AMD Athlon XP-M 2800+ is worse than Mobile Athlon XP 2500+ ???

[crimson117]

Here's a CPU-Z screenshot of the Compaq R3000Z laptop that I ordered for my mother. I'm disappointed... compared to an AMD Mobile Athlon XP 2500+, this processor blows. Less cache, less clock speed, how the heck is this called a AMD Athlon XP-M 2800+??? :frown:

2500+ is L1: 64+64, L2: 512, Speed: 1.83 GHz
2800+ is L1: 64+64, L2: 128, Speed: 1.60 GHz

so...2500+ > 2800+. Why?

I should have done more research on this first, and I would have spent the $100 extra for an Athlon 64 3000+.

I'm sure she doesn't mind or notice the speed, but hey

 

[Lithan]

It's not. That's a 1.6ghz duron. (Applebred) It's the cheapest cpu amd has made since the origional Durons were phased out.

edit: My mistake...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16990

That's a 3100+ sempron, minus 200mhz and 128megs cache.

In other words, it's a 754 chip with onboard memory controller... the trade-off is that it's at a much lower clockspeed than the actual xp-m 2800+ would have been at... and it has less cache.

 

[Mik3y]

the 1.6ghz one is a socket 754 cpu, whcih has to be either athlon 64 or sempron, and i'm pretty sure its the sempron. the chipset easily gives it away, stating that it's nforce 3.