# AMD having less GHz/L2 Ca. value beats IntelP4 3GHz+  How?



## quad master (Feb 4, 2005)

Hi All

After Reading the Digit CPU comparison article in Feb 2005 Issue
[All Stats taken from Digit Issue.]

Makes me wonder
How AMD having a low Ghz value still has the power to compete with
Intel 3.0Ghz + CPU's

Eg.
Consider AMD Athlon64 3000+
Speed - 2.01Ghz 
L2 Cache - 512KB

Consider Intel Pentium4 540
Speed - 3.2Ghz
L2 Cache - 1MB
FSB - 800MHz


Here in the Digit Test the AMD Beats Intel in most of the tests conducted
by them.

These tests have made to take the AMD processors very seriously.

Can anyone tell me how AMD does this magic.

All these years i never thought that AMD would be my next upgrade Processor.

Also can anyone let me know the fastest Top5 AMD processors and 
respective Mobos for it.

Waiting for your replies.


----------



## quad master (Feb 5, 2005)

Not even a single reply since the time i posted
Is it so that no one has answer to my doubt.


----------



## mamba (Feb 5, 2005)

quad master said:
			
		

> Not even a single reply since the time i posted
> Is it so that no one has answer to my doubt.



yo dude dont get upset
i think i no the answer . get a copy of CHIP , NOV issue . on pg 88 is an article ' Deconstructing The Megahertz Myth ' . 
has been a long time since i read it . tis a gud 4 page article , n i m preparing 4 JEE . so dont have so much time as 2 go over it n then reply in a jist . also its 12 in the night . yyyaaawwwwwnnnnnnn       
kiddin 
just get hold of the mag , n it combined with other opinionz on such forumz  , made me change loyaltiez frm intel to amd n m goin 2 buy a new rig after the exams r over


----------



## quad master (Feb 6, 2005)

Thanks mamba 

Will get my hands on that copy.

Best of luck for ur exams & the new Rig.


----------



## mamba (Feb 6, 2005)

quad master said:
			
		

> Thanks mamba
> 
> Will get my hands on that copy.
> 
> Best of luck for ur exams & the new Rig.



ne time dude
newayz , need all the luck


----------



## geekgod (Feb 7, 2005)

u might like this

amd whitepaper

another one.though it may not answer what u r asking,it will clear a few things
megahertz myth


----------



## AlienTech (Feb 7, 2005)

AMD has always been good at optimizing the CPU compared to Intel. Usually AMD can execute instructions in less clock cycles than Intel. Clock cycle efficiency depends on CPU design. So something like a POWER PC is much faster at the same clock rate. (If you can run the instructions natively).


----------



## quad master (Feb 8, 2005)

Also wanted to ask you guys

Is the 
AMD Athlon 64 XXXX+  Series more overclockable & Powerful 
or 
AMD Athlon 64 FX-XX

Where XXXX = 3000/3200/3500/3800/4000
XX = 51/53/55

according to my knowledge the FX Series are the top line AMD Chips 
and are more powerful and overclockable than the "+" Series.
[I might be wrong]

Please let me know if i am wrong or correct.

What is the FSB of AMD Athlon64 +  and FX Series 
and what is this Hyper Transport Technology actually which runs at
2 x 1000 Mhz / DDR.


----------



## teknoPhobia (Feb 8, 2005)

AMD cpus have thrice the number of computing units as Intel Cpus...at least thats what I remember from a long time ago


----------



## dIgItaL_BrAt (Feb 8, 2005)

Well firstly the athlon64 is a 64 bit processor while intel still makes 32 bit desktop processors.this alone gives the AMD more power than the Intel processors.Also if I remember correctly AMD has a technology called Hypertransport which minimizes transfer delays b/w the various components.


----------



## geekgod (Feb 8, 2005)

HyperTransport technology
This is AMD's new technology to facilitate high speed communication between the CPU and the other circuitry of the system. This is what AMD has to say about it:

"HyperTransport technology is a high-speed, low latency, point-to-point link designed to increase the communication speed between integrated circuits in computers, servers, embedded systems, and networking and telecommunications equipment up to 48 times faster than some existing technologies.

HyperTransport technology helps reduce the number of buses in a system, which can reduce system bottlenecks and enable today's faster microprocessors to use system memory more efficiently in high-end multiprocessor systems. HyperTransport technology is designed to:

    * Provide significantly more bandwidth than current technologies
    * Use low-latency responses and low pin counts
    * Maintain compatibility with legacy PC buses while being extensible to new SNA (Systems Network Architecture) buses
    * Appear transparent to operating systems and offer little impact on peripheral drivers

HyperTransport technology was invented at AMD with contributions from industry partners and is managed and licensed by the HyperTransport Technology Consortium, a Texas non-profit corporation."

The full specification and more information about HyperTransport technology can be found at HyperTransport.org. 

**courtesy-techtree.com**

by "+" if u'r meaning the XX00+ xp cpu's,u shld get a kick(just joking  ).
but if you are meaning the normal 64's,yup,the 64-fxs oc better,but only if you hv good cooling systems.but in stock cooling,the 64s on 939 socket oc much better.regarding the performance,there's not much diff(approx 15-20%)but there's a huge diff in price.
best optoin is to get a good s-939 mobo+athlon64,and later upgarade to a 939 fx if u feel the need.


----------



## quad master (Feb 9, 2005)

What is the FSB of AMD Athlon64 + and FX Series
is it 200Mhz 

what is "MT/s" i have seen this in AMD Proc Spec Sheet.

This i got from the AMD Site

```
AMD ATHLON 64 4000+ TECH SPECS:
L1 Cache Size: 64KB data + 64KB instruction = 128KB Total
L2 Cache Size: 1MB (exclusive)
CPU Core Frequency: 2.40GHz
CPU to Memory Controller: 2.40GHz
Memory: Integrated 128-bit wide memory controller
Types of Memory: PC1600, PC2100, PC2700 and PC3200 DDR memory
HyperTransport Links: 1
HyperTransport Spec: 2GHz (2x 1000MHz / DDR)
Effective data bandwidth: Up to 14.4 GB/sec (8GB/sec
HyperTransport bandwidth plus 6.4GB/sec memory bandwidth)
Packaging: 939-pin organic micro-PGA
Fab location: AMD's Fab 30 wafer fabrication facility in Dresden, Germany
Process Technology: 130nm (.13-micron) Silicon on Insulator (SOI)
Approximate Transistor count: 105.9 million
Approximate Die Size: 193mm2
Nominal Voltage: 1.50 V
Max Ambient Case Temp: 70 degrees Celsius
Max Thermal Power: 89 W
Max Icc (processor current): 57.4A

AMD ATHLON 64 FX55 TECH SPECS:
L1 Cache Size: 64KB data + 64KB instruction = 128KB Total
L2 Cache Size: 1MB (exclusive)
CPU Core Frequency: 2.60GHz
CPU to Memory Controller: 2.60GHz
Memory: Integrated 128-bit wide memory controller
Types of Memory: PC1600, PC2100, PC2700 and PC3200 DDR memory
HyperTransport Links: 1
HyperTransport Spec: 2GHz (2x 1000MHz / DDR)
Effective data bandwidth: Up to 14.4 GB/sec (8GB/sec
HyperTransport bandwidth plus 6.4GB/sec memory bandwidth)
Packaging: 939-pin organic micro-PGA
Fab location: AMD's Fab 30 wafer fabrication facility in Dresden, Germany
Process Technology: 130nm (.13-micron) Silicon on Insulator (SOI)
Approximate Transistor count: 105.9 million
Approximate Die Size: 193mm2
Nominal Voltage: 1.50 V
Max Ambient Case Temp: 63 degrees Celsius
Max Thermal Power: 104 W
Max Icc (processor current): 80A
```

"Max Thermal Power" is more for the FX compared to +
will the FX get more hot than the +


----------



## AlienTech (Feb 9, 2005)

Oh yea also since RAM is not running as fast as the CPU, the interface to the RAM makes a big difference. Intel designed their CPU's to work with Rambus before ths shiite hit the fan so their CPU's are not as good working with SDRAM or DDR's. While AMD designed their CPU's to work with SDRAM or much better working with DDR's. To see even bigger performance differences run both with SDRAM. Intel basically dies on it. AMD is very efficient using DDR, its made as a poor man's CPU. Also look at the mone involved, Intel needs to charge ever more to make profits. AMD is a much smaller company. Intel's budject is more than the governmenet of India's.


----------



## mamba (Feb 9, 2005)

quad master said:
			
		

> What is the FSB of AMD Athlon64 + and FX Series
> is it 200Mhz
> 
> what is "MT/s" i have seen this in AMD Proc Spec Sheet.
> ...



this drivin me nuts

hey ppl , in the specs do u NOTICE the word "FSB" NE VERE ??
ans is no . coz therez nothin such as a FSB ven v r talkin bout Athlon 64z .
y ?? vatz FSB ?? FSB used 2 provide a connection btw the CPU n the memory contorller , which resided on the north bridge of the chipset , n 2 the rest of the system through the south bridge. but as the things stand now , the memory controler is integrated on the CPU die . 

Enterz the Hypertransport . as geekgod mentioned earlier , hyper transport is a pt-2-pt , scalable , fast connection btw the proccy n the chipset . 

so therez no FSB , per say

on 754 moboz , its at 800 mhz(1600 mhz at DDR , 6.4 gbps ) n on 939 moboz , its at 1000 mhz ( 2000 mhz , thanks 2 DDR; dual data rate; n thus measuring 8gbps of bandwith) . 754 moboz dont support Dual-Channel DDR . 

so this 'low-latency' hyper transport is 1 of the reasons AMD kicks Intels ***


----------



## goobimama (Feb 9, 2005)

geekgod, the links don't work. I was very interested in that stuff...


----------



## quad master (Feb 9, 2005)

If AMD has nothing like FSB what is the "FSB" column doing in the 
Toms Hardware Guide - AMD Roadmap List

*img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/sanketss84/Computers/AMDSpecs.gif


----------



## mamba (Feb 9, 2005)

u no how old is that , they aint got no Winchesterz here (90 nm)
n may b its there so that people dont confuse , r able 2 understand , but vot i said was the fact . u can chek up with the amd guys , or 4 that matter , with the digit or CHIP ppl


----------



## theraven (Feb 9, 2005)

what do u mean amd has nuthin like fsb ?
what do u think the processor works on ?

u may not have seen it in specs ... but ofcourse there has to be an fsb
on the mobo that is
then this is stepped up using the  "multiplier" setting for the proccy to work on that speed

athlon xp ( or all amd's ?) and mobos come with default setting of one setting of fsb less than what its supposed to be ...
so u have to change it in the BIOS
for eg my amd 2600 and asus mobo came with the fsb setting of 133 or something by default which i had to change to 166 to make it work @ 1912 mhz


----------



## mamba (Feb 10, 2005)

DONT TELL ME       the amd 64 has been here 4 a vile , u guys keep talkin bout it , bout vich 1 2 buy  n ............ ( this n that ) n u dont no bout HYPERTRANSPORT      
it aint m fault u havnt done ur home work
so here it goz again ( n i hope 4 the last time ) .........

Technically speaking, there is no FSB on A64 systems. FSB is a bus that allows the CPU to communicate with system memory. A64 systems use a different type of connection called HyperTransport. It's a point-to-point link. The term HTT is used to described the connection speed. This is roughly equivalent to FSB but not the same thing.

That fsb is 64 bits wide and everything passes through it. It is also bi-directional, meaning upstream and downstream bits have to wait to get out of each others way.

The a64 uses an integrated memory controller to interface to your memory, and hypertransport to interface to the mobo chipset. 

Because the mobo chipset interface used to be called fsb, we tend to call the hypertransport an fsb replacement, which is misleading. The a64 memory controller replaces part of what the fsb used to do (communicate with memory), and hypertransport replaces the rest of what the fsb used to do (communicate with everything else).

The memory controller is 64 bits wide just like the fsb was, but now it has separate paths for upstream and downstream so both can occur simulataneously. The speed of these paths are 200mhz ddr, meaning a rate of 400mhz. In each direction.

The hypertransport speed is 800mhz in each direction which is why amd says it is 1600mhz. But it is only a 16 bit wide path. Its also not communicating with memory which is what most of us think of when we think of an fsb. To call hypertransport a 1600mhz fsb is misleading in that it is only 16 bits wide, and is not even leading to the memory. So amd is using an erroneous way to brag about their new architecture, maybe to keep it simple (?).

But way more important than speeds is throughput. Below, example 1 is how computers used to look and unfortunately how we still think of them. Example 2 is how they are today.

1) Say you are in a blimp above a city looking at the cars going at 4.77 miles per hour. A new car that could go 8 miles per hour would really speed up traffic for everybody. That's why the IBM PC AT was better than the IBM PC 1 (in a nutshell). 

2) Now say you are looking at that same city and the cars are travelling at 2,000 miles per hour. A car that can go 2,200 miles per hour is not going to help much because as you can imagine in this city the cars tend to sit at traffic lights all day long anyway since they go so fast between stops. What the city needs are more lanes and fewer stop lights.

AMD's on-die memory controller for memory and hyptertransport for everything else are not an advancement in mhz, they are an advancement in fewer stop lights and more lanes. Other than for video processing, mhz increases are old-hat and architectural improvements that reduce waiting will take us forward.

think this should be enough


----------



## quad master (Feb 10, 2005)

@mamba
Thats a very good explanation i got it now.

Thanks for your effort.
This is what i have thought after reading your article let me know 
if i got it correctly.

CPU to DDR Ram with Memory Controller
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is the BW between Processor and DDR Ram 6.4GB/s for the above mentioned AMD Processors @ 400Mhz [200Up + 200Down & 64Bits].

HyperTransport
~~~~~~~~~~
And Connectivity between processor and Motherboard @ 1600MHz - 8GB/s
[800MHz up + 800Mhz down]
But for AMD Athlon 64 4000+ & FX-55 its 2000MHz - 8GB/s
[1000MHz up + 1000Mhz down]

Total
~~~
So a Total  of 6.4GB/s[CPU to DDR Ram] + 8GB/s[CPU to Mobo] = Total 14.4GB/s

Thats a mind blowing speed.


----------



## mamba (Feb 10, 2005)

quad master said:
			
		

> @mamba
> Thats a very good explanation i got it now.
> 
> Thanks for your effort.
> ...



all socket 939 boardz gotta have 1000 mhz hypertransport , not just the 4000+ n fx-55     

n u just cant add up the 2  , 2 have 14.4 gbps        they r seperate things . nice 1 though


----------

