• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Can anyone explain the naming of AMD procs?

O

OhNoPoPo

Senior member
This is probably going to be a stupid question to most of you, but I am truely confused about AMD's XXXX+ naming. At first, the way I understood it was that they were using a number equivalent to Intel's clock speeds (i.e. a 3000+ AMD would perform at a 3Ghz P4, even tho the actual AMD clock speed might be lower).

So, now comes the X2 -- some guys over at DFI-street really confused me because some guy said the 4400+ name comes from the fact that the there are 2 2.2Ghz cores (2X2.2=4.4!) This did not jive with me, but OTHER people in the same forum seemed to agree with him!?

So, now I look at AMD's single core offerings, and I see it is true that they have no 4400+ single core...I always thought the X2 was like 2 processors capable of EACH doing 4400+, but apparently this is not the case because they don't have a single core that offers this speed.

So, I guess my question is: what is 4400+ -- "combined" performance of the two cores? performance of a single core? or what?!
 
It's equivelant of the combined performance of 2 cores. And it's not got anything to do with doubling the speed, because the 3800+ isn't 2x1.9GHz cores.
 
Its supposed to be a rough indicator of performance, nothing more. Don't pay attention to that, just pay attention to 5 things: Socket, dual core or no, revision/stepping, CPU speed and cache.
 
Well you were definitely wrong at first. A 3000 isnt 3ghz. Both amd and intel now use names/numbers for their procs.

I dont know what you mean by there isnt a 4400+ single core? You mean 2.2ghz? Yes there is, the 3500 venice is 2.2ghz. So the 4400 is 2 3500 venice cores. OF course the 4400 has some extra cache as well but who cares about that.

Theres no answer to your question really. Basically, a X2 is only going to help you if you do heavy multitasking stuff and it is definitely not twice as fast. If youre gaming especially, it may be smoother with an x2 but a single core would be the better buy. (Opteron at 3ghz baby!) X2's are for heavy multitasking stuff.

I think all the people spending crazy cash for an x2 right now is a waste. Prices are about to drop even more by end of this month. Single core opteron at 3GHZ is plenty! Not to mention will be faster in games. I will be buying an X2 when they are around $200.

 
Perhaps I phreased it unclearly. I never said a 3000 was 3ghz...I said it was an "equivalent" which is how AMD markets those chips.

I'm just confused at how a 2.2Ghz core, which is marketed as 3X00+ in a single core, when combined into two in an X2 turns into a 4400+ -- I just think that is very confusing.

If I were running ONLY one app at a time, would my performance be equivalent to the 3X00+ single core chip?
 
Uhh dude... the 4400+ is two 3700+ cores... not 3500+.

And the naming of the dual core is the single core rating plus roughly 20%. That was about the given speed boost from hyperthreading/dual core.

3500*.20+3500=4200+
3700*.20+3700=4440+=4400+
etc...

Oh and X2s own! If you ever get the chance to use one over a single core for just about anything, you don't want to go back... trust me.
 
Thanks freethrow...that is interesting information.

Now: If I were running ONLY one app at a time, would my performance be equivalent to the 3X00+ single core chip?
 
Yeah, maybe you missed the part where I said except for the extra cache? Cache matters little. So yes, its the same as two 3500+ or 3700+. I wasnt refering to cache anyways, just the speed. Both are 2.2ghz.


Originally posted by: freethrowtommy
Uhh dude... the 4400+ is two 3700+ cores... not 3500+.

And the naming of the dual core is the single core rating plus roughly 20%. That was about the given speed boost from hyperthreading/dual core.

3500*.20+3500=4200+
3700*.20+3700=4440+=4400+
etc...

Oh and X2s own! If you ever get the chance to use one over a single core for just about anything, you don't want to go back... trust me.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: modempower
Yeah, maybe you missed the part where I said except for the extra cache? Cache matters little. So yes, its the same as two 3500+ or 3700+. I wasnt refering to cache anyways, just the speed. Both are 2.2ghz.


Originally posted by: freethrowtommy
Uhh dude... the 4400+ is two 3700+ cores... not 3500+.

And the naming of the dual core is the single core rating plus roughly 20%. That was about the given speed boost from hyperthreading/dual core.

3500*.20+3500=4200+
3700*.20+3700=4440+=4400+
etc...

Oh and X2s own! If you ever get the chance to use one over a single core for just about anything, you don't want to go back... trust me.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Who cares about the cache? Well, depending on the application it could mean nothing (more often than not) but could mean more than a insignificant amount but don't confuse a confused person by stating the X2 4400+ is the same as the 3500+ and 3700+.😛:laugh:
 
Originally posted by: OhNoPoPo
Thanks freethrow...that is interesting information.

Now: If I were running ONLY one app at a time, would my performance be equivalent to the 3X00+ single core chip?
Click to expand...

You would get about the same performance as the equivalently clocked (and too a lesser extent L2 cached) single core processor but since there is always many processes running in the background (Windows) and most people (99%) aren't single-tasking then you will notice a difference but the difference may not justify the cost of an AMD X2 dualcore though the 3800+ is around $340 or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top