CPUs: why do they name them differently nowadays?

[rh71]

Ie. Athlon XP 3200+ ...

Why not just say it's an Athlon XP 2.2GHz ? Does it have something to do with the Intel processor-speed war ?

And while I'm asking about CPUs anyway... the 400FSBs vs. 333FSB... I know the memory has to be rated for such to achieve this... anything else ? Is the FSB speed differences negligible ? Is cache more important ?

It pains me to have to keep up with this stuff... I'm from the AMD K6-2 days...

 

[JBT]

First yes it does have to do with the speed war, but its stupid either way because a 3200XP will get toasted be a 3000A64.

2nd 333 vs 400 fsb. it does make a difference but not much.

3rd more cache same as the FSB issue it does make a difference but not much.

 

[Finnkc]

yep ... I do understand why AMD did it from a marketing point of view but it does confuse people who don't know the AMD line of CPUs.

 

[amak]

I heard that the Athlon processor runs more instructions in a clock cycle than Intel. So an 2600+ is equivalent to a 2,6Ghz? Is this true or a big crap?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: amak
I heard that the Athlon processor runs more instructions in a clock cycle than Intel. So an 2600+ is equivalent to a 2,6Ghz? Is this true or a big crap?

It is approximately true. The Athlon processors DO run more instructions in a clock cycle - that part is definately true. However the exact ratio of work done by an Athlon processor to a P4 processor depends on many, many factors. So there is no way of saying the AMD PR numbers (such as 2600+) are always equivalent to the Intel GHz numbers. The best way to compare is to look at benchmarks. Here is one such comparison. Flip through the pages on that link and you'll see how well the PR numbers compare to the Intel frequency numbers. In some cases they are quite a close match, in other cases they are not very closely matched.

The problem comes that the AMD PR (PR stand for performance rating) is only loosely based on real tests. As JBT hinted at above, the AMD 64 3000+ beats the AMD XP 3000+ easilly - the processors are quite far apart in speed. Thus the PR numbers themselves can be quite far off from reality (I'd say give or take 300+ points).

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: amak
I heard that the Athlon processor runs more instructions in a clock cycle than Intel. So an 2600+ is equivalent to a 2,6Ghz? Is this true or a big crap?

This is for AMD XP's
It is is pretty true for intels B chips the ones with a 533 FSB with the newer C series 800 FSB and Hyper threading intels chips are a bit faster though the price is more too incomparision.

An 3000A64 can easily either match or out perform a 3.2 p4 in most circumstances.

 

[modedepe]

It's all marketing. If you tell the average uneducated person buying a pc at circuit city that you can have either a 2.2GHz Athlon or a 3.2GHz P4 for the same price, which do you think they'll think is faster? If you say a 3200+ Athlon vs a 3.2GHz P4 though, they're more likely to the think the two are equal.

Now, granted in this situation the P4 will trounce the Athlon, but before when we had say, the 1700+ vs a P4 1.7 it was the other way around, with the Athlon killing the P4.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: modedepe
If you say a 3200+ Athlon vs a 3.2GHz P4 though, they're more likely to the think the two are equal.

Now, granted in this situation the P4 will trounce the Athlon, but before when we had say, the 1700+ vs a P4 1.7 it was the other way around, with the Athlon killing the P4.

The XP 3200+ got trounced, the A64 3200+ can hold it's own.

 

[Viper96720]

Originally posted by: JBT

Originally posted by: amak
I heard that the Athlon processor runs more instructions in a clock cycle than Intel. So an 2600+ is equivalent to a 2,6Ghz? Is this true or a big crap?

It is is pretty true for intels B chips the ones with a 533 FSB with the newer C series 800 FSB and Hyper threading intels chips are a bit faster though the price is more too incomparision.

a64 3000 Seems intel C-series isn't a bit faster here.

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: Viper96720

Originally posted by: JBT

Originally posted by: amak
I heard that the Athlon processor runs more instructions in a clock cycle than Intel. So an 2600+ is equivalent to a 2,6Ghz? Is this true or a big crap?

It is is pretty true for intels B chips the ones with a 533 FSB with the newer C series 800 FSB and Hyper threading intels chips are a bit faster though the price is more too incomparision.

a64 3000 Seems intel C-series isn't a bit faster here.

Sorry I was refering to the XP series certainly not the A64's the 3000A64 can ussually hold its own vs a 3.2 p4

 

[Davegod]

the performance rating is marketing. Same as branding with mhz, ghz etc.

Broadly speaking, AMD's er, CPU "product name" (what I think of it as) is roughly par with the P4 mhz equivalent, but on all levels this varies e.g. in one benchmark intel's might beat it, in another AMD might win, and all over the place the margin varies. It gets even more complicated than that, because some cpu models are more competitive than others.

Wether a given AMD cpu is as fast, faster or slower than a given P4 depends heavily upon what you want to do with it - or rather what application you're particularily bothered about performance in. AMD said the PR was to be in comparison to ye olde Athlon, but world + dog assumes it's really when compared to a P4; which is fair enough since regardless of wether AMD was being 100% truthful or not on how they calculate it, practically every consumer uses it to compare to a P4.

Focusing on hertz is equally misleading to take as an accurate performance measure. if anyone wants to disagree, you can buy the P4EE, I'll buy a celeron and we can swap. IF it still seems confusing, consider the furor over 8 vs 4 pipelines in graphics cards, or simply consider mhz is to processors like cc is to cars.

Naturally, each company chooses to use the method of CPU branding that makes them look best.

IMHO, the best way to see whats the best performance you can get is to work out your CPU, motherboard and ram budget and then compare what options you come up with. Consider all PR ratings and mhz ratings blah blah simply as a name, just look at benchmarks for what you're concerned about performance in (from a range of sources). Then add into consideration other factors such as dont intel make good mobos and doesnt nforce2 overclock well, and now you're making a real comparison for an informed purchase decision.

 

[DaveSimmons]

If this is also about what to buy, read the A64 3400+, 3200+ and 3000+ reviews on the main AT website. Right now an A64 3000+ or 3200+ is a better choice than a P4 3.0C or 3.2C for gaming and most other uses except video encoding.

I own a P4 3.2C myself so I can say that without pro-AMD bias The only reason to buy intel right now is if you like intel motherboard chipsets enough to be willing to pay more for less performance (like I did).

 

[zephyrprime]

How can you be a lifer and not know this stuff?

And from the k6-2 days? I'm from the fricken XT days and I don't complain about the stuff I have to keep up with.

 

[0roo0roo]

stand around a computer store for a while. you'll see joe shmoe walk in shopping for a pc. sadly most of the timeits women you'll here this from. you'll here things like oh, this ones X.X ghz, its faster! most people don't know the difference between amd and intel chips, they've been trained by intel to look at mhz only.