🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3c9213fc.0@news1.mweb.co.za>, ak79@iafrica.com says...
> Hi,
> I've noticed that the new AMD Proccessors are call XP 1600, XP 1700, XP 1800
> etc, but the actual speed of the XP 1600 for example is only 1.4 GHz.
> 
> Now does this compare to a P4 1.6Ghz or a P4 1.4Ghz. Also, consider the fact
> the the P4 runs at a 400Mhz bus. To me it seems as if Intel comes out as the
> sure winner over here. After all it seems as if P4 1.6Ghz is better than AMD
> 1.4Ghz,.
> 
> Please let me know if my deduction is right, or should I go for the AMD

Your deduction would be correct if all GHz were created equal.  Each 
machine takes a certain number of clock cycles to execute each 
instruction, with the exact number varying with instruction type and 
addressing mode.  In addition, modern processors can execute more than 
one instruction at a time.  Intel made some compromises in the design of 
the P4 intended to make it easier for them to scale it to high clock 
speeds.  Those compromises were such that on the average it takes a P4 
longer to execute a given set of instructions than it does an Athlon or 
P3 running at the same clock speed.  In practice Athlons outperform 
faster P4s in most benchmarks and in the real world.  They're also 
cheaper.

-- 
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)