Celeron Beats AMD 3000+?

This may be a dumb question, but can somebody explain to me how my sisters weak ass Celeron processer runs at 2.8ghz while my AMD 3000+ runs at only 2.1ghz?

Athlon cpu have been built so they do the same amount of work as they're rated but with lower acctual clock speed.If you always think of it like that then you could say a celeron 2.8ghz is more powerful that an 2.6ghz athlon Fx55 but no way in hell is it.Its not always about acctual clock speed.Like i said to somebody else yesterday, Read some reviews.

Ohhhh...ok, I think I got it.

Ya its the same idea as a 2.0GHz Athlon 64 beating a 3.0GHz in some games. Clock speeds are only one factor in deciding CPU performance...

My understanding is that amd processors have a much lower stage pipe line (10 for athlon xp if I am not mistaken) which allows it to do the same amount of work, if not more, at lower clock speeds.

example:
My 3.0ghz Pentium4 Prescott (30 stage pipeline) with 1gig Corsair XMS Pro was bested in games by my 3200+ Athlon XP (10 stage pipeline) with the exact same ram and same video card (128mb ATI 9600xt Ultra). The 3200+ runs at 2.2ghz while the 3.0ghz P4 runs at its stated 3ghz. Athlon XP processors have to go through less of a grueling process to do the same job. Today I still have friends that don't understand this.... Well I hope this helps.

~Patrick

you know what you need when you introduce elaborate pipeline architecture? more L2 cache.

and a prescott has twice cache as a barton. which looks awfully good on a price tag in your local Best Buy. almost as good as 3.0ghz looks when compared to 2.2ghz.

but as you point out, looks can decieve

You know who has created this complete misunderstanding of how fast CPUs is, right? It's all Intel's fault. Man I hate them. Always aiming to deceive rather than doing their best to make a good processor. It's insane. And they are the market leader...

don't say that...wwwww (Intel's Representative) will chase you to death
hahahhahaha
kidding wwwww...hahhahahahah

They want $$$/profit. What's wrong with that? AT the end of the day it's about survival.

I would buy a Prescott over a norhtshit anyday. At same stock clocks (eg 3.0) it may be slower than northwood. Once OCed it's faster. Every mhz gained for that 1mb cache is better than that pos 512k cache.

Benchmarks show the northwood beats the prescott clock for clock regardless of the smaller cache size.

If intel had an integrated mem controller they wouldn't have to worry as much about cache size anyway


At the expense of the product's quality and performance

SO WHAT DUDE? You would make a fine businessman (sarcasm) If it makes them more profit it's better for them.
It's the own goddamn users fault if they want to buy some inferior stuff. AMDs marketting sux anyway. Intel has ~85% of market, how do you think they got that? This architecture(netburst) helped them alott. Now that NORMAL consumers are JUST recognising this after 2 or 3 years, they are adjusting to something like the Dothan in the near future (merom and Conroe).

And again your wrong. Prescott beats northshit when overclocked. I have said this nearly 10 times and it won't penetrate into anyone's thick skull. Every mhz GAINED for the CACHE = MORE PERFORMANCE. SO if you got a 3.0E and a 3.0C both at 3.6. PRESCOTT WINS. Whereas at stock it may lose.

This is just like the 660 vs 560. 660 may lose at stock speed in some things. Once OCed IT'S FASTER. Benchmarks/REAL user feedback have said it. FACT. ALthough this is twice cache+loose latency vs smaller cache + tighter latency. Northwood vs Prescott was the pipeline debate. Once OCed Prescott won. I know a guy with a 3.0E at 3.6 is faster than his northwood 3.0C at 3.75.

It's like im talking to 5 year olds.

Take the raw clock speeds.

the 210MHz for the axp
133MHz for the celery (if its a woody, 90MHz if its a pressy)

Agreed, my northwood 2.6C @ 3.51 vs my 2.8E @ 3.51; the northwood has a > bus and thus >ram speed yet the prescott beats it by 500 points in 3dmark01.

If I had to pick between the two, performance wise, I would agree with you. The problem is keeping a cool overclock with a prescott, heck, it's hard even to keep 'em cool when they're at stock speeds. The cooler Northwood allows better overclocks. Performance wise, an OCed Prescott would win, just get ready to purchase a cryogenic freezer.

bull****, the northwoods had a hell of a time breaking 4GHz, almost any prescott will do that.