Another Intel vs AMD Comparison

Raymond wrote:
"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
Raymond wrote:
Semperon @ 1.8GHz vs Celeron D @ 3.3GHz

Running a floating point program using the
.NET 1.1 complier, running trig, power, mul, add
functions, nothing too fancy.

The Semperon beats the Celeron D by 20%.
Wow, nearly half the clock and still outperforms.
Something seriously wrong with the P4 architecture!!!

Don't know what your test program looks like or does but the premise
of your comparison is only valid if one considers work per clock
cycle some sort of holy grail. It's not if one just wants to get the
work done as the P4 accomplished it by doing less work per clock at
higher clock speeds while AMD processors do it by more work per
clock but can't clock as fast.

When it comes judging CPU architecture, work per clock cycle
is exactly like some kind of holy grail. Granted,
Intel makes better silicon, so then can clock faster and make
up some of the difference.

This statement is bull**** by the way. It has nothing to do with "better
silicon". It has everything to do with CPU design and pipeline length. The
P4 was made with one thing in mind; To go faster than AMD CPUs as a lot of
the market perceives speed as equalling power. Intel didn't care about heat
production or efficiency, all they wanted was something that looked good in
advertisements. The design was a dead end but served it's purpose which was
to keep some of the market until they could design a decent CPU. They have
that now with the Pentium M (evolved from the Tualatin) and it's
descendants. They are the future of Intel's CPUs, not the temporary
marketing exercise that P4s were to stave off the fact the AMD beat Intel to
the 1GHz mark.

That's why they're still business.
Otherwise it would've been no contest.

Uhuh.
--
~Shaun~

"~misfit~" wrote in message
...

This statement is bull**** by the way. It has nothing to do with "better
silicon". It has everything to do with CPU design and pipeline length.

The faster clocks are due to pipelinse length???

What on earth does pipeline length have to do with the fact that Intel's
CPU can run at higher clocks? Let me know how you figure that,
because it's total non-sense. Intel is a node ahead of AMD, that's
why they can run them at higher clocks. End of story!

This statement is bull**** by the way. It has nothing to do with "better
silicon". It has everything to do with CPU design and pipeline length.

The faster clocks are due to pipelinse length???


yes they are, you kinda proved you have little idea of how this works in
that statement.

What on earth does pipeline length have to do with the fact that Intel's
CPU can run at higher clocks? Let me know how you figure that,
because it's total non-sense. Intel is a node ahead of AMD, that's
why they can run them at higher clocks. End of story!

The longer the pipeline, the less work per clock, so the more clocks can be
run. Cant you see this from Intels "new" chip? Intels "new" chip is basicaly
following on from the P3 design, and has about the same lengh pipeline as an
AMD A64 K8 chip... Isnt it funny that now Intels top clocking chip is
2.66ghz vs AMD's 2.8ghz?

Intel P4 = 31-40 (no known fact from intel, so we dont know)
Top speed 3.8ghz

AMD 64/FX = 13-15
Top speed 2.8ghz (So far)

Intel Conreo/Dothan etc = 14
Top speed 2.66ghz (So far)

funny that now they have compairable pipeline lengths that there CPU speeds
are almost the same..... and infact it shows that INTEL are the ones with
slower silcon (so far) because they are strugging to run a 65nm CPU at
2.66ghz, when AMD can run a 2.8ghz CPU on 90nm.....

--
From Overlag - Adam Webb
www.ajwebb.eclipse.co.uk

"Adam Webb" wrote in message
...

funny that now they have compairable pipeline lengths that there CPU
speeds are almost the same..... and infact it shows that INTEL are the ones
with
slower silcon (so far) because they are strugging to run a 65nm CPU at
2.66ghz, when AMD can run a 2.8ghz CPU on 90nm.....


Duh, that's not because of comparable pipeline lenghts. They are trying to
show off the Conroe at much lower power consumption. You're comparing a
present
AMD to a future not-yet released Intel using many more transistors, that
uses almost half as many watts and calling it a normalized comparison, so it
must
be because of pipelines??? G
Good one!

Duh, that's not because of comparable pipeline lenghts. They are trying to
show off the Conroe at much lower power consumption. You're comparing a
present
AMD to a future not-yet released Intel using many more transistors, that
uses almost half as many watts and calling it a normalized comparison, so
it
must
be because of pipelines??? G
Good one!


OK then, compare it to the "standard" dothan thats been out about a
YEAR.....

its overclock limit is about the same as any A64 chip, they BOTH use 90nm
proccess, and they BOTH have the same pipeline length, give or take 1....and
they ALSO perform about the same...

its funny, EVERYONE in the hardware world KNOWS that cpu speed (mhz wise)
and pipeline length are almost directly linked yet you dont.... hmm nice
one.

--
From Overlag - Adam Webb
www.ajwebb.eclipse.co.uk

Raymond wrote:
"Adam Webb" wrote in
message ...

funny that now they have compairable pipeline lengths that there CPU
speeds are almost the same..... and infact it shows that INTEL are
the ones with slower silcon (so far) because they are strugging to
run a 65nm CPU at
2.66ghz, when AMD can run a 2.8ghz CPU on 90nm.....


Duh, that's not because of comparable pipeline lenghts. They are
trying to show off the Conroe at much lower power consumption.

Exactly. How much more power consumption do you think was possible with the
PrescHOT? It was already putting out more heat per square cm than and
electric element on a stove-top. The P4s were and always have been a
dead-end marketing exercise. Getting the mugs cough to buy them because
they were "faster", even though they were inferior design.

Intel went as far as they could down that alley before admiting defeat and
now are making CPUs that are remarkably similar to AMDs approach.

Do you really think that P4s will still be being manufactured in 12 months?
They will go the way of the dinosaurs, they can't evolve, they were a
dead-end.
--
~Shaun~

Adam Webb wrote:
Duh, that's not because of comparable pipeline lenghts. They are
trying to show off the Conroe at much lower power consumption.
You're comparing a present
AMD to a future not-yet released Intel using many more transistors,
that uses almost half as many watts and calling it a normalized
comparison, so it
must
be because of pipelines??? G
Good one!


OK then, compare it to the "standard" dothan thats been out about a
YEAR.....

its overclock limit is about the same as any A64 chip, they BOTH use
90nm proccess, and they BOTH have the same pipeline length, give or
take 1....and they ALSO perform about the same...

its funny, EVERYONE in the hardware world KNOWS that cpu speed (mhz
wise) and pipeline length are almost directly linked yet you dont....
hmm nice one.

Thanks for fielding this one Adam, I don't check back all that often.

Seems Raymond has absolutely no clue about CPU architecture and is an Intel
fan-boy to boot.

Oh well, perhaps he'll go read "CPU basics" somewhere and learn something
from this, although I think not. He's a devotee of Intel and anything that
goes against his religion is likely to be labeled heresy. Add to that the
fact that he hasn't exhibited the intelligence to understand the correlation
between pipeline length and clock speed and methinks he'll continue on
happilly thinking that Intel is "a node ahead of AMD". Shame for him that
it's the other way around, AMD are performing miracles with their 90nm build
that Intel are struggling to match with 65nm processors.

Cheers,
--
~Shaun~

"Adam Webb" wrote in message
...
Duh, that's not because of comparable pipeline lenghts. They are trying
to
show off the Conroe at much lower power consumption. You're comparing a
present
AMD to a future not-yet released Intel using many more transistors, that
uses almost half as many watts and calling it a normalized comparison,
so
it
must
be because of pipelines??? G
Good one!


OK then, compare it to the "standard" dothan thats been out about a
YEAR.....

its overclock limit is about the same as any A64 chip, they BOTH use 90nm
proccess, and they BOTH have the same pipeline length, give or take
1....and
they ALSO perform about the same...

its funny, EVERYONE in the hardware world KNOWS that cpu speed (mhz wise)
and pipeline length are almost directly linked yet you dont.... hmm nice
one.

Yeah let's compare. Dothan uses less power than the Turion, while running
tens of millions of more transistors at about the same speed. It has roughly
twice the L2.

What everyone knows, or at least should, is that the pipeline length
is a major factor in the P4's problems. It's not a factor in clock speed
potential. Show me one official document anywhere that says otherwise!

I started this thread by reporting that AMD Semperon
beats an equivalent Celeron D at floating point, even
at much lower clock speeds. So according to you that
makes me an Intel devotee, and Intel's my religion?!?!
Some intelligence you got there misfit! G

Facts are facts though, Intel IS a node ahead of AMD
in feature size. You don't like that? Tough luck, it's
reality. Deal with it!


"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
Adam Webb wrote:
Thanks for fielding this one Adam, I don't check back all that often.

Seems Raymond has absolutely no clue about CPU architecture and is an
Intel
fan-boy to boot.

Oh well, perhaps he'll go read "CPU basics" somewhere and learn something
from this, although I think not. He's a devotee of Intel and anything that
goes against his religion is likely to be labeled heresy. Add to that the
fact that he hasn't exhibited the intelligence to understand the
correlation
between pipeline length and clock speed and methinks he'll continue on
happilly thinking that Intel is "a node ahead of AMD". Shame for him that
it's the other way around, AMD are performing miracles with their 90nm
build
that Intel are struggling to match with 65nm processors.

Cheers,
--
~Shaun~

Raymond wrote:
I started this thread by reporting that AMD Semperon
beats an equivalent Celeron D at floating point, even
at much lower clock speeds. So according to you that
makes me an Intel devotee, and Intel's my religion?!?!
Some intelligence you got there misfit! G

Facts are facts though, Intel IS a node ahead of AMD
in feature size.

And AMD are obviously "a node ahead" of Intel at floating-point.

You don't like that? Tough luck, it's
reality. Deal with it!

What's to like or dislike? I'm not fanatical about CPUs, I just prefer to
stick to the facts.
--
~Shaun~

"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
Adam Webb wrote:
Thanks for fielding this one Adam, I don't check back all that often.

Seems Raymond has absolutely no clue about CPU architecture and is
an Intel fan-boy to boot.

Oh well, perhaps he'll go read "CPU basics" somewhere and learn
something from this, although I think not. He's a devotee of Intel
and anything that goes against his religion is likely to be labeled
heresy. Add to that the fact that he hasn't exhibited the
intelligence to understand the correlation between pipeline length
and clock speed and methinks he'll continue on happilly thinking
that Intel is "a node ahead of AMD". Shame for him that it's the
other way around, AMD are performing miracles with their 90nm build
that Intel are struggling to match with 65nm processors.

Cheers,
--
~Shaun~