Can someone explain the why the XP 2400+ is 2 Ghz and the Xp 2500+ is only 1.83 Ghz?

[Ronstang]

I'm just curios, and wondering why this is so. Just wondering what the performance comparison is. I have an XP 2500+ but have mostly built systems with XP 2400+ and it just seems wierd having less mhz with a supposedly better chip.

 

[mechBgon]

Two reasons: the 2500+ runs a 25% faster bus speed, and the 2500+ has twice the level-2 cache memory, both of which make its MHz more effective.

 

[BlueWeasel]

I think it's because AMD system is based upon progression, and not pure clock speed. Sure, the 2400 may be clocked faster than a 2500+, but came out before the 2500+ Barton chips.

I may be wrong on this, but I think the 3200+ will be the last chip to use the XP numbering system.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I'm just curios, and wondering why this is so. Just wondering what the performance comparison is. I have an XP 2500+ but have mostly built systems with XP 2400+ and it just seems wierd having less mhz with a supposedly better chip.

AMD decided that doubling the level 2 cache equated to increased speed (and it does), and the XP 2400 only has 256kb of level 2 cache, while the Barton's all have 512. It's as simple as that.

 

[Ronstang]

Thanks guys. I guess this is why AMD markets processors with names that denote performance and not Mhz like the other brand.