Comparison of AMD Athalon and Intel Zeon

[Anonymous]

I've read all the other threads, and I realize that most on this group
recommend AMD over Intel for Inventor based on price versus performance.
I'm buying a new workstation, and just looking for an apples to apples
comparison.

What Intel processor is the AMD Athalon MP2600 (2.133ghz) "roughly"
comparable to?
What about the AMD Athalon MP2000 (1.667ghz)?

Thanks,
Brad

[Anonymous]

We had this discussion before. In apples to apples, I think we agreed that
the Athlon MP 2600+ would match the Xeon 2.6 Ghz and the Athlon MP 2000+
would match the Xeon 2.0 Ghz.

The lower clocked Athlons are rated by AMD on their "non-megahertz" rating
scheme for this purpose.

----------
Ashley Fulks
Production Manager @ www.nisku.ca
Specialized Supercomputers for Inventor
http://www.nisku.ca/autocomp.htm
http://www.nisku.ca/autocomp/autocompII.html

"Bradley Bruns" wrote in message
news:B34D192F0BA151A7AEFC72D51B436276@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I've read all the other threads, and I realize that most on this group
> recommend AMD over Intel for Inventor based on price versus performance.
> I'm buying a new workstation, and just looking for an apples to apples
> comparison.
>
> What Intel processor is the AMD Athalon MP2600 (2.133ghz) "roughly"
> comparable to?
> What about the AMD Athalon MP2000 (1.667ghz)?
>
> Thanks,
> Brad
>
>

[MechMan_]

As Ashley mentioned, typically an XP####+ will perform a little better than the equivalent P4 #.#GHz. For example you could expect an AMD XP2600+ to be a little faster than a P4 2.6GHz depending on the task being performed.



My .02GHz worth.



MechMan

[Anonymous]

That would be a good guess but technically incorrect, AMD PR ratings have
nothing to do with Intel clock speeds.

This is a good artical on it
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/editorials/latest_editorials/article
/1421/

[MechMan_]

True, but they "magically" (I use that term very loosely) tend to be in the ballpark of the Intel GHz speeds and the method can be used to quckly compare the two speeds.

MechMan

[Anonymous]

Um Paul...that link is 404.

----------
Ashley Fulks
Production Manager @ www.nisku.ca
Specialized Supercomputers for Inventor
http://www.nisku.ca/autocomp.htm
http://www.nisku.ca/autocomp/autocompII.html

"Paul Houlker" <666paulh@rimex.com666> wrote in message
news:CBC539288A24AEEB4442D5C533C74DB4@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> That would be a good guess but technically incorrect, AMD PR ratings have
> nothing to do with Intel clock speeds.
>
> This is a good artical on it
>
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/editorials/latest_editorials/article
> /1421/
>
>

[MechMan_]

His link broke. Add "/1421/" to the end of your copy/pasted URL. Lets see if I can get it...



http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/editorials/latest_editorials/article/1421/



MechMan

[Anonymous]

Sorry about that

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W27B21173

[Anonymous]

That actually is a really good article about Athlon vs Pentium Paul!

It is even more true now that AMD has moved from the Palomino core, to the
Thoroughbred core, and now to the Barton. I totally agree that AMD should
celebrate their own achievement of faster Mhz for Mhz, instead of playing
intels game with the prorated chip marketing.

----------
Ashley Fulks
Production Manager @ www.nisku.ca
Specialized Supercomputers for Inventor
http://www.nisku.ca/autocomp.htm
http://www.nisku.ca/autocomp/autocompII.html

"Paul Houlker" <666paulh@rimex.com666> wrote in message
news:f143033.6@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Sorry about that
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?W27B21173
>
>