First of all Thanks a lot for help
see inline
--- Jim Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not exactly. The processor speed is an indication
of how fast it can carry out instructions, but on CISC (complex
instruction set computing) computers (x86, x86-64) some instructions take more
than one clock cycle to complete. Intel has pushed the clock speed (as
much for marketing as for any other reason - AMD produces processors that
can do comparable work at a lower clock speed)
Sorry could not understand this. What is making AMD processors work faster than Intel processors at a lower clock cycle. also i want to know how to prove this that AMD 64 bit processors will work faster than Intel 32 bit processor even if they have clock cycles like 3.6 GHz....
Say it takes an Intel processor 5 cycles to perform an instruction. If AMD figures out how to do the same thing in 4 cycles, the Intel processor would have to be 20% faster in clock speed to keep up with the AMD.
There are benchmarks done by some reputable companies that have proven some performance gains. To be fair, the Intel processors can beat the Opterons in some situations, but they pay for it in others. Processor design is one of those areas that involve trade-offs - a good processor design for one situation will be beat by another processor design made for a different situation.
Best way to prove the performance gains on a 64-bit platform - benchmarks. There are plenty out there - both the software and the results.
just about as far as it
can go - they are having severe problems with manufaturing the 3.6 GHz
chips.
It is only an accurate speed comparison between
chips in the same processor family - the last of the Pentium 3 chips
were actually faster than the higher-clocked early Pentium 4 releases -
and it's been that
Hows that? /is it due to higher clock cycles in P3 and less no. of transistor in early P4?
Part of it had to do with larger L2 cache on the last P3's. Part of it was just that the first P4's were not all that good. Par for the course for Intel - the Itanium 1 chip was pretty much just an engineering/developement prototype - but the Itanium 2 is a good, if rather expensive, processor, and the Itanium 3 promises to be pretty damn good, if Intel's track record stays firm.
Well definately PowerPC's are faster than Intel. i do agree. Some what i feel a day will come when CISC processors will find difficult to servive...
All modern CISC processors have a RISC core. There is an interpreter built in to the processor that breaks down the instruction set into the simpler language of the processor core. We could get rid of all that CISC crap if it wasn't for legacy applications - that's why PC's are pretty much the only holdout in the RISC/CISC wars, since there's a whole bunch of binary-only x86-only Microsoft-only applications out there that too many companies use. So long as there are proprietary programs for a Microsoft platform, there will be CISC processors.
Thanks again
ANkit Jain
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
