Mobile AMD Athlon XP1800 = Intel [what]?

LetMeKnow · December 10th, 2007, 05:06 AM

Hi.

What's the Intel processor equivalent to Mobile AMD Athlon XP1800?

Thanks!

DanU · December 12th, 2007, 07:21 PM

The Athlon XP1800 is clocked at 1533MHz, but because it is a more efficient design than the P4, AMD's rating system suggests it is as fast as a P4 1.8GHz.

LetMeKnow · December 13th, 2007, 07:33 AM

Wow that's pretty cool... I thought it's a lower Celeron you know,

So means XP[Bigger than 1800] is greater, is it?

Ultima · December 13th, 2007, 09:33 AM

that really depends. The P4 1.8Ghz had it strongpoints against the AthlonXP, for example much higher bandwidth available.

AMD's strongpoint against the P4 had always been games. There was even a time, they benchmarked an AMD FX-55, 2.6Ghz singlecore, don't know exactly what games they were, but they had to chill a P4 with liquid nitrogen to get it to 5Ghz, and when the P4 ran at that speed, it finally got the same frames per second as the FX-55 did @ 2.6Ghz.

So yes, and no. The XP officialy stands for eXtreem Performance, and in some cases it is faster then the P4 1800 and in other areas it is not. It is globally about the same, but up untill the XP2000 they were really carefull with the rating, as it turned out that most of those XP's were faster then they indicated.

For example that XP1800, would proof to be faster then a P4 2.0Ghz in a lotta cases, ofcourse games as well.

pullmyfoot · December 13th, 2007, 09:55 AM

but the FX was the top of the line stuff right. which means that other factors like cache would come into play, with the FX obviously having the advantage. so it wouldnt really be fair to say that you had to clock the P4 at 5Ghz to beat it. or would it?

off topic, AMD has no FSB right?

SoloCamo · December 13th, 2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pullmyfoot

AMD has no FSB right?

No. Not from A64 up that is.

Ultima · December 13th, 2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pullmyfoot

but the FX was the top of the line stuff right. which means that other factors like cache would come into play, with the FX obviously having the advantage. so it wouldnt really be fair to say that you had to clock the P4 at 5Ghz to beat it. or would it?

off topic, AMD has no FSB right?

The contest was between the FX-55 and an Intel extreme edition if I'm not mistaken. Or at least one of the fastest P4's that were around, they had more cache then the FX-55.

The FX-55 has 1MB cache, and all prescott P4's do as well, where the EE have 2 or 4MB, so that would be an advantage for the P4.

SoloCamo · December 13th, 2007, 01:06 PM

It was a p4 660 stock clocked at 3.6ghz w/ 2mb l2 cache...

Heres the article:
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1787/

LetMeKnow · December 15th, 2007, 09:41 PM

How important it really is to have a FSB and cache?
Will either or both lower down the overall CPU speed?

RamonGTP · December 16th, 2007, 12:45 AM

FSB is not something that adds performance, it simply a communication channel between the processor and the motherboards northbridge chip. The northbridge also contains the systems memory controller.

With Athlon64 based processors, this memory controller is built into the processor itself and not on the motherbaord, so there is no FSB. The processor links directly to the memory at whatever speed the memory is set to run at.