 Extreme Edition was competitive with the Athlon FX-51 and standard Northwoods against Socket 754 Athlon 64's was a similar story. Some benchmarks would go Intels way, other AMDs (and not just video encoding, games as well).
It was only really with the move to the Prescott core that Intel really fell behind.
Had it scaled as hoped then it could have been competitive but gate leakage on the 90nm process was its downfall.
The clockspeed limitations of the Prescott core were always a thermal limitation, electrically the CPUs pipeline stages were short enough that if you keep the temperature in check (talking here LN2) they can scale up to over 7GHz.
In fact as the 90nm process was tuned to reduce leakage many chips could hit 5GHz with reasonable cooling, although still at too higher wattage to make it commercially viable.
It's easy to look at the last two years and say its all been AMDs way, but looking at a broad cross-spectrum of benchmarks and before that the performance crown has been back and forth over the years.
ok - thanks all for the input - reckon I'm going to upgrade - have begun buying stuff anyway - and need dx10 for crysis !!!!!
Cheers!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)