A Goon
Six million American, a copy of two pages of the Sargon Fragment, all the resources you need, the best protection from reprisal we can offer, transportation in the form of air transit at your convienience, a vehicle of your choosing, and if i read the fine print properly 50 free hours on AOL. The last is of course negotiable.
- A Messenger (Clan novel Lasombra)
I've been living in New Brunswick for 17.327 years.
Modified: August 09 2006.
Hits: 8523706/12416921
User: Anonymous Coward
Time: 0.05 seconds.

Read Message

not when its optimized its not.

Author: Tridus ()
Date: 2000-04-18 00:00:00

Fundamentally, the Athlon is a better cpu. The problem it has is a lack of optimized compilers/programs for it, which makes the P3 look better. But when you get down to the hardware itself, the Athlon blows the P3 away in just about every category, especially considering how flaky recent P3 cpu's and motherboards have been (rambus problems anybody?).

A better reference would be tomshardware.com, which has extensive athlon vs P3 comparisons, and has the Athlon winning nearly all of them (which based on the hardware itself should be true). The Athlon can simply do more and do it more quickly then a P3 rated to an equivalent MHz frequency. I shudder to think of what the new Athlon optimized distributed.net client will do, considering that even the unoptimized one was blazingly fast.

Its actually exactly the same story when you compare the P3 to the PPC G4 (Mac) cpu, or any of the high end 64bit RISC *X machines, the P3 comes out as the slowest one every single time. Sure they can rate it really highly frequency wise, but a G4 running at 500mhz blows a P3 running at 800mhz out of the water when it comes to any serious processing tasks (the rc5 comparisons aren't even funny, its 2-4 *times* faster at a lower frequency, a 1ghz g4 would be outright scary). For that matter, the G4 is a lot better then the Athlon too, primarily because AMD is stuck making x86 compatable cpu's, and the whole architechture is lousy. The only real reason we haven't been able to move away from it yet is that becuase of marketing, most people want Intel chips, and Intel has shown a total inability to make anything better then the slowest architechture and the slowest chips on the market. Just take a look around for their 64bit cpu offering (aka Merced or whatever its being called now), it should have been out about two years ago now, but they can't quite get it to work right. Whcih holds the rest of the industry back, AMD is making great progress with its 64bit chip, but it won't do much good without an Intel one already out and a Microsoft OS that runs on it.


If there were no words, no way to speak... I would still hear you... - Martina McBride

problem with the current poll... - Tridus - 2000-04-18 00:00:00
-Hrm... - SM_007 - 2000-04-18 00:00:00
-Well... - rRaminrodt - 2000-04-18 00:00:00
--that was nvidia's fault, not AMD's. - Tridus - 2000-04-18 00:00:00
---Not to mention... - The Lord DebtAngel - 2000-04-18 00:00:00
----Re:Not to mention... - Tridus - 2000-04-18 00:00:00
---Would you mind going into more detail on that subject? - SoulTaker - 2000-04-18 00:00:00
----not when its optimized its not. - Tridus - 2000-04-18 00:00:00
-Yeah :) - BandWidth - 2000-04-18 00:00:00