Pentium 4 or AMD "sledgehammer"?
-
EAZy
Pentium 4 or AMD "sledgehammer"?
i dont know how much information there is on these chips but. im sure there are alot of you who will know about them. which one do you think will be the best and why?
-
HongKongPolice
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2147
- Joined: Thu Jul 08, 1999 12:00 am
- Location: I...... AM.......... CANADIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hmm the Sledgehammer is a 64-Bit CPU while the P4 is still 32-Bit. Its gonna be A LONG time before we'll be using 64-Bit CPUs for gamming cuz they gotta write a new OS, refine it, write new assemblers, refine it, etc etc. the x86 platform has been in use for 2 decades, switching to 64-Bit will not be easy.
Now the P4 is designed to compete with a new AMD 32-Bit CPU that will be out, using a refined Althon core. I forgot what the code name is called. I personally think the AMD CPU would be better cuz as it is, the Althonz are already kicking the P3's ass
Now the P4 is designed to compete with a new AMD 32-Bit CPU that will be out, using a refined Althon core. I forgot what the code name is called. I personally think the AMD CPU would be better cuz as it is, the Althonz are already kicking the P3's ass
-
smaier69
well, i have run across a couple bits of info on the Itanium and Sledgehammer processors.
form what i have gathered it looks as if the AMD solution will be able to 32-bit apps at a speed relative to its clock speed (comparatively speaking towards current processors), as well as 64-bit apps. the Intel solution (edited out the P4 i originally posted here. my bad, folks
) will only be able to run 64-bit VLIW instruction sets at a speed relative to its clock speed (comparative;y speaking, blah, blah, blah). in other words, the two processors may have somewhat equitable performance running 64-bit apps, but the Itanium will have to resort to some sort of "emulator" to use 32-bit, and take a drastic performance loss in doing so. the AMD can run either 32-bit or 64-bit programs without doing this.
there is another factor as well when considering the question: feature support. for example, Intel's SSE instruction set will give it an advantage if it is running Photoshop (due to SSE support), than an equivelant clock speed Athlon CPU given the same task. if the market gives support towards one archetecture or another, it could swing the balance, performanve-wise.
here's an article on the two processors.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/column/00q3/000822/
just my thoughts
------------------
"It is better to not speak and be thought a fool,
then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
I know, I know..... sometimes i just can't help it!
[This message has been edited by smaier69 (edited 10-02-2000).]
form what i have gathered it looks as if the AMD solution will be able to 32-bit apps at a speed relative to its clock speed (comparatively speaking towards current processors), as well as 64-bit apps. the Intel solution (edited out the P4 i originally posted here. my bad, folks
) will only be able to run 64-bit VLIW instruction sets at a speed relative to its clock speed (comparative;y speaking, blah, blah, blah). in other words, the two processors may have somewhat equitable performance running 64-bit apps, but the Itanium will have to resort to some sort of "emulator" to use 32-bit, and take a drastic performance loss in doing so. the AMD can run either 32-bit or 64-bit programs without doing this.there is another factor as well when considering the question: feature support. for example, Intel's SSE instruction set will give it an advantage if it is running Photoshop (due to SSE support), than an equivelant clock speed Athlon CPU given the same task. if the market gives support towards one archetecture or another, it could swing the balance, performanve-wise.
here's an article on the two processors.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/column/00q3/000822/
just my thoughts
------------------
"It is better to not speak and be thought a fool,
then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
I know, I know..... sometimes i just can't help it!
[This message has been edited by smaier69 (edited 10-02-2000).]
-
smaier69
oh, and since you inquired about the P4 (Willamette) processor, here's a link to an article on that as well
http://www6.tomshardware.com/column/00q3/000822/bb-03.html
------------------
"It is better to not speak and be thought a fool,
then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
I know, I know..... sometimes i just can't help it!
http://www6.tomshardware.com/column/00q3/000822/bb-03.html
------------------
"It is better to not speak and be thought a fool,
then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
I know, I know..... sometimes i just can't help it!
-
Athlon500@750
Ok,if your talking pure processor power, go MAC, the new g4's have a 128-bit processor, called the velocity engine, its bad ass. I'll gie you some numebrs to think about. Running SETI@home, the P-III 700mhz did a data unit in 31hrs, a 500mhz G4 did the same data unuit in 21hrs (give or take 30min on both scores). with these numbers, which would you choose for FPU operations?
-
smaier69
i have been a longtime admirer of Mac's. i had a Mac CI about 9 years ago. liked it a lot. if it weren't for the fact that compared to Wintel boxes, the number of saoftware titles is small. same with hardware. BUT, the velocity engine is no joke. i remember awhile back (say 2 years ago, or so) when the G4 had international trade restrictions on it because of the power of the processor (in Mflops). wasn't the Alpha the same way?.
anyways..... i totally agree with you on that, Athlon500@750
------------------
"It is better to not speak and be thought a fool,
then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
I know, I know..... sometimes i just can't help it!
anyways..... i totally agree with you on that, Athlon500@750
------------------
"It is better to not speak and be thought a fool,
then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
I know, I know..... sometimes i just can't help it!