how many ghz in a 4200 amd athlon cpu?
362973
This is the only AMD Athlon that's 4200:\n\nAMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Dual Core Processor \n(2.2GHz, 1MB, 1GHz Bus, Socket 939 - SKU: ADA4200BVBOX)
612217
Yep absolutely nothing.\nNow if you want the difference between an AMD XP 2800+ and a AMD Athlon 64 2800+. This will be a big difference.\nAMD 64 is newer technology, it's faster and needs different computer equipment.
1067104
The AMD X2 processor is great for games, the X2 4200+ is a good one thats not too costly but great, 2.2Ghz and good size cache.
1027735
possibly 3.1ghz but be careful i tried overclocking myself once and it didn't go too well
792570
Intel® Core™2 Duo Processors
769423
Okay always remember this: 64-bit Processors are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY better than a 32-bit processor becuase they have faster data transfer rate so I always recommend AMD processors with 64 in the title, I don't really care for Intel Processors. Even though this is a bit of topic, heres a question.... Which is better an Intel Pentium 4 with 1. ghz or an AMD Athlon XP 1800+, well the answer is the 1800+, even though the processor speed will be lower than the Intel Pentium but because of higher data transfer speed in AMD CPU's you notice higher speeds in AMD processors, so I recommend always go with the AMD.
881835
Here is the list\n\nDesktop\nAMD Athlon™ 64 FX Processor \nAMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor \nAMD Athlon™ 64 Processor \nAMD Sempron™ Processor \n\nMobile\nMobile AMD Turion™ 64 Mobile Technology \nMobile AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor \nMobile AMD Sempron™ Processor \n\nWorkstation\nSingle and Dual-Core AMD Opteron™ Processors \n\nhttp://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9331_12862%5e13301,00.html?redir=CPGWV01\n\nBut if you want more performance, you might try Windows XP Professional 64 instead.  Wait until you see Test Results. \n\nhttp://www.amdboard.com/windows_xp_64bit.html
1132425
Actually, the number 3500+ is a relative rating that compares AMD to its competitor Intel. 3500+ means that it performs relative to a Pentium4 at 3.5 GHz. The architecture of the AMD cpu allows it to perform faster at lower clock speeds than intel processors, although that is not necesarily better. The current maximums of literal clock speeds is about 3.5GHz or 4GHz when overclocked. This literal speed has not been surpassed because of the amount of heat that the cpu generates, therefore companies have been modifying data pipelines and creating dual core cpus to get better performance. The real speed of your computer is still a balance between all components, so as sockets upgrade and architecture changes to better accomadate faster ram and hard drive speeds and real support of 64bit computing is created, performance can still increase while cpu clock speeds can't be raised.
5387
If you rate speed by Ghz then, yes, your brother's computer is faster by 200 mhz.  Note, however, that your Athlon64 has more cache and faster bus speed which should translate in running programs faster.
625755
There is not, that I am aware of, no. Of course... dual core is where AMD's numbers stop making sense. The numbers they give their processors is supposed to give you an idea of how fast they are compared to intel (ie an Athlon 3500 should be as fast as an intel 3.5ghz, even though the athlon is running at something like 1.8ghz) However... the AMD dual core numbers are still being compared to Intel single core... so an X2 4800 is supposed to be as fast as an intel single core 4.8ghz (which doesn't actually exist, of course) Not an intel dual core 4.8ghz (which also doesn't exist... oh my god, you'd feel the heat from miles away) So now AMD has come out with new crap numbers that apparently don't mean anything except when you compare them to other AMDs, they're just... arbitrary... numbers. And that makes my head hurt. But anyway my point is, there's no intel dual core 64 bit 3.6ghz+ cpu that I'm aware of, however AMD *might* have something that's its equivalent in speed, but your guess is as good as mine, because their numbers don't make sense anymore.
1090308
you technically couldn't make them the same speed, but unless you are saying like a Intel P4 2.8ghz a Celeron at 2.8 and an AMD Athlon at 2.8, well, the Athlon will beat everything from the Intel 2.8s to about 3.77s to even 4ghz for Intel due to the difference inthe AMD cpu architecture.
416968
I would definitely suggest the AMD Athlon 64x2 4200+ for the following reasons:\n\n1.) AMDs use a cross bridge between the two cores to communicate while Pentium dual cores utilize the FSB for core communication. The FSB for Pentiums is used for all communication between the CPU and all other parts including communication with RAM, and is also a one way highway (can't send and receive at the same time). Communication between cores in Pentiums just adds to the bottleneck and noticeably slows down the system at higher usages. In addition, the Pentium 920 does not even have the hyper threading feature, which bogs it down even more in intense computing environments. The cross bridge in AMDs is a direct link between cores and is used exclusively for the purpose of communication. \n\n2.) The hypertransport in an AMD system is a two way highway (it can send and receive at the same time). This allows RAM such as dual channel PC3200 to show benchmark scores which are the same as PC2-6400 used with Pentiums. \n\n3.) If you look at what the top websites such as tomshardware.com use in their gaming desktops to benchmark video cards, it's always an AMD. \n\n4.) AMD's produce less heat which require less cooling and have more potential for overclocking.\n\nIf you want the best answer, go to this link and compare the two directly in each benchmark:\n\nhttp://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
410956
there is a new Intel CPU in the pipeline, named Conroe. the only thing i read is a short test report of a comparison, Conroe vs. an overclocked (2.8GHz) Athlon 64 FX-60, whereby amazingly the Conroe beat in all tests AMDs flagship.\n\ntest report\nhttp://techreport.com/etc/2006q1/conroe/index.x?pg=1
652559
try it :\n\nhttp://forums.amd.com/lofiversion/index.php/t50055.html
319652
Both Intel and AMD have their plus points. Intel was the pioneer and so has the largest mind share.\n\nAMD has some pioneering work too to its credit. AMD came up with the 64 bit processor earlier than the INTEL range. The range that you have as the popular ones is PENTIUM in the Intel series and the Athlons in AMD. Pentium continues to be the 32 bit processor but Athlons have 64 bit processors.\n\nCost wise AMD has less price while Intel commands a premium. Don't be swayed by the numbers like 3400. You need to read fine prints of each process to know of it.\n\nHowever the 64 bit component of AMD is not very much to use right now as we are still in the 32 bit OS in the normal segment of desktops.\n\nGraphically they both lead into their own forte but AMD scores there due to its 64 bit.\n\nSo as someone said.... its dependent on your budget, your application and then future roadmap\n\nHappy selecting your processor
618371
There is no Athlon 64x2 3200+, the lowest end Athlon 64x2 is a 3800+ with two cores running at 2.0GHz.  First of all, the socket 939 motherboards only support up to PC3200 so you're fine there.  It's true that a single application can only use one core at a time but Windows can split different applications between the two cores.  Like all your background stuff (firewall, anti-virus and so on) run on one core and if you're playing a game, it runs on the other core so one doesn't slow the other down.  If you do a lot of multi-tasking a dual core will speed things up because put simply half will be running on one core and half on the other.  But if you only run one or two applications at a time then a single core is probably best.  An argument can be made for both, single cores are good for now.  But when multi-threaded applications come out at the end of this year and next year a single core will begin to show its age, oh it'll still run them without the multithreading but you'll see a performance decrease for sure.  I reccomend taking a look at Tomshardware and seeing which processor you like best (but keep in mind all these applications are single threaded so they slow the dual cores down, had they been multithreaded the dual cores would have appeared faster), http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page24.html
1090687
a dual core processor is a cpu that has 2 processing cores (the actual cpus) in one package (the whole cpu assembly) Both cores will run at 3.4ghz (your example) not at 1.7 like one poster stated that is totally false. The AMD Athlon X2's some Opterons and the Intel Pentium D and Core Duo's are dual core cpu's. I also recommend AMD and Intel's websites they explain it pretty well for everyone to understand.