AMD 2200+ ?

[Guest]

can anyone please tell me what this is equivalent to in Intel languageand is there any sites that show comparisons of the different speedsthx

[Tavers]

2200+ = 2.2Ghz Intel speed. Apparently.

[Guest]

The rating is supposed to signify equivalent performance to a 2.2 Ghz Intel processor. The actual speed of the AMD 2200+ is 1.8 Ghz. While the performance rating concept is controversial, I think it is reasonable, and in my experience conservative. It exists because Mhz or Ghz is not the only determinant of CPU performance or power. AMD's CPU's perform more instructions per Mhz than Intel CPU's. Thus looking only at Mhz/Ghz is misleading, and makes AMD's chips appear less powerful, compared to Intel, than is actually the case. Hence the performance rating.I'm not quite sure what kind of "comparisons at different speeds" you are asking about. AMD vs. Intel? Or the different speeds of AMD chips? Either way, some links below.But first, my own experience. I recently compared the performance of my AMD 2100+ to the performance of P4's using 3DMark2001SE. I ran the benchmark on my system, which contains a Radeon 9500/9700, and searched the Futuremark database of 3DMark scores for P4's with the same video card. My 2100+ is modestly overclocked to 2600+ performance levels, and is actually shows up as a 2600+ to WCPUID. So I was expecting to find that the average Mhz of P4's with 3DMark scores similar to mine would be somewhere in the range of 2600 Mhz (if the performance rating was accurate). Instead, I found that the average Mhz of P4's with scores similar to mind was in the 2800's! In other words, to match the performance of my 2.1 Ghz AMD, the P4's required 2.8 Ghz. So if anything, in my case, the performance rating was conservative. There, though, a plausible explanation. Many of the enthusiasts posting 3DMark scores are overclocking. That was clearly the case for many, even most, of the P4 scores I was looking at, judging from their reported FSB. I only did a spot check, but I didn't see many, if any, over 170. But I'm at 192, so that could explain the difference. AMD bases the performance rating on default FSB's. To the extent that AMD overclockers can get higher FSB's than P4 overclockers, that is going to make the performance ratings a conservative indicator of comparitative performance.In other words, if you buy a 2200+ and run it at the default FSB, you should get performance equivalent to a 2.2 Ghz P4. But it you run it at a higher FSB, you'll outperform the 2.2 Ghz P4, making the 2200+ a conservative estimate of performance.As for published comparisons, you'll find lots in the following:http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1685While ostensibly about the AMD XP 2600/2400+ Revision B, the charts contain lots of comparisons to other AMD and Intel processors. For example, herehttp://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1685&p=9and herehttp://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1685&p=10you can see that the 2200+ compares well with the Intel 2.2 Ghz, just as it should. Again, these comparisons were probably done at default FSB's, and to the extent that AMD's can be overclocked to higher FSB's than Intel's, that will give them further performance advantages not reflected in these comparisons.Yes, I'm an AMD fan. For now.-Basil