What is the speed rating of AMD-X2-4000?

[hasu]

I upgraded my machines to AMD dual core processors. Upgraded from AMD 2800+ to AMD X2-4000.

But what is the speed rating of X2-4000? Does it have two cores each with a speed rating of 4000 or both the cores put together it will have a speed rating of 4000?

 

[Jax Omen]

what?

 

[iBPJohn]

I'm pretty sure it's the rating for both of them together.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

No 4000 is the model number. I think the actual speed is in the neighborhood of 2.1GHz.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: hasu
I upgraded my machines to AMD dual core processors. Upgraded from AMD 2800+ to AMD X2-4000.

But what is the speed rating of X2-4000? Does it have two cores each with a speed rating of 4000 or both the cores put together it will have a speed rating of 4000?

Your Athlon 2800+ was a reasonable comparison of processor speed when compared to Intel microprocessors of the same timeframe.

Model numbers don't work like that anymore. It's just a number, nothing more ...

 

[WA261]

They run at 2.1ghz each

 

[magreen]

If you want to compare it to two single-core A64 cpus, then each would be a 2.1GHz cpu which I believe AMD named an Athlon 64 3400+.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Your Athlon 2800+ was a reasonable comparison of processor speed when compared to Intel microprocessors of the same timeframe.

Correct. An A64 2800 was roughly the eqivalent of a 2.8 Ghz Northwood B, at least for gaming, and a slightly slower Northwood B for other tasks that aren't RAM-intensive.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: hasu
I upgraded my machines to AMD dual core processors. Upgraded from AMD 2800+ to AMD X2-4000.

But what is the speed rating of X2-4000? Does it have two cores each with a speed rating of 4000 or both the cores put together it will have a speed rating of 4000?

Your Athlon 2800+ was a reasonable comparison of processor speed when compared to Intel microprocessors of the same timeframe.

Model numbers don't work like that anymore. It's just a number, nothing more ...

yup your correct.

So an X2-4000 was = to equivalant to a P4-D 4ghz. Netburst scale, which is absolute crap compared to c2d scale.

So please dont think your X2 is = to my QX but with only 2 cores. Its no where close.

A 4ghz C2D machine would rip that amd a new bunghole. :X

 

[magreen]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: hasu
I upgraded my machines to AMD dual core processors. Upgraded from AMD 2800+ to AMD X2-4000.

But what is the speed rating of X2-4000? Does it have two cores each with a speed rating of 4000 or both the cores put together it will have a speed rating of 4000?

Your Athlon 2800+ was a reasonable comparison of processor speed when compared to Intel microprocessors of the same timeframe.

Model numbers don't work like that anymore. It's just a number, nothing more ...

yup your correct.

So an X2-4000 was = to equivalant to a P4-D 4ghz. Netburst scale, which is absolute crap compared to c2d scale.

So please dont think your X2 is = to my QX but with only 2 cores. Its no where close.

A 4ghz C2D machine would rip that amd a new bunghole. :X

Not true. An X2-4000 is comparable to a P4-D at 3.4GHz -- it's two cores, each of which are a 2.1GHz Athlon 64 3400+ which are each comparable to a P4 at 3.4GHz.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: magreen

Not true. An X2-4000 is comparable to a P4-D at 3.4GHz -- it's two cores, each of which are a 2.1GHz Athlon 64 3400+ which are each comparable to a P4 at 3.4GHz.

thats not how i heard it tho.

I know price / competition style, thats how they went on retail.

However when AMD made those numbers, they were to represent the Intel Competition requirement.


AMD X2 3800+ would of required a P4D-3.8ghz netburst to match.


How they kept climbing in numbers tho i have no idea. Like why they kept 5000+ when netburst died.

I think its now just numbers AMD is shooting out to keep the line. But as i said, i remember those numbers being P4's netburst scale counterpart.


Anyone want to prove us all wrong and set us straight? Link please?

Wheres IDC when we need him. LOL...

 

[solog]

I thought they were comparable to an equally numbered Willamette core (that only made it to 2GHz or so but just scale it out)

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: solog
I thought they were comparable to an equally numbered Willamette core (that only made it to 2GHz or so but just scale it out)

isnt that what ive been saying?

OOPS ive been using prescotts and smithfields, however those are doubled up willamette's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4

 

[magreen]

I believe they're doing some kind of rating of what would be the equivalent single core p4. So they came up with some dual:single ratio to compare dual core to single core.

E.g. their 2Ghz X2 (which is like two A64 3200+ cpus or two p4 3.2Ghz cpus sandwiched together) they named a 3800+ to say it's like having one p4 at 3.8Ghz. Basically, they decided a dual core can do 3.8/3.2 = 1.19 times as much work as a single core for normal usage. That 19% dual:single ratio seems pretty arbitrary to me.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: magreen
I believe they're doing some kind of rating of what would be the equivalent single core p4. So they came up with some dual:single ratio to compare dual core to single core.

E.g. their 2Ghz X2 (which is like two A64 3200+ cpus or two p4 3.2Ghz cpus sandwiched together) they named a 3800+ to say it's like having one p4 at 3.8Ghz. Basically, they decided a dual core can do 3.8/3.2 = 1.19 times as much work as a single core for normal usage. That 19% dual:single ratio seems pretty arbitrary to me.

oh is that how it went?

i think your right.... it was something like that.

 

[Ratman6161]

AMD's Model numbers ceased to equate to any particular processor speed long ago. The 4000+ model number tells you absolutely nothing other than that AMD expects it to be faster than a 3800+. Comparing to an Intel CPU or to a certain extent even other AMD cpu's can really only be done through benchmarks. Even a higher model number doesn't necessarily mean faster. For example if you look at the X2 5200 there were actually three different ones: 2.6 Ghz 1024 L2 89 watt, 2.6 Ghz 1024 L2 65 watt, 2.7 Ghz 512K L2 65 watt. Which of these is faster? All depends on if you are doing something that benefits from a larger L2. And back in the socket 939 single core days, we had the 3500+ at 2.2 Ghz and 512K, 3700+ at 2.2Ghz and 1024 and a 3800+ that was 2.4 Ghz but 512 K. Is an extra 512 K cache worth a 200 point increase in the model number between a 3500 and 3700? Once again, it all depends.

And as others have mentioned, even if comparing to a P4, what variant of the P4 are you comparing to? Even within Intel, it doesn't work across generations of CPU's. Is a Q9300 (2.5Ghz, 6 MB L2) really faster than a Q6700 (2.66 ghz and 8MB L2)? Once again, it all depends.

So that's why I say that model numbers are basically worthless in comparing CPU's

 

[Lorne]

Actually it is a comparison rating, All Athlon CPUs are rated against the org Athlon 800.
This rating is a direct difference in CPU power only and not how well or better todays Athlons compare with the use of IMC.

eg. A XP 2400+ running at 2Ghz is = to the org Athlon running at 2.4Ghz and the "+" means respectivly with cache differences and would also = the Tbird 2.4Ghz

With todays CPUs taking a slightly different rought performance ratings are harder to keep in check, eg. a Athlon X2 4800+ 2.5Ghz would be = to the org Athlon running 4.8Ghz respectivly and thats 1 to 1 core, This does not account for the X2 ablillity to comunicate between cores and the IMC.

AMD did this to get away from the Mhz to Mhz comparison with Intel argument, But it continued on until the A64 with the IMC comes along and the argument of Mhz to Mhz comparison went out the window and it got really quiet.

 

[magreen]

Originally posted by: Lorne
Actually it is a comparison rating, All Athlon CPUs are rated against the org Athlon 800.
This rating is a direct difference in CPU power only and not how well or better todays Athlons compare with the use of IMC.

eg. A XP 2400+ running at 2Ghz is = to the org Athlon running at 2.4Ghz and the "+" means respectivly with cache differences and would also = the Tbird 2.4Ghz

With todays CPUs taking a slightly different rought performance ratings are harder to keep in check, eg. a Athlon X2 4800+ 2.5Ghz would be = to the org Athlon running 4.8Ghz respectivly and thats 1 to 1 core, This does not account for the X2 ablillity to comunicate between cores and the IMC.

AMD did this to get away from the Mhz to Mhz comparison with Intel argument, But it continued on until the A64 with the IMC comes along and the argument of Mhz to Mhz comparison went out the window and it got really quiet.

what?

 

[aigomorla]

actually im gonna put my money on Magreen.

I remember it being something more like what he said.

 

[Ratman6161]

Where ever it originally started, I'd still say its pretty meaningless today.

 

[hasu]

Well there must be some relevance to those "model" numbers, I guess.
Why is a dual core CPU labeled as 4000+ while a "similar" quad core device labeled as 9600. "similar" means that each core in those CPUs might have the same number crunching rate (FLOPS). Of course the number crunching capability may not depend on the clock frequency linearly.

Saw the following benchmarking results of common CPUs (not taking into account the differences in chipsets)
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

See the following performance ratings.

AMD XP-2000+ (1663 MHz) => 293
AMD XP-2800+ (2095 MHz) => 380
AMD X2-4000+ (2100 MHz) => 858
AMD X2-5600+ (2811 MHz) => 1147
AMD QC-9600 (2311 MHz) => 2043

Comparing single core 2000+ to dual core 4000+, it seems that the performance is more or less like three fold. If the speed ratings indicated is for each core then we should have seen a 4 fold performance improvement. (But I think it is pretty close)
Again performance scaling with number of cores may not be linear because of other factors involved in multi-threaded computation.

 

[betasub]

hasu, you are thinking about it too much! The numbers no longer have any directly equivalence to performance. They've become model numbers, much like Intel, ATI and Nvidia use model numbers: at best AMD CPU model numbers still give an relative idea of which of any two AMD CPUs should give better performance (across whatever suite of benchmarks AMD uses).

 

[coldpower27]

Agreed, with the people that say they are used as model numbers, they are comparable for performance within their own generation AND own product line only, you have to do research though to compare to older generation processors as well as competing products.

Like you know a Athlon 64X2 5200+ is slower then a Athlon 64x2 6400+ and you know an Core 2 Quad QX9650 > Core 2 Quad Q9300.

With AMD they have a bit more of a mess with multiple SKU's for the same model number :S, but the differences are fairly negligible overall, so overall it doesn't cause to much error with comparison.

And to normalize an Athlon 64x2 4000+ to the original Athlon 64, your looking at about 3300+-3400+ as 2.1GHZ doesn't exist on Single Cores for the original Athlon 64's.

There are easier comparisons at the X2 3800+, X2 4200+ and X2 4800+ levels which compare to the 3200+, 3500+ and 4000+ respectively. As you can see the difference starts extending.