CPU relative speed graphs (Intel vs AMD) - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Insert BS here A place to discuss anything you want

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-31-2008, 11:07 PM   #1
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 2,980
Total Cats: 14
Default CPU relative speed graphs (Intel vs AMD)

In the old days you always used to see graphs showing how fast a 386-33 was compared to a 386-40 and how much faster a P2 was compared to a Pentium. Now it is hella difficult to find out how CPU speeds actually stack up against each other.

I have a P4 2.4GHZ and I am looking at a laptop that is powered by an AMD Sempron 3600+ 2.0GHz. I hate to admit it but I don't have a damn clue if that is faster, slower or the same. Anyone seen any good graphs/charts that show comparisons of different chips?
rmcelwee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 11:17 PM   #2
Elite Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Central-ish VA
Posts: 4,449
Total Cats: 16
Default

core 2 duo will be faster than any amd you can throw money at.
neogenesis2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 11:27 PM   #3
Elite Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Posts: 2,575
Total Cats: 11
Default

I just got my dell xps laptop with the core 2 t9300 2.4 ghz, I love it so far
cardriverx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 11:46 PM   #4
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,900
Total Cats: 0
Default

these days there are just too many processors on the market at any given time to easily chart comparative speed. your best bet is to buy the fastest clock speed, and the fastest FSB you can afford and hope it's fast enough.
Arkmage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 12:09 AM   #5
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Newbsauce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NoVA
Posts: 2,304
Total Cats: 2
Default

Things to look at...
Cores (can't really use more then 2 at the moment)
FSB speed (front side bus)
Gate length (90nm vs 65nm)

Price.... You can get one of the intel dual cores with crazy overclocking for real cheap.
Newbsauce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 12:58 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 657
Total Cats: 12
Default

anandtech.com still does processor comparos. I was just looking at some the other, uh, month. :-(
oilstain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 03:34 PM   #7
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Saml01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,730
Total Cats: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkmage View Post
these days there are just too many processors on the market at any given time to easily chart comparative speed. your best bet is to buy the fastest clock speed, and the fastest FSB you can afford and hope it's fast enough.
Not really.

While clock for clock the higher you go you do get faster, same for bus speed. At a certain point its diminishing returns for the price.

Sometimes it makes sense to get a mid level dual core, or an entry level quad because the price skyrockets with higher clock speeds and in exactly a month the price halves because a new processor came out thats faster then that one.

Makes no sense to chase the market today, especially with how damn fast mid range processors really are.
Saml01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 05:53 PM   #8
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Shalimar, FL
Posts: 965
Total Cats: 7
Default

I run a Core 2 duo...hell I don't remember the name...that runs stock at 2.16GHz (running @ 2.7 currently) that I bought a year and a half ago and it still runs everything fine (games, development stuff, it is even fast enough to decode blu-ray rips).

Right now, I'd personally go with a Core 2 Duo or an entry level quad. The price/performance ratio of these chips is amazing and unless you're doing some seriously intense work, any Core 2 in the low 2GHz range will be just fine. Seeing as how you're still running an old P4, the new system you're building/buying will offer significantly better perfomance if you buy ANY Core 2.
messiahx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 06:37 PM   #9
Ben
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
 
Ben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,689
Total Cats: 99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by messiahx View Post
Seeing as how you're still running an old P4, the new system you're building/buying will offer significantly better perfomance if you buy ANY Core 2.
Reading **** like that amazes me. My "main" desktop at home is a P4 2.4GHz Sony Vaio running XP that I bought nearly 7 years ago now.
It has a PCI video card (128mb I think? It was the best one I could find for PCI, and yes PCI not PCI-E or AGP), an upgraded power supply (due to vid card), and is maxed out at 1G ram. There is nothing that I've not been able to do, run, or rip with this machine.

My other desktop we got a couple years ago to act as a Media Center (it has XP MCE) is some sort of AMD dual core and has 2G ram, but was less stable than my Sony, and has been sitting in a closet for 1.5 yrs now.
Ben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 07:07 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 657
Total Cats: 12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
Reading **** like that amazes me. My "main" desktop at home is a P4 2.4GHz Sony Vaio running XP that I bought nearly 7 years ago now.
It has a PCI video card (128mb I think? It was the best one I could find for PCI, and yes PCI not PCI-E or AGP), an upgraded power supply (due to vid card), and is maxed out at 1G ram. There is nothing that I've not been able to do, run, or rip with this machine.

My other desktop we got a couple years ago to act as a Media Center (it has XP MCE) is some sort of AMD dual core and has 2G ram, but was less stable than my Sony, and has been sitting in a closet for 1.5 yrs now.
And the point of all that was?

(In)Stability is rarely a hardware issue. If you loaded XP or even 2000 on the machine in your closet, it would be plenty stable as long as the parts can talk to each other.

I'm running an ancient system because it does what I need it to do. I run win 2000 because I bought a license in college for $5, and I can install it for the rest of my life. When I find a cheap/free copy of xp I'll run that.

After troubleshooting win98 and what was that other crap one, mc or something? Anyway, after dealing with stupid releases of windows, I've learned not to be an early adopter. Some of the stuff they make fails miserably, some of it fails at first and is then resurrected with patches.
oilstain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 10:26 PM   #11
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,900
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
There is nothing that I've not been able to do, run, or rip with this machine.
try playing a blu-ray disk.
Arkmage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 10:53 PM   #12
Newb
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Auburn, AL
Posts: 20
Total Cats: 0
Default

Don't forget about your other components. Even a Core 2 Extreme machine will feel noticably slower with crappy memory/hdd(s). It's not really a problem with aftermarket ram/hdds, but you have to be careful alot of times with that pre-built stuff. The extremeoverclocking.com forums have some really informative stickies for picking out a proc.
Phoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 04:33 AM   #13
Elite Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Posts: 2,575
Total Cats: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
Reading **** like that amazes me. My "main" desktop at home is a P4 2.4GHz Sony Vaio running XP that I bought nearly 7 years ago now.
It has a PCI video card (128mb I think? It was the best one I could find for PCI, and yes PCI not PCI-E or AGP), an upgraded power supply (due to vid card), and is maxed out at 1G ram. There is nothing that I've not been able to do, run, or rip with this machine.

My other desktop we got a couple years ago to act as a Media Center (it has XP MCE) is some sort of AMD dual core and has 2G ram, but was less stable than my Sony, and has been sitting in a closet for 1.5 yrs now.
try playing any game made in the last 5 years with that thing.
cardriverx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 09:53 AM   #14
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 1,378
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardriverx View Post
try Playing Any Game Made In The Last 5 Years With That Thing.
+1
naarleven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 10:35 AM   #15
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Mach929's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: lansdale PA
Posts: 2,500
Total Cats: 0
Default

i used to care and keep up with the latest and greatest stuff out there for gaming, just don't have the time or care anymore. my latest build cost $50 and used parts i got for free from friends that bought new stuff. i only use the computer for the internet anyway
Mach929 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2008, 11:20 AM   #16
Newb
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Auburn, AL
Posts: 20
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach929 View Post
i used to care and keep up with the latest and greatest stuff out there for gaming, just don't have the time or care anymore. my latest build cost $50 and used parts i got for free from friends that bought new stuff. i only use the computer for the internet anyway
+1

As I get older, I begin to realize that it's worthless to try to stay up-to-date unless it's for bragging rights. As long as it works, **** it!
As for gaming, I've always been a pc guy but for the first time in my life last Christmas I just bought a console... The whole thing costs less than a high end graphics card anyway.
Phoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 10:54 PM   #17
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Shalimar, FL
Posts: 965
Total Cats: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
Reading **** like that amazes me. My "main" desktop at home is a P4 2.4GHz Sony Vaio running XP that I bought nearly 7 years ago now.
It has a PCI video card (128mb I think? It was the best one I could find for PCI, and yes PCI not PCI-E or AGP), an upgraded power supply (due to vid card), and is maxed out at 1G ram. There is nothing that I've not been able to do, run, or rip with this machine.

My other desktop we got a couple years ago to act as a Media Center (it has XP MCE) is some sort of AMD dual core and has 2G ram, but was less stable than my Sony, and has been sitting in a closet for 1.5 yrs now.
I was only saying that performance-wise, a P4 system simply can't compare to almost any Core 2 system. Take out the video card (not that it matter since PCI doesn't have enough bandwidth to play any newer games) and assume decent hard drive/memory (<- faster because RDRAM or DDR is going to have less real world bandwidth than DDR2/3) and focus on things like encoding/decoding media (try playing a BluRay rip using a software decoder...my system barely can do it), playing a modern game...hell just run something like Prime95 or SuperPI, or PCMark to see the differences...which will be significant. It can more or less do the same tasks, sans games and anything that needs newer processor extensions like SSE2/3, but it'll do them considerably slower.

I totally understand that your hardware does what you need it to...hell, a year ago I was still running an Athlon XP 2600+ w/ 1.5G of DDR333. It did everything I NEEDED it to, but every task was slower on it vs. my new system. Try running SQL Server, IIS, Visual Studio 2008, playing music or a game and leaving all of those processes going when you go to do your normal web browsing/e-mail tasks and the difference will become quite apparent. For everyday, non CPU/GPU intensive stuff, anything in the last decade will work, and older hardware certainly makes a great, inexpensive file/webserver. I guess it all comes down to what you want to do and how much you want to wait. Just like your P4 works for you know and was the best price/performance at the time (assuming you bought it pre-Athlon 64), a Core 2 is the best buy now and will probably have a useable life longer than any P4 system, assuming software is kept up to date. Yeah, I'm a geek.
messiahx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 11:08 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: AC, NJ
Posts: 346
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by messiahx View Post
I was only saying that performance-wise, a P4 system simply can't compare to almost any Core 2 system.
A 1.6ghz 800mhz fsb celeron dual core extremely enforces the ANY part of that statement. I hate how these ******* at dell can sell a computer to a end user for 300 dollars because it is loaded will pure bullshit and the consumer doesn't understand the difference. All they know is that my price is higher, but I guess it's not worth paying extra for something that works. </rant>

Anyway, I have never been a fan of AMD, and everyone I have ever asked about an AMD hasn't been able to tell me why it is better than a pentium. The most common one is "it's better for games", however that really doesn't exactly mean anything technical.

To actually try and answer your question, I googled the processor and read a review on the first link, and came across this
Quote:
The reason for its quick success is largely due to how well the Sempron matches up against Intel's Celeron processor.
AKA OMG ITS A PIECE OF ****.

If I were you I would wait for dell to have one of their stupid cheap deals on a nice intel dual core processor that actually has some processing speed and front side bus. Another thing you want to look at, especially with laptops, is the harddrive and memory speed. They like to put the slowest **** possible in them for price and power consumption reasons.

You really just need to ask yourself if you want a laptop that is quick, or a laptop that is portable.

Good luck.
compy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 11:14 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: AC, NJ
Posts: 346
Total Cats: 0
Default

Here is a link to a speed test comparing the sempron to various processors.

http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/510/

To save you the time, it says the sempron is equally slow as the pentium 2.4 celeron (Which is a slower processor than yours, but they didn't have yours).
compy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
3rd Time's a Charm...hopefully. zephyrusaurai Meet and Greet 2 09-28-2015 11:59 PM
Got bad Crank Angle Sensor and Random Misfire codes, but runs fine. Greasyman General Miata Chat 2 09-28-2015 11:44 AM
DIYPNP problem PA0 VICS output spidy MEGAsquirt 7 09-24-2015 04:14 PM
Old guy buys old Miata b&t Meet and Greet 3 09-22-2015 10:32 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:46 PM.