The Athlon processor ratings

[inveterate]

3200,, 3000, 2800,, 3500,,, Do they mean anything, or is it just a model number..

 

[Fern]

Never heard of a 3500 athlon, but anyway those numbers are supposed to correspond to Intel processors.

For example, the XP 3200+ actually runs at 2.2ghz, but because of efficient processor architecture (sp?) is supposed to run as fast as an Itel cpu running at 3.2ghz.

Fern

 

[JBird7986]

A64 ratings can generally be used to compare the chips to the Intel P4 equivalent (i.e. A64 3200+ = 3.2GHz P4). Sempron ratings can be used to compare to Celeron Ds (i.e. Sempron 2800+ = 2.8GHz Celeron D).

 

[JBird7986]

Fern, for the 939 processors, the 3500+ label has replaced the 3400+ label.

EDIT: I should've just edited the first post...oops.

 

[Duvie]

Actually you are all wrong technically...They are all base upon a TbirdAthlon or K7 chip as per AMDs own words....The Intel makes sense and may be manipulated to be more comparable but AMD says otherwise offcially....

AMD pr rating in the das of the barton was really bad and was not comparable to a P4c at all...It was compared ot a p4b but not the p4c....It was better then the p4as all together....Nowadays it is a toss up with only specific apps it being close....a 3.2ghz P4 will thrash a 3200+ in encoding video.....On the other hand a 3200+ can hand the prescott 3.2ghz its lunch in gaming apps...


So in theory they are more comparable to each other of the amd model line.....The 3700+(sckt939) should be better then the 3500+(sckt939) due to the added cache....The 3200+ A64 sckt 939 is only 2ghz while the 3200+ sckt 754 is 2.2ghz is trying to say the Dual channel memroy controller is worth the aded 200mhz...unfortunately that is in very very few things and thus like always AMD PR rating can be a bit subjective. A barton 3200+ which is also 2.2ghz while decent and performs well in apps that are raw mhz driven in games it iis nowhere near as close...


I believe the semprons are supposed to be compared to a Duron, and the celeron comparison again is just what ppl like to see as the comparison...

 

[Fern]

Well d@mn, I guess my eyes really are sh1t today....

I thought the OP was asking about Athlon CPU's and everybodies jibering on about a64's

Who's got a link to these new Athlon 64 bit chips for me? j/k

 

[Shenkoa]

"Actually you are all wrong technically...They are all base upon a TbirdAthlon or K7 chip as per AMDs own words....The Intel makes sense and may be manipulated to be more comparable but AMD says otherwise offcially.... "

Yep! it was meant to be compared to the K7 series, it just so happens that it was kindof accurate compared to the P4 as well (Exept Northwood C and even B in some cases)

The 64's PR ratings are damn accurate with the P4.

 

[Bona Fide]

Yeah...even if it was not the intent, the AMD model numbers match up nicely with corresponding P4's. And then you look at the price point and wonder why you would ever get an Intel processor. 😛

 

[BillyBobJoel71]

i only have mine because it came with the hp i got form the insurance company. i had no choice and i couldn't get an a64. even though i am using a 3400+ newcastle, it doesn't seem as fast as my 3 ghz p4. maybe its becasue the whole ocmputer cost 579, while my p4 was 1080.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: SuperTyphoon
i only have mine because it came with the hp i got form the insurance company. i had no choice and i couldn't get an a64. even though i am using a 3400+ newcastle, it doesn't seem as fast as my 3 ghz p4. maybe its becasue the whole ocmputer cost 579, while my p4 was 1080.

OMG! You mean onboard video isn't as fast as a 6800GT!!

😉

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Actually you are all wrong technically...They are all base upon a TbirdAthlon or K7 chip as per AMDs own words....The Intel makes sense and may be manipulated to be more comparable but AMD says otherwise offcially....

I hate to bring this up (especially without proof) but I do remember, in one of Anandtechs early Athlon 64 articles, an obscure statment that said the Athlon 64s P-rating was based off a new test suite and the Athlon XP 1800+ processor is what the new test suite for the A64 line is compared against. The reason for the switch had to do with the old test suite becomming dated and not having support for enhancements beyond standard SSE and 3D Now.

Other than the common misconception that the Athlon 64s P-rating is still based on the original Athlon line, I agree with everthing else that Duvie said.

If I can find the article that states this I will provide a link, however last time I looked for it I spent 2 to 3 hours reading and still couldn't find it, so don't hold your breath.

 

[inveterate]

say a friga whaaa??????? i'm not thorougly confused ,, but i guess all of u are saying u just "don't know" from what i c,, i suppose model number would make more sense without the need for proof.

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: inveterate
say a friga whaaa??????? i'm not thorougly confused ,, but i guess all of u are saying u just "don't know" from what i c,, i suppose model number would make more sense without the need for proof.

Maybe this will clairify it for you.

Those processor rating numbers are "model numbers" but they also corespond to how well the processor performs.

The way AMD determines a model number is by running a "test suite", this is nothing more than a series of benchmarks. The better the overall score of the "test suite" the higher the rating. One thing though, don't expect a Athlon XP 3200+ to perform the same as a Athlon 64 3200+ because they use different "test suites" to determine thier rating (model numbers/ ratings are only comparable within one product line).

Also there are different ways to increace performance (increase core speed MHz/GHz, increase the amount of cache, and increase the memory bandwith... these are the three main ways to do this) so it is possible to have more than one configuration that will yeild the same rating. However, this does allow for is two processors with the same rating to have slightly different performance in specific applications while still having comparable overall performance.

is that better 🙂