Developers & CPU speed requirements

[cutterjohn]

I have a question that one of you may be able to give me some guidance on:

I usually see software/game requirements give CPU speed requirements in what appear to be an Intel proented(pre-Conroe) fashion, e.g. 3.2GHz recomended. Now my question is: Obviously the speed is Intel centric as AMD doesn't have a 3.2GHz processor, now on this matter are AMD speed "ratings" meant(or considered) to be the direct equivalent of Intel clock speed? e.g. would an AMD Athlon 64 3200+ meet the "requirement" for the 3.2GHz Intel equivalent?

(I've been assuming that the AMD speed rating # to be equivalent to actual Intel CPU core speeds, but it makes me feel kind of queasy doing so as it is not entirely accurate. So far I've had good lucking going with that, but... I've done some checking around online and haven't really seen anything that gives me any more real guidance on this other than some vague CYA statements iwth plenty of fallback room... Even hearing that other users applying this "logic" and not having any horsepower problems with be nice to know...)

[LostInSpace]

Well what AMD did was increase the amount of data processed in a specific time period. Intel concentrated increasing the clock speed while AMD concentrated on keeping the clock speed down but increase the work load which had the benefit of keeping core temps down.

Example: Say, Intel processes 1 bit per milisecond the Amd can do 2,3 or 4 bits in the same time period. Don't remember the actual figures but this should be good enough for example sake.

For argument sake, an AMD 3200+ (Operating Frequency 2000) should operate to the equivelant Intel 3200. Depends on many factors. Not too sure about Intel chips but AMD chips are very overclockable. With good cooling, you could push the AMD 3200+ up to say 2.6 ghz thereby surpassing the Intel in performance.

Hope that helps answer your question.

[cutterjohn]

LostInSpace(not to be, ahm, arrogant but): Thanks, I actually already do have an AMD 3200+, which is actually the Venice core and potentially overclockable to 2.6G w/std HSF or so I've read.  (I've chickened out wrt trying until I build a second new machine and replace the current PSU.)

And actually what you are talking about is the number of instructions processed per second by the CPU's core ALU/FPU/subunits, the bits have nothing to do with it really.  The superior AMD instructions/s(until Conroe) were a combination of shorter pipeline(shorter recovery time from branch mis-prediction and other operations that req. piepline flushing), more efficient memory access/control, and some more efficient operations v. Intel netburst arch.

The real question though, is a 3200+ or 3800+ or 4400+ AMD processor really and truly considered to be the equivalent of 3.2, 3.8, or 4.4GHz Intel(non-Conroe) CPUs? i.e. I've already covered everything above, I'm just REALLY curious as to actual/perceived performance from the point of view of professional developers... or i.e. to repeat I know that AMD processors are more efficient than Intel netburst based CPUs, but what sort of guidance should I be taking wrt speed reqs as they are almost always only given in terms of Intel netburst CPU speeds, and this will be exacerbated with the Core 2 Duo as they will also be lower speed, but significantly more efficient than current AMDs and even more so than the old netburst arch... One enquiring mind would like some feedback, perhaps I should try avault...

[LostInSpace]

I know the bits have nothing to do with it I was just keeping it simple for non techies that read this to grab the concept.

As for the real world comparisons, the best way for anyone to determine that themselves is to own two computers an AMD and an Intel each with the same or as close to the same hardware. Other than that, we all just have to rely on tech sites to compare them for us.

[Guest]

I like to tell people that its like a race.

The Intel vehicle will have a top speed of 100Kph but reaches that speed in 10 seconds.

AMD has a vehicle of 50 KPH top speed but reaches that speed in 2 seconds.

Oh. And the distance between the starting line and the finish line is 100 meters.

zoom zoom