If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
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!!! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
Oh God, not again. No offense to you, the thread starter, but I
participate in another forum that is FULL of AMD fanboys who take it upon themselves to bash the ever living crap out of Intel on a daily basis. As true as your findings may be, would you mind stating some specifics? For example, what model of Celeron and Semperon processors were you running? Are we talking new generation versus old generation(SKT:754 Vs. SKT 478)? Also, what setup were you using? ie. Motherboard, RAM, HDD, etc. I'm not trying to start anything, or am I challenging you in anyway. I'm just curious as to how AMD's Semperon beat out Intel's Celeron by 20%; because that's quite a substantial amount for a budget processor. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
These results are real, and I'm no AMD fanboy.
In fact I've been an Intel fanboy like for ever, until the P4 that is. This is a highly FPU intensive app which I've written myself.. It's using .NET JIT compiler, so it's not as if it's compiled with very old compilers either. HDD has nothing to do with this result whatsoever. RAM and motherboard are virtually irrelevant also. Yes it's SKT 478 vs 754. It's a very apples to apples comparison using comparable processors, and AMD wins it hands down. It's really astonishing given the clock difference. "Mike L" wrote in message ... Oh God, not again. No offense to you, the thread starter, but I participate in another forum that is FULL of AMD fanboys who take it upon themselves to bash the ever living crap out of Intel on a daily basis. As true as your findings may be, would you mind stating some specifics? For example, what model of Celeron and Semperon processors were you running? Are we talking new generation versus old generation(SKT:754 Vs. SKT 478)? Also, what setup were you using? ie. Motherboard, RAM, HDD, etc. I'm not trying to start anything, or am I challenging you in anyway. I'm just curious as to how AMD's Semperon beat out Intel's Celeron by 20%; because that's quite a substantial amount for a budget processor. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
To give another comparison, the same FPU intensive app
performs only 35% better on a Celeron D @ 3.3GHz than a Coppermine Celeron @ 1.1GHz. When you go up 3 times in clock and get only 35% better on P4 architecture, on a CPU intensive app doing ANYTHING, you know there something seriously screwy with the P4. The AMD Semperon results are just further confirmation of the same. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
"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. That's why they're still business. Otherwise it would've been no contest. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
Wow, with that kind of attitude I can see you running a
very unsuccessful review site. Let's take a look at a few flaws shall we: This is a highly FPU intensive app which I've written myself.. So you're admitting that you've compiled the test yourself, ok I'll give you some credit there. But exactly how many systems did you test your program on? How many different possible hardware and software configurations were taken into consideration when you benched this program on those two test beds? Did you ever stop to think that there was a margin of error involved, or that maybe there'd be some sort of conflict due to an unlimiting number of possibilites? Therefore I'll ask you this, how do you know that 35% increase over the Coppermine core really wasn't 65% or even 18%? See any good software programmer would know that software is unintentional, and very bare during it's initial stages of development. Therefore a plethora of tests must be run to ensure maximum efficiency and a truthful denotation before it's released. HDD has nothing to do with this result whatsoever. So basically you're telling me that if I was to take a setup which had a Bigfoot drive installed compared to another setup which had a SATA HDD installed, that the results would be totally dismissable because hard drives have nothing to do with the outcome at all? Quite an interesting use of logic. My friend, though a HDD may have next to nothing to do with 'this' test, a HDD still has something to do with everything. Take a hard drive running at 7200RPM and the exact same model running at 5400RPM, and tell me if you notice "any" difference at all, because you will. Doesn't the hard drive have to somehow run the program off of itself, at the same time trying to manage the best way possible for the system as whole to utilize the application at hand? C'mon man.. RAM and motherboard are virtually irrelevant also. Again, more apalling use of logic. So let me just ask you, are you being serious? If so, this is just as worst as your example above. I don't even know if I should bother going into detail about this one because it's almost not even worth it. I know you're talking about motherboards and RAM being irrelevant in [b:dfab9b917e]your[/b:dfab9b917e] test, but once again, just for comparison sake, a motherboard and RAM are probably the two single most vital components sitting in your case right now. Yes it's SKT 478 vs 754. It's a very apples to apples comparison using comparable processors, and AMD wins it hands down. It's really astonishing given the clock difference. That's a fair comparison in your eyes? Comparing AMD's next generation processor to a previous generation one from Intel? I take it that you've totally disregarded the fact that the Semperon is an all new redesigned core, with an on-die memory controller and the ability to run 64-bit code; albeit totally useless by today's standards, but known for [i:dfab9b917e]sometimes[/i:dfab9b917e] enhancing 32-bit programs(once again, margin of error). I'm not surprised that the Semperon beat out the previous generation Celeron "hands down", what did you expect. Secondly, clockspeeds mean nothing here. AMD processors have a higher IPC throughput then Intel processors, and have a better performance-per-watt rating as well. This is ridiculous, I've debated out every single one of your points... and badly. What was going through your mind when you posted this topic? Like I said, I'll give you credit for writing your own program and performing some tests, but your results aren't viable by a long shot. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
"Mike L" wrote in message ... silly drivel snipped That's really funny stuff Mike. Your ignorance is showing! I wrote this program myself. I know exactly what it does, what it uses, and what it doesn't. The HDD is a complete non-issue. Because 99.99% of the time the program doesn't use the HDD at all. Not to mention that my Semperon system has the slower HDD anyway - as if it mattered. As I explained initially, it's an FPU intensive app that does a lot of math processing. Do you know what that even means??? If you did, that should've been enough. It means it's not memory intensive! Over 95% of it's time is spent processing small code-blocks wholly inside the CPU. The effect of RAM and motherboard on this program is infinitesimal. But if it makes you happy, they're both running DDR400 at roughly the same bus speed. Again, the Semperon is actually on the cheaper more inferior board, disadvantaged lower memory-CPU bandwidth there, no dual-channel setup at all on the Semperon system- as if it mattered. And yes it is a fair comparison, both processors were released about the same time, have comparable prices, and markets. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
"Raymond' wrote, in part:
| And yes it is a fair comparison, both processors | were released about the same time, have comparable | prices, and markets. | _____ And that 'comparable market' is concerned about 'small code-clocks wholly inside the CPU' and 'FPU' intensive? A little knowledge is, well, a little knowledge. Phil Weldon "Raymond" wrote in message news:Tv3Wf.5412$Od7.2959@trnddc06... | | "Mike L" wrote in message | ... | | silly drivel snipped | | That's really funny stuff Mike. Your ignorance | is showing! I wrote this program myself. I know | exactly what it does, what it uses, and what it doesn't. | | The HDD is a complete non-issue. Because | 99.99% of the time the program doesn't use | the HDD at all. Not to mention that my Semperon | system has the slower HDD anyway - as if it | mattered. | | As I explained initially, it's an FPU intensive | app that does a lot of math processing. Do you | know what that even means??? If you did, that | should've been enough. It means it's not memory intensive! | Over 95% of it's time is spent processing small code-blocks wholly | inside the CPU. The effect of RAM and motherboard | on this program is infinitesimal. But if it makes you happy, | they're both running DDR400 at roughly the same bus speed. | Again, the Semperon is actually on the cheaper more inferior | board, disadvantaged lower memory-CPU bandwidth there, | no dual-channel setup at all on the Semperon system- | as if it mattered. | | And yes it is a fair comparison, both processors | were released about the same time, have comparable | prices, and markets. | | |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
"Phil Weldon" wrote in message link.net... "Raymond' wrote, in part: | And yes it is a fair comparison, both processors | were released about the same time, have comparable | prices, and markets. | _____ And that 'comparable market' is concerned about 'small code-clocks wholly inside the CPU' and 'FPU' intensive? A little knowledge is, well, a little knowledge. My CPU intensive application doesn't care what the "comparable market" is concerned with. My point was that the Celeron D vs Semperon CPU comparison was fair, in case it went over your head. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Laptops, wait for Intel Centrino Core Duo? | Kevin K. Fosler | Dell Computers | 35 | February 15th 06 01:48 AM |
Apple Abandons IBM, Will Use Intel Chips | Sparky Spartacus | Dell Computers | 2 | June 9th 05 07:19 PM |
GA-8IDML and Mobile CPU compatibility | Cuzman | Gigabyte Motherboards | 0 | December 8th 04 01:29 PM |
Advice Please on comparison between Intel Xeon MP 1.5GHz and 2.6GHz+ AMD64 | Neil Hodgkinson | Intel | 7 | July 16th 04 10:53 AM |
Intel chip comparison | NMH | Dell Computers | 2 | June 30th 03 10:49 PM |