I just thought I would share this interesting processor comparison:

Im running a AMD athlon 1700+ (which operates at 1.47ghz) and the united devices program (owned by intel), which allows cures for cancer, etc to be found compare the processors:

This tells me that all this talk about Intel vs AMD is true. I believe AMD does do more calculations per clockcycle and therefore has a better performance at the same rate. I mean a 1.47ghz amd runs at 138% of a Intel 1.5 ghz!

Somehow this thread got closed.. Ill open it back up...

AMD is rolling the cost is so much better than Intel can ever do and I just think its a better product...I have a Duron 800 MHZ no problems at all with it :)

Behind the PowerPC G4’s phenomenal performance is its aptly named Velocity Engine. The Velocity Engine processes data in huge 128-bit chunks, instead of the smaller 32-bit or 64-bit chunks used in traditional processors (it’s the 128-bit vector processing technology used in scientific supercomputers — except that we’ve added 162 new instructions to speed up computations). In addition, the PowerPC G4 can perform four (in some cases eight) 32-bit floating-point calculations in a single cycle — two to four times faster than processors found in PCs.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/processor.html

yes that is true, but Mac has not been able to harness the power as much as a PC....

*chris power hungry, MORE POWER*

riiight, whatever.........and, what do you all think about this picture

looks cool. Personally, I like macs as well, but I'm on this machine I built last october mainly because of cost reasons. I would've loved to get a G4, but in CAD... its a lot compared to USD.... but anyways, i'm on an AMD, cause they're cheaper, and better.

[quote:6a41da9c4b]and better.[/quote:6a41da9c4b]

HAHA!!

I dont know what to think about aplle. Sometimes I hate them from taking away compatiablility but sometimes I appreciate the competition for microsft..

I would strongly warn who ever made that image, they do not claim to it, because it is copyrighted...

But my if you want something and have the money for it, then you should get it, their is still a few pipeline differences in Intel and AMD, and Intel has the edge at the moment, AMD is working on making alot of short pipelines.

what image? you talking to me? .....

[quote:3c690e4fec]and Intel has the edge at the moment[/quote:3c690e4fec]

Hold up! Right now AMD has the advantage, the Athlon completes 9 operations per clock cycle (the Pentium 4 does 6) and has double available bandwidth as the Pentium 4; that's why AMD has the advantage right now. I mean look, even INTELS program rates a 1.47 ghz AMD 130somthing percent (better) than the Pentium 4 1.5 ghz.

You are correct there but where is AMD and Intel differ, Intel has the fastest chip out, 2.2 Ghz I do believe, AMD does not....

thats basically what the megahertz myth is about ain't it? just cause they've got high clockspeeds doesn't come right down to processing power...

Intel has mastered the pipeline system, thus making them a proven leader, AMD not far behind, is coming out with a way to use several pipeline shorter, so it runs faster and will out perform intel no matter the the clock speed

[quote:776d811de4]Intel has mastered the pipeline system, thus making them a proven leader, AMD not far behind, is coming out with a way to use several pipeline shorter, so it runs faster and will out perform intel no matter the the clock speed[/quote:776d811de4]

That doesnt make much sense, you just said I was correct earlier. The pipeline system refers to the available bandwidth the processor has to the motherboard and the AMD Athlon has over twice as much as the Pentium 4.

Yes.. This is about the Mhz myth, Allthough megahertz are extremly important, there are many other factors like calculations per clock cycle.

First I'd like to say hello to everybody, my name is Jon.

Let's Just do the math with these XP's ok

XP 1600: 1.40GHz
so 1400000000 cycles per second
and 9 operations per second gives it
12600000000 operations per second
this put it equal to a 2.1 GHz P4 (12600000000/6 operation per cycle)

XP 1700: 1.47GHz
so 1470000000 cycles per second
and 9 operations per second gives it
13230000000 operations per second
this put it equal to a 2.2 GHz P4 (14700000000/6 operation per cycle)

XP 1800: 1.533GHz
so 1533000000 cycles per second
and 9 operations per second gives it
13797000000 operations per second
this put it equal to a 2.3 GHz P4 (13797000000/6 operation per cycle)

XP 1900: 1.60GHz
so 1600000000 cycles per second
and 9 operations per second gives it
14400000000 operations per second
this put it equal to a 2.4 GHz P4 (14400000000/6 operation per cycle)

XP 2000: 1.67GHz
so 1670000000 cycles per second
and 9 operations per second gives it
15030000000 operations per second
this put it equal to a 2.5 GHz P4 (14400000000/6 operation per cycle)

All the Cycles GHz ratings come from amd.com and the operations per second comes from earier in this board.

Now about the Macs,

The new I-Macs have a 800MHz chip in it or .8 GHz for all of you who forget the old system. If it take double the processes It only puts it equal to 1.6 GHz. Apple's components are hard to change or upgrade without spending $1000+ in a new IMac. For the gamers out there, the little GForce2 Card in the new IMac is a Joke compared to what you can strap into an AGP slot. Now they do look nice and I wouldn't mind gutting one and putting and Athlon in it, and they are reliable if you know what you are doing. There is a lot to be said about there stablity. (all numbers come from www.apple.com)

I would have to say if you want a computer for a single task like Movie editing or long lasting corporate machines and you are happy with the selection of software Mac's have then go for it, But if it's power you want in your computer. Like to power to multi-task, use a huge library of software, and still play your favorite games while talking over your mic to a teammate and downloading MP3, Pics, ect. then go for the power of those XP chips. I'll challange anyone to say otherwise.

Just correcting typos

this put it equal to a 2.2 GHz P4 (14700000000/6 operation per cycle)
=
this put it equal to a 2.2 GHz P4 (13230000000/6 operation per cycle)

and

this put it equal to a 2.5 GHz P4 (14400000000/6 operation per cycle)
=
this put it equal to a 2.5 GHz P4 (15030000000/6 operation per cycle)

sorry about that!

Cool numbers! Yes I agee with everything you said.

AMD Athalon MP for me!!!! :)

Although, Intel claims to have created a way to make 110GHz processors.. search through wirednews.com...

But IMO AMD is the KING when it comes to PCs.

BTW - A mac 800MHz processor is about equal to 1.7GHz by my standard, those things are STRONG. They are much more powerful than the numbers show...

But still, an AMD Athalon MP for me! :)

:jet:

cool smilies! :toungue2:

Scott welcome my friend, Great to see another mafia face over here!.

YOU CAN NEVER ESCAPE THE MAFIA! Never!

Chris

I will stick with AMD, I do not like Intel....

TO reply to zoOOom's last comment.

It was in the new recently that IBM and not Intel has made a 110GHz processor. The article did not say how big it was. remember the computers we have now were once considered Super-Computers. I've noticed that IBM like to set records just to see if it can be done (plus there new "super" computers is usally funded by the government and for the government's use). So these 110GHz Pro. could very well be $100000+ and could be the size of a room. And as for it seeming like a 1.7GHz instead of a 1.6GHz, first of all these numbers are only estimations, and second you must have very fine tuned sences to be able to tell .1GHz difference.

Peace Out and don't support the War,
Jon

Well I a glad someone out points out the .1 of a ghz, a 1.5 and a 1.9 has a little difference, but people can not tell a how lot of difference with a .1 ghz, Ram alo plays a key factor, my next computer will have 160 gig hd(s) and 1024 gig of ram :) Its going to be laoded, for a reason friends, with my new calbe modem, and I am going to try to get the fastest processor ADMD style of course, I will let you know how it goes soon enough.

I wish I could affoard 1024 gigs of ram! (typo).. Actually I have 128 mb right now, but I plan on upgrading my ram up to a gig next year or when it gets cheap enough (usually I upgrade earlier than I tell myself I will) and get a few new things, but right now im set :)

1700+amd athlon xp
266mhz ddr
2x40gig 7200 rpm hard drives with RAID striping (0), nvidia tnt2 graphics, soundblaster live!, 24x cdr tdk telecod, 19inch monitor, wireless mouse/keyboard.. win xp pro.. I like my computer now ;)

I was thinking about overclocking but if I burn something up I cant affoard to replace it so for now its all factory..:micro:

Well the DDR stuff is pretty high, but I figure I want something worth my wild!

I am going to get plenty of fans, and possible watercooler, never been into them as I mean water in your computer, no no no, thats like abig oxymoron to me...

ahh yes, my mistake, IBM, not Intel.

Chris- you realise there is no reasonably sized or priced computer that would have the ability to support 1024[b:3d4f153639]gigs[/b:3d4f153639] of RAM? I'm HOPING you means megs... lol... or 1 gig...


Anyway, my next computer:
http://z00om.com/my_cpu.txt

Yes I mean 1024 megs of ram...

I would hope so...!!!! :P

But wouldnt it be like killer to have a board that could hold 1024 gigs of ram?

That would be like huge man, unless they came out with bigger sticks

lmao...

anyone read the thing I made 'bout my cpu?
http://z00om.com/my_cpu.txt ...
I think that'd be awesome... hehe :)
I'm going to try and work for it but... $5000... yeesh!

That's a sweet setup... But if I was you I would make a light version.. with like 128mb of memory, only one cd reader or something... wait about 6months-year then upgrade.. Thats basically what i did, am going to do.. Much more economical; the only problem is what I want is always to expensive, in sixth months I dont want what I used to!