Why does A64 3200+ & 3000+ both run @ 2.0GHz?!

[FreshPrince]

can someone explain this to me?

 

[dullard]

Half the cache. There is a 2.0 GHz 3200+ with 1 MB cache and there is a 2.0 GHz 3000+ with 512 kB cache.

 

[NightCrawler]

3000 = 512KB L2 cache
3200 = 1 meg L2 cache

 

[FreshPrince]

I see, so the 3200+ or 3000+ don't mean a damn thing eh? they can call it what ever they want! they could have a 6000+ that could be a 2.5GHz? LMAO!

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince
I see, so the 3200+ or 3000+ don't mean a damn thing eh? they can call it what ever they want! they could have a 6000+ that could be a 2.5GHz? LMAO!

The AMD PR numbers are very loosely based on benchmarks. In fact the benchmarks are a combination of motherboard, memory, and CPU speed. For the early AMD chips with lower PR ratings used older motherboards and slower memory while the top rated chips use the fastest motherboards with the fastest memory. Heck even the benchmarks themselves have been changed slightly since the PR numbers started. So there is a lot of room to wiggle. If a chip honestly benchmarks at a 3314.945+ rating is AMD going to call it a 3314.945+ chip? Heck no. It'll likely be called either a 3200+ or a 3400+ depending on marketing reasons.

 

[Farmer]

Certainly, at this point, its either the 3000+ or 3400+ you want to buy, not the 3200+.

Its marketing. AMD wouldn't sell if you looked just at clock speed. Thats why the PR rating was invented. It simply wants to tell the consumer that an AMD 3000+ performs on par with a 3.0GHz Pentium, while a 3200+ performs on par with a 3.2GHz Pentium.

Keep in mind that the AMD64s usually do not perform as well as comparable Intel systems in synthetic benchmarks, but beat them in 'real-world' benchmarks (games, etc...).

 

[bunnyfubbles]

and AMD @ 2GHz = an AMD @ 2GHz. 1MB L2 cache > .5MB L2 cache and therefor the 3200+ > 3000+, the name is justified because the number 3200 is actually > than the number 3000.

 

[THUGSROOK]

PR ratings are the stupidest thing ive ever heard of.

i find it funny that AMD is the one using PR ratings when Intel is the one that broke the chain and caused the problem.

id like to see Intel 3.0g chips rated as PR2000+

 

[shiftomnimega]

The 3200+ A64 was released first. Then the 3000+ then the 3400+.

If AMD were to rate the 3000+ any higher they may have undercut their own marketing for the 3200+.

Did that make any sense?

 

[Sheriff]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
PR ratings are the stupidest thing ive ever heard of.

i find it funny that AMD is the one using PR ratings when Intel is the one that broke the chain and caused the problem.

id like to see Intel 3.0g chips rated as PR2000+

Hehe Yea let's just go back and give Intel the MHz Speed Award and AMD the MHz Performance Award

 

[NightCrawler]

I don't see why people care so much about the PR ratings. If your IQ is above room temperature then you know how
the 3000 or 3200 will perform agianst the P4. Stop worrying about the ignorant masses who just think that 3Ghz is better then 2 Ghz!

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
I don't see why people care so much about the PR ratings. If your IQ is above room temperature then you know how
the 3000 or 3200 will perform agianst the P4. Stop worrying about the ignorant masses who just think that 3Ghz is better then 2 Ghz!

The fact remains that Intel is what the majority of people think of when they consider a CPU. The ignorant masses' money is just as green as the enthusiasts' money, and there are more of them than there are of us.

 

[Regs]

Or some who neglict the A64 all together from the lack of 64 bit apps.