|Quoting Lehpron (Reply 6):|
The only thing I dont like aboru AMD's are their scalings. With Intel's pentiums there are categories (I, II, III, IV, etc) and subcategories (dual core, etc) to describe the chip and the associated clock speed.
AMD chips have no such thing (their 3000 aparently is like a 2ghz but the ratio is not linear), so I cant even begin to rate them. I am hearing from people who own them (bias) they are the best; I don't care unless I have a reference point.
It's actually not that complicated, here's a few pointers:
1. For Athlon and Sempron chips, there is a 4 digit identifier , i.e. 3500 or 3800. This scales closely to the equivalent Intel chip in MHZ
. So, for example, an Athlon 3800 is comparable to an Intel Pentium 4 HT 3.8GHZ even though the actual clock speed is 2,4 GHZ. Semprons can be compared similarly to Celerons.
2. Pentium M processors and Turion processors of the same clock speed are approximately the same performance. As with the Athlons, you can use the AMD identifier to roughly cross the performance to a normal P4.
3. You get much better price/performance from AMD - probably part of this is not paying for all the Intel ads/promotions. It's not just that the processors are less expensive, but also other things. Due to direct processor control of memory, less components are required and equivalent memory performance is possible with slower(cheaper) memory.
4. With anything close to symmetric memory usage, these chips excel in multi-processor applications and are more often than not the preferred chocie for high performance cluster computing.