Shoutbox

Well that's more than enough info now is the intel processor a dual processor or a dual core? Don't know simply, it's a Pentium PD 920 2 x 2.80 GHz

I think the Pentium D920 supports 64 bits as it has EM64T from Intel. It also has 2x 2MB L2 cache... man I that's pretty damned hawt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Exca
is the intel processor a dual processor or a dual core?

---

"Dual processor" is what happens when you have a motherboard with two processor sockets and two chips. 

Dual (and sometimes even quad) processor systems are not new and have existed for decades.  This, by the way, is why there is ready operating system support for SMP (Symmetric Multiprocessing) and you don't need to upgrade your OS.  However, given the high cost and smaller benefit for desktop systems, which tend to do a smaller number of things at any one time, it used to be reserved for the server and high end workstation markets only. 

"Dual core" is a single chip that contains two processing cores.  Without getting into minor technicalities, a single dual core processor is about the same as a system using two single core processors.  The single chip solution lowers the costs and Intel, AMD have resorted to that now because they have no choice -- they've pretty much reached the point where further increase of clock speeds (what they have been doing for years) isn't possible, nor is there much left to squeeze out from execution efficiency improvements.

[unrelated]

Intel made a mistake a while ago. They changed their processors to get better clock speeds, but in turn, halved the performance. So an intel processor might have double the clock of an AMD processor, but it would still take twice as long for the instructions to complete. So, an AMD that has half the clock rate of an equal Intel could do just as many instructions at the same speed. So, an AMD running at 2 ghz has the potential to outperform intels running at speeds much higher. This is why everyone says AMD processors outperform Intel ones.

[/unrelated]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Exca
Well that's more than enough info now is the intel processor a dual processor or a dual core? Don't know simply, it's a Pentium PD 920 2 x 2.80 GHz

---

Dual core = 1 physical processor that contains 2 cores.
Dual proc. = 2 physical proccesors (= two slots on motherboard)

Anyhow, AMD has been dominating the market lately, I would go for AMD.  Gaming is much better and more things are supported with AMD (Better SLI support) -- You better get an AM2 socket though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShawnZ
So an intel processor might have double the clock of an AMD processor, but it would still take twice as long for the instructions to complete. So, an AMD that has half the clock rate of an equal Intel could do just as many instructions at the same speed.

---

It was a design decision and not a bad one.  Note that AMD has never been able to achieve the actual clock speeds comparable to Intel's at any given time, for this very reason.  If that was possible with their approach,  it would've enabled them to surpass Intel's top of the line offerings by a huge margin, but it isn't.  The Athlon 64 3700+ Exca is considering actually runs at 2.2 GHz.  "3700" is merely a suggestion it might be comparable to a 3.7GHz Pentium 4. 

Of course, it doesn't make any difference to the user whether the same number of instructions per second is achieved by the combination of lower clock with higher IPC (instructions per cycle) or higher clock with lower IPC.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShawnZ
So, an AMD running at 2 ghz has the potential to outperform intels running at speeds much higher. This is why everyone says AMD processors outperform Intel ones.

---

That is likely where it started, yes.

The bottom line on this is that the only valid comparison one can make is "how much performance will $200 (or whatever I have budgeted for the CPU) buy me with Intel vs. AMD?" 

However, even that is not a simple comparison to make.  An x86 processor performs a wide assortment of operations and both designs are better at some types of those than others...

All other things looking equal, I personally favor Intel.  The reason for this is many bad experiences with AMD's quality control (I've never encountered a defective brand new Intel CPU, while there have been numerous DOA Athlons) and the stability of third party (VIA, SiS et al) motherboard chipsets, the only option when you use AMD processors.  Intel processors on Intel chipset based motherboards has always been a more hassle-free, dependable solution for me.

That said, those issues are a bigger problem when you are dealing with large numbers.  I am not dead set against AMD and might consider an AMD processor if I was building a new computer for personal use at a time when AMD had a distinct advantage.

However, i have an AMD computer downstairs and it satisfies me more than the intel there was before. Maybe because it's a much faster system, but i haven't got any problems with it the past 3 years, no single crash, he just works as he should, perfectly. (It's an Athlon 3000+)

Also afaik AMD has a processor 5200+, comparable to a intel 5.2Ghz processor, only intel doesn't get that far at all...

After reading this all, i think I'll just wait for the new socket, and i'll compile my computer by myself with an AMD 64-dualcore processor with lots of Ghz+ then I have both 64 and dual core.

tnx

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrewdodd13
Actually, I'm not 100% sure that 64 bit processors actually use larger numbers, I believe this to be a common misconception

---

No it isn't: the registers are bigger, therefore they can contain larger numbers. In fact, it's possible to force a 32-bit chip to handle 64-bit numbers, but it requires a feww assembler tricks to achieve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrewdodd13
a Data Bus size of 8 bits

---

In 1985, maybe. Nowadays, the data bus is much much wider, 64 bits for DDR and DDR2. The wider data bus offers higher memory bandwidth not possible with an 8-bit bus. Modern processors are so much faster than memory that a high-bandwidth data bus is needed to give the memory a fighting chance to keep up with the processor.

In a modern PC, a processor's clock speed is typically 10-20 times that of the memory clock. This means the processor swallows data faster than the memory can feed it. Using a wide data bus minimises this effect: 64-bits is a good compromise between speed and cost.