I'm a bit behind on CPU information.

[TeamMyk]

Can it be said that a 4000+ is 33% faster than a 3000+ or 4800+ 92% faster than a 2500+? I

I'm wondering if this can be used as a rough generalization? If yes, does the generalization also apply when comparing different cores or is it only true when comparing the same cores? Can I compare a 64 to a X2 64 or a Sepron to a 64 and just use the XXXX+ values to estimate the difference in speed?

If I'm posed with the question, "Hey, what the difference between a AMD 64 3500+ and a AMD 64 X2 4000+?" Can I safely reply to my parents, friend and the random guy at work that, "The 4000+ is roughly 15% faster."

I'm sure there are a lot of differences in various scenarios but I want to be able to take two steps back and in a one or two sentences say something that is reasonable accurate.

 

[BlueWeasel]

See the chart here

You can't always use AMD's PR ratings to compare the differences between 2 different chips. For example, the 3000+ runs at 1800Mhz, while the 4000+ runs at a stock speed of 2600Ghz. That's a 44% difference.

The best place to compare real-world difference between 2 processors is Tom's Hardware CPU Charts. Using the charts, you can easily calculate a relative percent difference between 2 chips using a common benchmark.

 

[ianmills]

Originally posted by: BlueWeasel
See the chart here

You can't always use AMD's PR ratings to compare the differences between 2 different chips. For example, the 3000+ runs at 1800Mhz, while the 4000+ runs at a stock speed of 2600Ghz. That's a 44% difference.

Actually, the 4000+ runs at 2400Mhz which makes everything work out okay.