AMD vs Intel clock speeds

[jcam89]

Hello,
I am looking at upgrading my current AMD fx 4170 to an i5 3570. Everything I have looked at says it's way better. I know I need a new MB as well. My question is and where I get crossed up with CPU's is this. Why is the 4170 at 4.0 GHZ slower than the 3570 at 3.4 GHZ? I use Flight Simulator X more than anything else and it is very CPU intense more so than GPU. Any help clearing this up would be appreciated. Thanks a lot!

[cpuwizard9225]

Currently Intel has a more efficient architecture than AMD. The new Intel chips can complete more instructions per clock cycle than the AMD ones and since they brought back Hyper Threading, the four physical cores on the processor can act as 8 logical cores meaning that programs that are enhanced for multiprocessor support can run more instructions at once. This was the same thing back on Pentium 4/Athlon 64 days. Sure your Pentium 4 could hit 3.8Ghz but it took more cycles to complete an instruction on the Pentium 4 than it did on the Athlon. Hence a lower clocked Athlon of the day would often hold its own or beat a Pentium 4 in the same price bracket.

[fenyal]

(example only)

amd instructions per clock = 1

intel instructions per clock = 2

amd at 2.0 ghz will add
1+1=2
2 billion times per second.

however intel at the same 2.0 ghz will add
1+1=2
1+1=2
in the same 2 billion times per second.

this is what people are talking about when they talk about "IPC" "instructions per cycle" more instructions calculated in the same time frame equals out to more performance.

of course the ICP is most likely a lot higher and different in nature to this example but providing something easy to understand is where this example has purpose.

i hope i have helped you a bit.

[Davyie]

Im am getting a Toshiba satellite with AMD Dual-Core Processor E-450 APU with AMD Radeon™ HD 6320 Graphics to replace my now outdated Fujitsu Amilo Pi 2515 with Intel core 2 duo with integrated 965 chipset family graphics.
the AMD is 1.65GHz 64bit 40nm lithography. Released: 11/11
the intel is 1.67GHz 64bit 60nm lithography. Released: 05/07
I know the FSB speed of my current intel CPU is 667MHz, but i cannot for the life of me find out what the AMD FSB/Hypertransfer speed is.
The reason i am interested is from all the benchmark tests ive seen they say the AMD is worse off, and i am trying to understand why a 6 y/o CPU can out perform a 2 y/o CPU.

[fenyal]

from what i gather, the e-450 apu is a low power cpu. (18 watts) the core 2 duo is nearly double that. (34 watts) the core 2 was meant has a laptop counterpart to it's desktop big brother.

AMD made this processor as a low power solution and for this reason it runs slower than an older processor. amd is known for being slower than intel right off the jump. adding the lower power consumption with the slower calculations makes this processor perform worse than the core 2 duo. but at the advantage of nearly half the watts.

now since you are trying to compare an apple to an orange in this case, you also have to take into account that the apu also is sporting a graphics core on the die while still holding that 18 watts.

the processor maybe a little under par but if you like visuals instead of cpu brute strength, the graphics of this chip are a good leap up from the 965 chipset from intel.

personally i would sacrifice a little bit of processor power for the extra graphics power. the E-450 also has extra instruction sets to deal with multimedia better.

i hope i have helped.

[DylRicho]