Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: AMD processors

  1. #1
    Fresh Paint
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    27

    Default AMD processors

    Hey, everyone. I have decided to go to AMD processors. I am going to sell my current mobo and processor wich havent even been used to fund my new mobo and processor. Now i know a lot about Intel(unforutnaletly) and not a lot about AMD. Can anyone tell me whats the ebst socket type(939 etc etc) and what like fx and 64 bit and all mean. Alsoi noticed AMD's are very much higher priced. My brother got my intel pentium 4 lga 775 2.66 for 120, i found this amd 754 Operating Frequency: 2.0GHz is like 140, can anyone tell me why? thansk a lot!

  2. #2

    Default Re: AMD processors

    1.) Socket 939 is the better socket for AMD, socket 754 is slightly outdated.

    2.) An AMD chip at 2 ghz is comparable to an Intel chip at 3.2 ghz. The AMD chip will have a rating of 3200+, which is equivalent to 3.2 ghz Intel.

  3. #3
    Fresh Paint
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4

    Default Re: AMD processors

    veince core is the best core for socket 939 chips the san diego core is the same as the vience just twice the amount of L2 cahce

  4. #4
    Fresh Paint
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    27

    Default Re: AMD processors

    Ahh I see, thats cool. so 1.8ghz is the equiv to 3.0 ghz on an intel? Also whats the series(athlon 64 etc) mean and whats L1 and L2 chache?

  5. #5
    Anodized
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    50

    Default Re: AMD processors

    64 is just 64 bit as oppossed to 32 bit, if you go with 64 bit you need to get an appropriate os and mobo.... as for the chache im not too sure what exactly it does/benefits but im thinking its similar to RAM(?)

  6. #6
    Fresh Paint
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4

    Default Re: AMD processors

    the more cache the better the vience core is the best and so is the san diego same core just twice the L2 cahce (san deigo) they run very cool and allow for more Overclocking

  7. #7
    Fresh Paint
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    27

    Default Re: AMD processors

    ahhhh, I see. Sorry for a delayed response, this helps a lot guys! I was going through the 2.0 AMDs and Im looking and I go - 300 bucks! what the crap! This helps a ton guys. Danke*bow*

  8. #8
    Fresh Paint
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    28

    Default Re: AMD processors

    Keep in mind that the more cache you get the better it is, but if you get a dual core CPU, then you actually have half the cache you think. Each core will take half the cace for itself. This means that a CPU that has 1Mb of L2 cach actually only is using 512 per core, and the L1 cache is being used faster, forcing the core to goto L2 sooner.

    Not that it matters, since the Athlon64 and Athlon64 X2 both have onboard memory controllers to help you goto your DDR faster. Cnet just rated all Dual Core CPUs against each other: AMD swept the field. Enjoy your Athlon!
    Ph3@r mI l33t n3kkid sk1llz!

  9. #9
    Overclocked Guttenaffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    256

    Default Re: AMD processors

    Quote Originally Posted by Zuke
    Keep in mind that the more cache you get the better it is, but if you get a dual core CPU, then you actually have half the cache you think. Each core will take half the cace for itself. This means that a CPU that has 1Mb of L2 cach actually only is using 512 per core, and the L1 cache is being used faster, forcing the core to goto L2 sooner.

    Not that it matters, since the Athlon64 and Athlon64 X2 both have onboard memory controllers to help you goto your DDR faster. Cnet just rated all Dual Core CPUs against each other: AMD swept the field. Enjoy your Athlon!
    Cache don't work that way, it really depends on the architecture of the cache system. To put it into simple and quick way to explain it: Cache takes "blocks" of system RAM. For simplicity sake 4 addresses or "rows" of RAM into one line, adds on a decoding TAG which word allocation info and a methood of telling which ram addresses are in that block. Then when you need to execute something it will look in the cache and if the TAG has info that saying that the needed info is loaded into the cache then you have what they call a "hit" or the proc can load the opcode, address, and data VERY quickly and then process the information. If the data isn't there then you have a "miss" and it needs to then be loaded into the cache. While this is happening the processor will go onto the next task and the PC (program counter) will pick it up on the next free/open tick or so.

    The problem of cache is that you can only have so much till it slows down the processor. The very nature of the algorithms used in its "hunting" limit the amount you can use in order to have tip-top speed. Don't worry though AMD and Intel know what they are doing and you won't buy a processor with too much cache which will make it slow. So in a way what you said was right, but was wrong. It was right because they will not sell something with to much cache. So the more is the better for now, till one of them starts this marketing scheme that "my proc has more cache than your proc buy mine!" that happened with the clock speeds of processors.

    I still say they should measure procs by their "flops" and "mips" written on the box. The only problem is that people would not be inpresed by huge padded numbers.

    If you wish I'll give a more detailed example. (this post is long enough)
    -Gutte
    No, I'm not a compleate Idiot!
    Some parts are missing.

  10. #10
    Practice random acts of generosity Omega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    A house
    Posts
    4,577

    Default Re: AMD processors

    uh, for socket 754, the Venice ain't the best. it's only got 2.0 core, 11x multiplier, and if i am not mistaken 512kb L2. you want the newcastle. 2.2GHz core, 11x multiplier, 1mb L2 cache. plus it handles OC'ing rather well. i'm running a S754 Newcastle Athlon 64 3200+ OC'd to 2.3GHz (and aiming for 2.5). =/

    Keep in mind that the more cache you get the better it is, but if you get a dual core CPU, then you actually have half the cache you think. Each core will take half the cace for itself. This means that a CPU that has 1Mb of L2 cach actually only is using 512 per core, and the L1 cache is being used faster, forcing the core to goto L2 sooner.
    wrong. if you find a X2 that claims to have 1mb of L2, it will specifiy that it is 1mb of L2 PER CORE.

    64 is just 64 bit as oppossed to 32 bit, if you go with 64 bit you need to get an appropriate os and mobo.... as for the chache im not too sure what exactly it does/benefits but im thinking its similar to RAM(?)
    you don't need a different OS if you have a 64 bit proc. however, if you wish to run 64 bit apps (which there are few), then you will need Windows XP x64 edition. about the mobo: it's not like 64 bit mobos are special and exotic either. the majority of AMD boards are 64 bit compatable, for the reason that almost everything AMD makes these days is 64 bit.

Similar Threads

  1. AMD Athlon 64 3800+ AMD 2
    By simon275 in forum Motherboards, Processors, & Power Supplies
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-02-2006, 01:35 PM
  2. Amd + Ati
    By AKA_RA in forum The Chatterbox
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-31-2006, 12:19 AM
  3. AMD operation vs quality
    By VandaL in forum Motherboards, Processors, & Power Supplies
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-07-2006, 04:53 PM
  4. how many use amd and how many use pentium
    By sylle in forum Motherboards, Processors, & Power Supplies
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 04-26-2006, 06:11 PM
  5. AMD OEM Heatsink compatible?`
    By Zeus in forum Motherboards, Processors, & Power Supplies
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-17-2005, 12:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •