Fastest Processor

[pyrate83]

What's the fastest processor speed that someone could have on their computer?

[mrtristan]

Intel - 3.0Ghz P4, 800Mhz FSB

That's the fastest rated cpu that's currently out, based on clock speed alone.

[bugster]

Intel - 3.0Ghz P4, 800Mhz FSB

That's the fastest rated cpu that's currently out, based on clock speed alone.

Thats certainly the one with the highest clock speed rating currently available in the marketplace. As to what processor will perform a particular task fastes, well, lets start another platform war shall we

(just a reminder to anyone else thinking of responding, no-one mentioned PC's or windows. There is more than AMD and Intel who make processors).

[freak_in_cage_10k]

well, with regards to PCs (just for u bugster) AMD have the AMD XP 3200+ out. it requires v fast ram though, and with regards to performance it is approx the same as the 3000+ (which doesnt require such fast ram).

cant be bothered with amd vs intel, both v good etc, no real noticable difference in performance (3000+ = 3.06GHz P4 except, MAYBE a few VERY specilised tasks), generally AMD are better value for money (the amd 2500+ much cheaper than 2.5GHz P4) but the price difference is less noticeable with the highest spec cpus. AMD do produce more heat, but as long as u fit a decent heatsink & fan this is not a problem!

dunno much about apples so wont mension them

[WeedVender]

Apples are 64 bit processors...
The only CPU that is 64 bit is the AMD opteron which I have . But they only run currently in Windows 2003 (another thing I got).

So I say you cant compare them.
But.. an Dual AMD Opteron setup running at 1.6 ? Ghz beats a dual Intel P4 3.06 Ghz xeon... and the Opteron can do 64 and 32 bit processing succesfully unlike the Intel Ithalium. But then again thats not accurate in rating the highest clock processor..

Theres over clocking, system performance, L2,3 cache size MFLIPs(or MFLOPs ?) make up processing speed, also cycling.

For example, you can overclock an AMD Barton 3200 to a AMD Barton 4200 provided you can get the CPU cool enough.. even without overclocking there is still a noticeble increase if u use something Like a Vapor Chill case that cools the inside to about -25 F. or Liquid Nitrogen ( -380 F.) in a styrafoam cup siting on top of the CPU... same goes with almost all processors.

[BJ_M]

Apples are 64 bit processors...
The only CPU that is 64 bit is the AMD opteron which I have :). But they only run currently in Windows 2003 (another thing I got).

So I say you cant compare them.
But.. an Dual AMD Opteron setup running at 1.6 ? Ghz beats a dual Intel P4 3.06 Ghz xeon... and the Opteron can do 64 and 32 bit processing succesfully unlike the Intel Ithalium. But then again thats not accurate in rating the highest clock processor..

Theres over clocking, system performance, L2,3 cache size MFLIPs(or MFLOPs ?) make up processing speed, also cycling.

For example, you can overclock an AMD Barton 3200 to a AMD Barton 4200 provided you can get the CPU cool enough.. even without overclocking there is still a noticeble increase if u use something Like a Vapor Chill case that cools the inside to about -25 F. or Liquid Nitrogen ( -380 F.) in a styrafoam cup siting on top of the CPU... same goes with almost all processors.

hmmm- some straight facts:


Apple computers are NOT 64 Bit now or ever been - but they have teamed with IBM to come out with one since motorola dropped the ball on apple.


a 64 bit cpu will ONLY beat a 32 bit cpu IF THE software it is using is also 64 bit (not many) for the amd or intel cpus ..

64bit cpu's have been around for MANY years ( i have several in my sgi)
Sun SPARC, Fujitsu SPARC64, IBM POWER4, IBM PowerPC 970, HP PA-RISC, SGI MIPS, and DEC (now HP) Alpha are some that come to mind.

the Intel Itanium has been out for 3 years (not that they sold many of that first generation)

[WeedVender]

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question299.htm

an intersting read.. I stand corrected.
But what does the 128 bit suggest?

[BJ_M]

128 bit is an internal buss ... that comparison is so out of date its useless anyway

read this

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm
http://www.mediaworkstation.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm
http://www.digitalpostproduction.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm << good one

[Faustus]

Much as I love AMDs cheap CPU goodness I'd have to say that Intel 3ghz with the new bus kinda stompss everything in site. mmm... competition jelly.

[WeedVender]

The Barton 3200 is faster i think..

[freak_in_cage_10k]

weed- the barton 3000+ was one big screw up from AMD! its rating should be more like about 3000+, or maybe even 2800+. It requires ddr 433 ram (maybe 400, i aint sure) to work but performance wise it is out performed by the P43GHz and also the 3000+!

check out toms hardware guide to find more info! it is widely known by overclcokers that they have messed up the ratings with that one!

flaystus- no doubt the p4 is the top end one for video (no inc apple of course) but i think "stomp" is a little to strong, "beat" is more than enough

[Faustus]

Little benching with the XP3200 and P4 3ghz.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030513/athlon_xp-15.html

[freak_in_cage_10k]

an interesting read dude, although most ppl know that tom favours intel. this is why he still include Quake 3 in his benchmarks. Q3 is renound for favouring Intel and it should be dismissed from now on because it is so old, 300FPS + is just stupid and gets innacurate

[Faustus]

I've been reading Toms hardware a long time, and considering that Intel stopped talking to him and sending samples for a while after he broke news about a Bug in one of their CPUs I seriously doubt he would change the facts just to please Intel.

Look I LOVE AMD, but facts are fact, right now they are beat in speed, in price they still cannot be touched.

[freak_in_cage_10k]

i too love AMD, and i agree with you, Intel currently beat AMD for performance alone! no doubt about it!!!!

However, if you are any enthusiast/overclcoker whether Toms is considered to being slightly byast to Intel they will say yes!!!

It is widely known that Quake 3 always responded better to Intel CPus than AMDs (for various reasons). It was a respected benchmark because for its time it was cpu intensive and very popular amongst gamers.

However, now adays there is no reason to include Quake 3 as a bench simply because it is so old, when you are getting over 300FPS it is getting out of date, there are pleanty of other shoot em ups to test fps on (Splinter Cell, Max Payne, Unreal Tournament 03 etc). The only reason tom still includes these Quake 3 scores is because he knows Intel will win them!!

trust me dude, ask a few overclockers and you will get the same answer (not that im an amazing overclocker or n e thing!)

[Faustus]

Q3 is hardly THAT old, besides it a much more commonly known game then some of the others you have listed. Thats why I always assumed it was there.

Either way reguardless of rather its slanted or not I think he sets a pretty good case. Intel has the speed crown from AMD just like ATI took nVidias, but I still love my Geforce card, and I still love my AMD CPUs, they just are not top dog.

Beside I've never really understood the point of overclocking, yes I have done it, I did it on my Celeron 300a back in the day but its not worth the hassel of worrying about the extra heat it creates.

[freak_in_cage_10k]

Q3 is hardly THAT old, besides it a much more commonly known game then some of the others you have listed. Thats why I always assumed it was there. .

m8, wen u r getting well over 300fps, the innaccuracy is huge. alo, u dont buy a £350 graphics card 2 play a game like quake 3, which u can play with a GeForce 2

Either way reguardless of rather its slanted or not I think he sets a pretty good case. Intel has the speed crown from AMD just like ATI took nVidias, but I still love my Geforce card, and I still love my AMD CPUs, they just are not top dog..

No doubt Intel are the best, although the redeon 9800 and latest GeForce FX are v close i believe, although the fx is uch noisier!

Beside I've never really understood the point of overclocking, yes I have done it, I did it on my Celeron 300a back in the day but its not worth the hassel of worrying about the extra heat it creates.

I cant be bothered with overclocking most of time time, because of all the cooling required etc, but if u r lucky and get a cpu with v good stepping, you can overclcok like crazy with little or no increase in voltage!

for instance, my Barton 2500+, with a default clock speed of 1.8GHz, clocked up to 2.25GHz! thats faster than the 3000+!!! And it was all for free with v little increase in heat output as i didn;t touch the cpu voltage!!! my m8 has borrowed the cpu and uns it at 2.55GHz, although he has quite gd cooling and has messed around with the cpu voltage!