He was answering to stilz, not you.Roman said:Ehm ... it`s not the point ... I haven`t told you to compare ps2 cpu to pc one. I have just told, that mhz of your cpu isn`t everything, as is with athlon. Even if it has lower mhz it has more advanced instructions than p4. That was all that I wanted to tell you. I didn`t want to compare ps2 cpu with pc cpu. That was only egzample of procesor with low mhz, which can do really beautiful things. So you have simply mistaken what I had on my mind. So that would be all.
see?stilz said:Is there a way to compare PS2's CPU speed to PC CPU's? Just curious.
It's a marketing technique employed by AMD to sell chips and make the Athlon XP more comparable to the Pentium 4 (despite what AMD says). When people see Athlon XP 1.8 Ghz vs Pentium 4 2.4 Ghz it's obvious which they'll go for. It's worked pretty well when comparing the two CPUs but AMD should be a bit more honest about it (state the clock speed as well). It is quite misleading and the majority of users are tricked into thinking it's the actual clock speed as you've been. Of course the performance is still there but it's still hugely misleading and AMD does it intentionally.Kraelis said:Thanks. I wonder why the heck they did that. Rather misleading, I must say.
Not to start a PC vs console thread but a lot of the CPU's power in a PC goes to the operating system. The PC is a general-purpose machine with a general-purpose CPU and an OS like Windows has a lot of overhead. It has to manage things like the GUI, word processing, fonts, networking, and has several dozen processes and services running in the background. The XBOX only needs to focus on gaming and although it only utilizes a Pentium 3 Celeron at 700 Mhz and a modified GeForce 3 but can run advanced games like Halo and Doom 3 which would be impossible for a PC with the same specs. In short, you can't really say a certain CPU is superior to another when running on different platforms and under different optimizations.Roman said:You can match this with play station 2 - it has cpu only clocked 300 mhz, and if you have one you can see the power of this cpu. Even if athlon is clocked 2.18 ghz it can be so fast as pentium 4.
That's not entirely true. Not all x86 CPUs can be compared equally in speed. The Intel 80486 has the same x86-32 instructions as the Pentium 3 but when running the same code (non-optimized x86-32 code) at the same clock speed the P3 will perform much faster. Certain x86 CPUs also only run optimized for certain sequence of instructions (like the FPU unit of the K6) and VIA/Cyrix CPUs also perform a lot different from Intel and AMD ones, although they're also x86. The significance of the Athlon XP and Pentium 4 being both x86 processors is that they can run the same software (compatibility) but doesn't necessarily mean their performance is comparable as their architecture and technology are radically different. Of course comparisons are easier between them as you can run the same software on both but they'll run different based on optimizations and exact comparisons are actually quite difficult (SSE2 doubles the P4's FP performance and multi-threaded apps increase performance by 30%). In certain software the Athlon will perform better, in others the P4 will and there's no definitive line on speed. In short, two processors can share the same instruction set architecture but perform a lot different and aren't equally comparable in their processing speed. For example, the Itanium 2 has twice the integer performance of the Itanium 1 but they're both IA-64 processors.GiGaHeRz said:You can compare amd's athlon xp speed to intel's P4 speed because they are both x86, so they share the same (basic) instruction set and registers, but they are actually different cpus, so there is also a variation in concrete instructions & optimization methods.