Hello folks. (No this is not a who is the best post). When reading threads on how such and such game runs with this and that settings I often compare the system specs of the posters pc to my own specs to give me an idea of how it would play for me. My problem is, when people are using an AMD chip, I have no idea how mine compares. Could someone give me a clue as to where my cpu fits in with the AMD folk. Thanks in advance.
I dunno, maybe an Athlon 64 clocked around 2 GHz or so. The biggest factor in gaming performance, however, will be your video card and RAM.
I wouldnt be so quick to rule things out, especially in the single core arena. I appreciate that they arent designed to do that, but the perf numbers seem to give a general indication of what processors match.
gotta go with arnie here, i think that the naming of the athlon chips is pretty accurate to the pentium. doesnt the 64bit own the pentium 4 anyway?
common misconceptions that piss me off to call an A64 2800+ (socket 754) = to a p4 2.8ghz is incorrect.. why? very simple why the sole fact that the XP-2800 and A64-2800 arent the same the second fact that the p4 2.8ghz comes in many varients 1. 400fsb 2. 533mhz fsb 3. 800mhz fsb C northwood 4. 800mhz fsb E presscott 5. 800mhz fsb 6xx series cedar mill the whole set of above facts seals the deal. "the whole 64-bit thing" 64-bit is marketing A64 is better the P4 not due to its 64-bit extensions but due to its architectures superoirity, 64-bit is and was marketing, bring little or no performance advantages and guess what even 64-bit enabled P4s sucked just as bad when they were 32-bit. and before anyone posts what i thinking is coming next. AMD has better 64-bit instructions - FALSE they quasi identical another new type of post concerns the burned AMD fanboys 1. conroe is good at super PI because of its 4mb of cache- FALSE if that was the case presler would kick the **** out of most cpus at super PI. 2. Its not the amount of cache but its the way they use it (this is the funniest one yet) the guy is talking about "smartcache" intels new technolgy which allows the processor to rezise the cache according to its state, well conducted tests on anandtech proved that this gives a performance penalty and not an increase however it was designed to reduce power consumption and to enter C1 haltstate on these cpus. watch out lads people are out to burn you! PS after being proved wrong the classic post is "youre a fanboy!" PS2 if i sound rude i dont meant to be
i know its not identical, thats why i said that it gives a general idea The performance between a 2800+ and any of the p4 2.8ghz variants (you missed out the D prescott ) wont be miles apart. Now, i know some may be slower, and some may be faster, but its not like a 2800 performing as well as an 800mhz celeron or anything. About the 64bit thing, now the two proc's have the same implimentation, but the few D revision prescotts (remember, the ones in grey boxes) had two instructions missing from the 64bit implimentation. I dont know if this affected performance or not, but maybe thats where that rumour has come from.
AMD Model numbers are not great tools for judging performance. Instead, look at benchmarks instead, you cannot get more accurate than that.
True, but initially, AMD thought of calling xxxx+ a processor because it would have behaved like a Thunderbird at xxxx MHz. But now that isn't as much available as it was then...
