# How to find GHz equivelent

**URL:** <https://forum.kirupa.com/t/how-to-find-ghz-equivelent/63654>\
**Category:** random\
**Created:** [September 8, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/how-to-find-ghz-equivelent/63654 "2004-09-08T21:20:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![NeoDreamer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ccd318/32.png) [@NeoDreamer](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/NeoDreamer)\
**Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/how-to-find-ghz-equivelent/63654/1 "2004-09-08T21:20:06Z")

</div>

When I look at something like: “AMD Athlon XP 2600+ CPU”, I don’t know how fast it is. But when I look at something like: “Pentium 4 @ 3.6 GHz”, I know that’s really fast. How do you translate AMD’s processors into a GHz equivelent?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/kirupa/original/3X/6/2/621e5c11736f46532526e61be85940af4230f3e5.png) [@system](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/system)\
**Post date:** [September 8, 2004, 10:42pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/how-to-find-ghz-equivelent/63654/2 "2004-09-08T22:42:45Z")

</div>

well, first off you have to understand something. AMD’s processors work differently than Intel’s. To kind of rougly describe it, AMD’s processors rely on the fact that they can pull off more calculations per clock than intel (so, for example, where intel may only do 5 per clock, amd may calculate 15) so, because they do more per clock than intel, AMD don’t need to run as fast to keep up with Intel. Intel, on the other hand, relys on the sheer frequency of their clock speeds to make up for the fact they only do a couple calculations per clock.

Next, you should know this - Many believe AMD’s to be better overclocker CPU’s (than intel) because they have lower frequencies and BUS speeds (in combination with the aforementioned calculations thing). This means that a slight tweek in BUS speed and or frequency will deliver “more” than a similar tweak on intel. And because they start low already, you can up them a fair amount without over stressing them. Of course, alot of this is personal opinion, but most people will agree that AMD’s are awesome overclocking CPU’s.

Now, to wrap up, what you were asking for in the first place :trout: Basically, take the number given (the performance number) example: 2600, put a dot between the hundred digit and thousand like so 2.600 and then add 0.2-3 so that would equal 2.800 - 2.900 and that is the rough Intel equivilent, without overclocking.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/kirupa/original/3X/6/2/621e5c11736f46532526e61be85940af4230f3e5.png) [@system](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/system)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2004, 6:17am UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/how-to-find-ghz-equivelent/63654/3 "2004-09-09T06:17:22Z")

</div>

> 

When I look at something like: “AMD Athlon XP 2600+ CPU”, I don’t know how fast it is. But when I look at something like: “Pentium 4 @ 3.6 GHz”, I know that’s really fast. How do you translate AMD’s processors into a GHz equivelent?

I have a detailed explanation already here: [http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68476](http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68476)  
Its fun when you search.