Which is more powerful, AMD 900mhz or Intel 900mhz?

[damarble]

I know with the newer CPU's, an AMD 2.4ghz will slaughter an Intel 2.4ghz. But what about the older CPU's? Back then the gap wasnt so far apart, right?

 

[hUMANbEATbOX]

well, i with the k6 processors, amd wasn't that great. i'd rather have a 500mhz p3 than a 500mhz k6-2. but with the athlon, amd was a very viable cpu. a 1 ghz athlon was pretty close to a 1ghz p3, and they cost less.

 

[damarble]

The AMD in this case is an Athlon 900. So an Intel would still be a bit better at the same speed?

 

[PCluva]

I think the Athlon 900 was the same if not a little faster back then; then an Intel?

 

[Drec]

p3>athlon. but the athlons where cheapppppp and Oc'd good

 

[Enablingwolf]

I had versions of both 900 chips. The P3 was a tad smoother. Plus if you have the Irongate/Viper chipsets(AMD) it don't play very good with nVidia and sound was a joke.

 

[Susquehannock]

Hmmm, didn't the Athlon perform 9 calculations per cycle where the older P4 were only
6 per cycle?
That why the Athlon had such screwy numbering system. Trying to dispell the myth
that Mhz was the only factor for processing speed

i.e. - 1667mhz CPU = 2000+

 

[PCluva]

Hmmm, didn't the Athlon perform 9 calculations per cycle where the older P4 were only
6 per cycle?
That why the Athlon had such screwy numbering system. Trying to dispell the myth
that Mhz was the only factor for processing speed

i.e. - 1667mhz CPU = 2000+

The PR system AMD used was to show how fast Athlon thunderbird's needed to be to keep up with the Athlon XP's. I think only the XP's do more per clock cycle than Intel; due to Atlon XP's QuantiSpeed Architecture