well then buy the 2800
Pwolf
Best CPU
-
Pwolf
- Friendly Neighborhood Pwaffle
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 4:17 pm
- Location: Some where in California, I forgot :\
- Contact:
-
anime-dragon
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:03 pm
-
anime-dragon
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:03 pm
-
Hitori
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 1:10 am
- Status: I might be back.
- Location: New Mexico
- Contact:
-
anime-dragon
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:03 pm
-
dwchang
- Sad Boy on Site
- Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:22 am
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
I've missed out most of the conversation since I've been lazy, but I need to deal with a lot of the misconceptions here:
1) Heat
AMD runs cooler than Intel for the later stuff. The new Intel chip coming out (Prescott) runs at an average of 103 W and max at around 130 W while Athlons *maxes* in the 80's (averages in the 60's). For those who aren't engineers:
Power (W) ~ Heat (Joules)
And 103 W is nothing to laugh at. People are laughing since Intel might force their customers to go to a water cooling solution. The reason AMD has the reputation of being "hotter" is because of inadequate cooling. The "infamous" Tom's Hardware videos are because they took off the heatsink. Seriously, does anyone do something as stupid as that? No, of course not.
Now, I won't lie, Athlons are on average hotter than *lower end" P4's, but as I said, the new trend is the P4 being *much* hotter. In any case, if you have a good cooling solution, something in the 80's power-wise will probably be around 20 - 40 C.
2) Performance
I am seeing a *giant* misconception of performance made by some of you, mainly the one buying.
Mhz does not equal Performance
This is the biggest fallacy Intel has tricked the consumer into thinking. A great marketing move, but sucks for you guys. If any of you studied computer architecture in college like I did, you'd know that:
Performance = Speed (mhz) * Instructions per clock
It doesn't matter how fast you operate if you don't accomplish that much in it right? Say I run at 3 Ghz, but do 2 instructions per clock. Does that make me faster than someone running at 2 Ghz, but running 4 instructions per clock? Do the math.
The reason AMD has comprable performance to Intel at lower frequencies is because of a more efficiently designed core. We can output more instructions per clock. Now don't take the example above as fact, it's not the exact numbers, but you get the idea why we can compete at lower frequencies.
This was the main reason we went with the PR rating (i.e. a 2 Ghz part is a 2800+) since well...let's be honest, consumers think bigger numbers are better. Since a 2 Ghz Athlon is relatively equivalent to a 2.8 Ghz P4, it makes sense to market this way since they have the same performance. Laugh all you want, but our numbers from the industry show that it has accepted by industry and consumers as well.
I guess I need to get in my obligatory Intel bashing in so I'll try and explain why Intel went for an inefficient design. It's actually quite ingeniouis from a marketing standpoint. With a more inefficient core, you can jack up the frequency like crazy. It's just how it is from a design perspective. I could go into much more detail, but I won't.
Since they realized that consumers think Mhz = Performance and bigger numbers are better, they made this move to well...fuck with us at AMD (I think us beating them to 1 Ghz still pisses them off). It's pretty smart in terms of marketing and now they're up to 3.2 Ghz while we're at 2.25.
Oh and how do they achieve this? The educated types will understand hopefully. The Athlon has 12 (or is it 13) pipeline stages that instructions need to go through. The P4 has over 20. More pipeline stages means less time in each stage (i.e. 3 Ghz vs. 2 Ghz). At the same time, it means less is done per stage. It is a known fact in industry that there are stages in the P4 architecture that do nothing. All they do is transmit data to the next stage.
As I said, this is a genius move from a marketing standpoint since you can increase speed, but from a design perspective, that's just a wasted pipeline cycle. You should do things in your cycles (which is why we have only 12, but they do a lot per cycle). On a related note, that's actually how they got "Hyperthreading" to work. I could go in more detail, but I think that's part of my NDA (non-disclusure agreement).
At the same time, as I said, an educated consumer realizes that they're relatively equivalent in performance and the Athlon is cheaper. In fact, any computer engineer knows that the PIII is a much more efficient core than the P4. Ever wonder why the "Centrino" laptops run at only 1.6 Ghz and yet perform close to the 2+ Ghz P4 laptops? It's because Centrino is based on the PIII architecture. It's the same reason why our lower frequency parts can compete (as said above). In fact, they went that way b/c the PIII has less power requirements too. A win-win situation.
Off the record, I think the PIII was a good design and I don't bash it. I hear it's actually quite similar to our Athlon design and I think it has maybe one less/more pipeline stage and a few less optimizations/instructions.
At the same time, I'm not saying the P4 is crap. Sure it's less efficient then ours, but if you look at the equation I listed earlier, speed IS part of the equation. Just not all of it. That's why neither of us is clearly beating the other.
If you'd like me to provide "proof" or whatever, feel free to ask. I can point you to countless technical sites that say the exact same thing. I'd like to think some of this post isn't biased by me working at AMD and more my technical background and expertise. In fact, most people in my industry know this and hell it's even taught in some of my classes.
In fact, I chose to work for AMD over Intel (yeah I interviewed with both) because I didn't want to work for a company that willingly and knowngly makes inefficient designs for the sake of sales. Sure it's a business, but I personally as an engineer couldn't do that. They could ask me to create an inefficient core, but that's against my design instinct. So I went with AMD. It also didn't help that I dislike their corporate culture and work environment.
Back on topic...
Now that I'm done preaching, I guess I should offer some advice. It looks like you're going AMD, but are unsure about which one (2800+ vs. 3000+). If it's purely based on price, the obvious choice is the 2800+ which others have said.
However, I'd like to ask...how technical are you and comfortable with changing things? AMD doesn't condone this, but most enthusiasts seem to be able to overclock their 2800+ to a 3200+ with relative ease.
IIRC the 2800+ has a 333 Mhz Front-Side Bus (sad I don't remember this since I worked on it) and the 3000+ and 3200+ have a 400 FSB. Now FSB is a *very* important thing for performance. In fact, if you want performance and don't want to buy a 3200+, buy the 3000+. It has the 400 FSB and means you can get DDR RAM @ 400 Mhz as well (it should match to get the best results. If not, one of them will be waiting on the other during a transaction.).
However as I said earlier, the 2800+ can be overclocked to a 3200+ with relative ease (you're overclocking the FSB from 333 -> 400). So, if you're feeling fine technically, you can have the best of both worlds by buying a 2800+ and overclocking it. You get the 400 Mhz FSB as well as the price of a 2800+. If you just want performance and don't wanna mess with anything, go for the 3000+. If you want to be cheap and aren't comfortable overclocking, get the 2800+.
I hope this lengthy post helps. I also hope it clears up some of the architecture fallacies I see on this board all the time. I've pretty much just "taught" the fundamentals of Computer Architecture Performance
. Now pay me 
.
1) Heat
AMD runs cooler than Intel for the later stuff. The new Intel chip coming out (Prescott) runs at an average of 103 W and max at around 130 W while Athlons *maxes* in the 80's (averages in the 60's). For those who aren't engineers:
Power (W) ~ Heat (Joules)
And 103 W is nothing to laugh at. People are laughing since Intel might force their customers to go to a water cooling solution. The reason AMD has the reputation of being "hotter" is because of inadequate cooling. The "infamous" Tom's Hardware videos are because they took off the heatsink. Seriously, does anyone do something as stupid as that? No, of course not.
Now, I won't lie, Athlons are on average hotter than *lower end" P4's, but as I said, the new trend is the P4 being *much* hotter. In any case, if you have a good cooling solution, something in the 80's power-wise will probably be around 20 - 40 C.
2) Performance
I am seeing a *giant* misconception of performance made by some of you, mainly the one buying.
Mhz does not equal Performance
This is the biggest fallacy Intel has tricked the consumer into thinking. A great marketing move, but sucks for you guys. If any of you studied computer architecture in college like I did, you'd know that:
Performance = Speed (mhz) * Instructions per clock
It doesn't matter how fast you operate if you don't accomplish that much in it right? Say I run at 3 Ghz, but do 2 instructions per clock. Does that make me faster than someone running at 2 Ghz, but running 4 instructions per clock? Do the math.
The reason AMD has comprable performance to Intel at lower frequencies is because of a more efficiently designed core. We can output more instructions per clock. Now don't take the example above as fact, it's not the exact numbers, but you get the idea why we can compete at lower frequencies.
This was the main reason we went with the PR rating (i.e. a 2 Ghz part is a 2800+) since well...let's be honest, consumers think bigger numbers are better. Since a 2 Ghz Athlon is relatively equivalent to a 2.8 Ghz P4, it makes sense to market this way since they have the same performance. Laugh all you want, but our numbers from the industry show that it has accepted by industry and consumers as well.
I guess I need to get in my obligatory Intel bashing in so I'll try and explain why Intel went for an inefficient design. It's actually quite ingeniouis from a marketing standpoint. With a more inefficient core, you can jack up the frequency like crazy. It's just how it is from a design perspective. I could go into much more detail, but I won't.
Since they realized that consumers think Mhz = Performance and bigger numbers are better, they made this move to well...fuck with us at AMD (I think us beating them to 1 Ghz still pisses them off). It's pretty smart in terms of marketing and now they're up to 3.2 Ghz while we're at 2.25.
Oh and how do they achieve this? The educated types will understand hopefully. The Athlon has 12 (or is it 13) pipeline stages that instructions need to go through. The P4 has over 20. More pipeline stages means less time in each stage (i.e. 3 Ghz vs. 2 Ghz). At the same time, it means less is done per stage. It is a known fact in industry that there are stages in the P4 architecture that do nothing. All they do is transmit data to the next stage.
As I said, this is a genius move from a marketing standpoint since you can increase speed, but from a design perspective, that's just a wasted pipeline cycle. You should do things in your cycles (which is why we have only 12, but they do a lot per cycle). On a related note, that's actually how they got "Hyperthreading" to work. I could go in more detail, but I think that's part of my NDA (non-disclusure agreement).
At the same time, as I said, an educated consumer realizes that they're relatively equivalent in performance and the Athlon is cheaper. In fact, any computer engineer knows that the PIII is a much more efficient core than the P4. Ever wonder why the "Centrino" laptops run at only 1.6 Ghz and yet perform close to the 2+ Ghz P4 laptops? It's because Centrino is based on the PIII architecture. It's the same reason why our lower frequency parts can compete (as said above). In fact, they went that way b/c the PIII has less power requirements too. A win-win situation.
Off the record, I think the PIII was a good design and I don't bash it. I hear it's actually quite similar to our Athlon design and I think it has maybe one less/more pipeline stage and a few less optimizations/instructions.
At the same time, I'm not saying the P4 is crap. Sure it's less efficient then ours, but if you look at the equation I listed earlier, speed IS part of the equation. Just not all of it. That's why neither of us is clearly beating the other.
If you'd like me to provide "proof" or whatever, feel free to ask. I can point you to countless technical sites that say the exact same thing. I'd like to think some of this post isn't biased by me working at AMD and more my technical background and expertise. In fact, most people in my industry know this and hell it's even taught in some of my classes.
In fact, I chose to work for AMD over Intel (yeah I interviewed with both) because I didn't want to work for a company that willingly and knowngly makes inefficient designs for the sake of sales. Sure it's a business, but I personally as an engineer couldn't do that. They could ask me to create an inefficient core, but that's against my design instinct. So I went with AMD. It also didn't help that I dislike their corporate culture and work environment.
Back on topic...
Now that I'm done preaching, I guess I should offer some advice. It looks like you're going AMD, but are unsure about which one (2800+ vs. 3000+). If it's purely based on price, the obvious choice is the 2800+ which others have said.
However, I'd like to ask...how technical are you and comfortable with changing things? AMD doesn't condone this, but most enthusiasts seem to be able to overclock their 2800+ to a 3200+ with relative ease.
IIRC the 2800+ has a 333 Mhz Front-Side Bus (sad I don't remember this since I worked on it) and the 3000+ and 3200+ have a 400 FSB. Now FSB is a *very* important thing for performance. In fact, if you want performance and don't want to buy a 3200+, buy the 3000+. It has the 400 FSB and means you can get DDR RAM @ 400 Mhz as well (it should match to get the best results. If not, one of them will be waiting on the other during a transaction.).
However as I said earlier, the 2800+ can be overclocked to a 3200+ with relative ease (you're overclocking the FSB from 333 -> 400). So, if you're feeling fine technically, you can have the best of both worlds by buying a 2800+ and overclocking it. You get the 400 Mhz FSB as well as the price of a 2800+. If you just want performance and don't wanna mess with anything, go for the 3000+. If you want to be cheap and aren't comfortable overclocking, get the 2800+.
I hope this lengthy post helps. I also hope it clears up some of the architecture fallacies I see on this board all the time. I've pretty much just "taught" the fundamentals of Computer Architecture Performance
. Now pay me .-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space
-
Hitori
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 1:10 am
- Status: I might be back.
- Location: New Mexico
- Contact:
I totally agree with all of the above man! That's why I use AMD!!dwchang wrote:I've missed out most of the conversation since I've been lazy, but I need to deal with a lot of the misconceptions here:
**Rant has been snipped...**
Back on topic...
Now that I'm done preaching, I guess I should offer some advice. It looks like you're going AMD, but are unsure about which one (2800+ vs. 3000+). If it's purely based on price, the obvious choice is the 2800+ which others have said.
However, I'd like to ask...how technical are you and comfortable with changing things? AMD doesn't condone this, but most enthusiasts seem to be able to overclock their 2800+ to a 3200+ with relative ease.
IIRC the 2800+ has a 333 Mhz Front-Side Bus (sad I don't remember this since I worked on it) and the 3000+ and 3200+ have a 400 FSB. Now FSB is a *very* important thing for performance. In fact, if you want performance and don't want to buy a 3200+, buy the 3000+. It has the 400 FSB and means you can get DDR RAM @ 400 Mhz as well (it should match to get the best results. If not, one of them will be waiting on the other during a transaction.).
However as I said earlier, the 2800+ can be overclocked to a 3200+ with relative ease (you're overclocking the FSB from 333 -> 400). So, if you're feeling fine technically, you can have the best of both worlds by buying a 2800+ and overclocking it. You get the 400 Mhz FSB as well as the price of a 2800+. If you just want performance and don't wanna mess with anything, go for the 3000+. If you want to be cheap and aren't comfortable overclocking, get the 2800+.
I hope this lengthy post helps. I also hope it clears up some of the architecture fallacies I see on this board all the time. I've pretty much just "taught" the fundamentals of Computer Architecture Performance
-
anime-dragon
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 8:03 pm
whoa that wuz long but i learned somethings, i dont think i should overclock cuz im not familiar with it therefore i might damage my investment, so im just now looking at some different mobos
thanks for that explanination dwchang
thanks for that explanination dwchang
"When I look into your eyes
There's nothing there to see
Nothing but my own mistakes
Staring back at me." - Linkin Park
There's nothing there to see
Nothing but my own mistakes
Staring back at me." - Linkin Park
-
dwchang
- Sad Boy on Site
- Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:22 am
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
Well then it comes down to how much you value performance. If you want the 400 Mhz FSB, then go for the 3000+. If the money is a big deal, go with the 2800+ with 333 Mhz FSB. I do warn you though, the FSB is pretty important and getting a 400 Mhz enabled one gives you the option of increasing performance even more with DDR 400.anime-dragon wrote:whoa that wuz long but i learned somethings, i dont think i should overclock cuz im not familiar with it therefore i might damage my investment, so im just now looking at some different mobos
thanks for that explanination dwchang
As for Mobos, my personal preference is the nForce2 from nVidia. I believe it has everything like IEEE1394 (firewire), USB2.0, 5.1 sound and so on. Then again, perhaps the other one you listed does too.
-Daniel
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space
Newest Video: Through the Years and Far Away aka Sad Girl in Space