Why does AMD have so many 2.4 MHZ CPU versions

buffdaddy1016

Junior Member
Nov 18, 2005
16
0
0
Why does AMD have so many different versions of the 2.4 MHZ CPU's. They have the 3400, 3700, 3800, 4000, and of course the X2 4600 and 4800. I have the 3400, but I'm building a new computer and I'm probably going to get the X@ 4800. I sthere a significant difference between all these to justify so many, for instance is the 4000 that much better than my 3400 other than socket 939. If i was to go from the 3400 to the 4000, would i even notice a difference? I just happened to notice all the different versions of the 2.4 MHz processor and thought I'd ask the question.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: buffdaddy1016
Why does AMD have so many different versions of the 2.4 MHZ CPU's. They have the 3400, 3700, 3800, 4000, and of course the X2 4600 and 4800. I have the 3400, but I'm building a new computer and I'm probably going to get the X@ 4800. I sthere a significant difference between all these to justify so many, for instance is the 4000 that much better than my 3400 other than socket 939. If i was to go from the 3400 to the 4000, would i even notice a difference? I just happened to notice all the different versions of the 2.4 MHz processor and thought I'd ask the question.


Why does Intel Have so many 3.0 MHZ cpu versions?

3.0 533 FSB? WTF?
3.0 Dual core? Huh?
3.0 Northwood?
3.0 Prescott?
3.0 Prescott with 2mb cache?
 

jiffylube1024

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
7,430
0
71
2.4 Ghz you mean. As Hacp said, both companies do it. Whenever there's a die shrink, etc, there's overlap. With dual core, there's more overlap. Just like Intel, there's more overlap still with cache size. It's just how it works in the CPU market, they want to hit every price point imaginable.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: buffdaddy1016
Why does AMD have so many different versions of the 2.4 MHZ CPU's. They have the 3400, 3700, 3800, 4000, and of course the X2 4600 and 4800. I have the 3400, but I'm building a new computer and I'm probably going to get the X@ 4800. I sthere a significant difference between all these to justify so many, for instance is the 4000 that much better than my 3400 other than socket 939. If i was to go from the 3400 to the 4000, would i even notice a difference? I just happened to notice all the different versions of the 2.4 MHz processor and thought I'd ask the question.

You forgot FX53 and maybe even a mobile part. No you won't notice. 3400 is most underrated chip AMD ever named should have been called a 3600 since it beats 3500 in 95% of benchmarks hangs with 3800 in most things. Only reason for you to upgrade is a) you feel the need for dual processing power, then X2 is where it's at b) Need a real video card like 7800 which works on 939 PCIe boards.
 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: buffdaddy1016
Why does AMD have so many different versions of the 2.4 MHZ CPU's. They have the 3400, 3700, 3800, 4000, and of course the X2 4600 and 4800. I have the 3400, but I'm building a new computer and I'm probably going to get the X@ 4800. I sthere a significant difference between all these to justify so many, for instance is the 4000 that much better than my 3400 other than socket 939. If i was to go from the 3400 to the 4000, would i even notice a difference? I just happened to notice all the different versions of the 2.4 MHz processor and thought I'd ask the question.


Why does Intel Have so many 3.0 MHZ cpu versions?

3.0 533 FSB? WTF?
3.0 Dual core? Huh?
3.0 Northwood?
3.0 Prescott?
3.0 Prescott with 2mb cache?

Why is everyone so confused about MHz and GHz???
 

AkumaX

Lifer
Apr 20, 2000
12,643
3
81
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: buffdaddy1016
Why does AMD have so many different versions of the 2.4 MHZ CPU's. They have the 3400, 3700, 3800, 4000, and of course the X2 4600 and 4800. I have the 3400, but I'm building a new computer and I'm probably going to get the X@ 4800. I sthere a significant difference between all these to justify so many, for instance is the 4000 that much better than my 3400 other than socket 939. If i was to go from the 3400 to the 4000, would i even notice a difference? I just happened to notice all the different versions of the 2.4 MHz processor and thought I'd ask the question.


Why does Intel Have so many 3.0 MHZ cpu versions?

3.0 533 FSB? WTF?
3.0 Dual core? Huh?
3.0 Northwood?
3.0 Prescott?
3.0 Prescott with 2mb cache?

oh c'mon, it's not that hard to distinguish between a 3.06ghz (533fsb), 3.0C, 3.0E, 530, 530J, 531, 630, and 830. EZ STUFF SO STOP WHINING!!!
 

imported_michaelpatrick33

Platinum Member
Jun 19, 2004
2,364
0
0
Originally posted by: AkumaX
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: buffdaddy1016
Why does AMD have so many different versions of the 2.4 MHZ CPU's. They have the 3400, 3700, 3800, 4000, and of course the X2 4600 and 4800. I have the 3400, but I'm building a new computer and I'm probably going to get the X@ 4800. I sthere a significant difference between all these to justify so many, for instance is the 4000 that much better than my 3400 other than socket 939. If i was to go from the 3400 to the 4000, would i even notice a difference? I just happened to notice all the different versions of the 2.4 MHz processor and thought I'd ask the question.


Why does Intel Have so many 3.0 MHZ cpu versions?

3.0 533 FSB? WTF?
3.0 Dual core? Huh?
3.0 Northwood?
3.0 Prescott?
3.0 Prescott with 2mb cache?

oh c'mon, it's not that hard to distinguish between a 3.06ghz (533fsb), 3.0C, 3.0E, 530, 530J, 531, 630, and 830. EZ STUFF SO STOP WHINING!!!

LOL, Good post. Intel's naming convention makes AMD's look straightforward in comparison.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: TuxDave
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: buffdaddy1016
Why does AMD have so many different versions of the 2.4 MHZ CPU's. They have the 3400, 3700, 3800, 4000, and of course the X2 4600 and 4800. I have the 3400, but I'm building a new computer and I'm probably going to get the X@ 4800. I sthere a significant difference between all these to justify so many, for instance is the 4000 that much better than my 3400 other than socket 939. If i was to go from the 3400 to the 4000, would i even notice a difference? I just happened to notice all the different versions of the 2.4 MHz processor and thought I'd ask the question.


Why does Intel Have so many 3.0 MHZ cpu versions?

3.0 533 FSB? WTF?
3.0 Dual core? Huh?
3.0 Northwood?
3.0 Prescott?
3.0 Prescott with 2mb cache?

Why is everyone so confused about MHz and GHz???

I dont know but it drives me insane. Its like the one thing about computers that can get to me. People can confuse memory and hard drive space all day long and it doesnt bother me, but some reason ghz and mhz drives me up a wall.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
31,216
29,853
146
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: buffdaddy1016
Only reason for you to upgrade is a) you feel the need for dual processing power, then X2 is where it's at b) Need a real video card like 7800 which works on 939 PCIe boards.
Could very well just keep the 3400+ and grab a skt754 PCIe board, or even the new Epox SLI version too. Money saved on the CPU would pay for the 7800GT/X.

If you need the multitasking and/or SMP support, X2 is solid choice though.
 

Cooler

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2005
3,835
0
0
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: buffdaddy1016
Why does AMD have so many different versions of the 2.4 MHZ CPU's. They have the 3400, 3700, 3800, 4000, and of course the X2 4600 and 4800. I have the 3400, but I'm building a new computer and I'm probably going to get the X@ 4800. I sthere a significant difference between all these to justify so many, for instance is the 4000 that much better than my 3400 other than socket 939. If i was to go from the 3400 to the 4000, would i even notice a difference? I just happened to notice all the different versions of the 2.4 MHz processor and thought I'd ask the question.


Why does Intel Have so many 3.0 MHZ cpu versions?

3.0 533 FSB? WTF?
3.0 Dual core? Huh?
3.0 Northwood?
3.0 Prescott?
3.0 Prescott with 2mb cache?

you forgot pressler .
 

buffdaddy1016

Junior Member
Nov 18, 2005
16
0
0
Look I build computers, I'm very good at building computers, and I know the difference between GHZ and MHZ. I wrote this late at night and wrote the subject incorrectly. If it makes you all happier its 2.4 GHZ or 2400 MHZ. I understand the obvious differences, like cache size and socket type, but is on really better than the others, excluding the dual core since we know the advantages there. For example if I went from my socket 754 3400 to the socket 939 4000, would I really be upgrading, and also going from my 6800 GT to a 7800 GTX. I have a 22 inch monitor and like to game at 1600 X 1200.
 

Geomagick

Golden Member
Dec 3, 1999
1,265
0
76
I think you'll find that 2.4GHz represents a binning sweet spot at the moment. The chips that can go faster reliably become FX series and all excess becomes lower speed variants.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
The change from a 6800gt to a 7800gtx at 1600x1200 would be quite noticeable, the change from 754 3400 to 939 4000 would not. In your case the new 754 pci-e board sounds like the best option, the only thing you would lose vs. 939 would be dual channel ram which is a small improvement. And the 7800gtx should last you through the next platform (M2) if you feel the need to upgrade the CPU/RAM/MOBO at that time.
 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
Originally posted by: buffdaddy1016
Look I build computers, I'm very good at building computers, and I know the difference between GHZ and MHZ. I wrote this late at night and wrote the subject incorrectly. If it makes you all happier its 2.4 GHZ or 2400 MHZ. I understand the obvious differences, like cache size and socket type, but is on really better than the others, excluding the dual core since we know the advantages there. For example if I went from my socket 754 3400 to the socket 939 4000, would I really be upgrading, and also going from my 6800 GT to a 7800 GTX. I have a 22 inch monitor and like to game at 1600 X 1200.

Haha I know. Just messing with ya. :)
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: buffdaddy1016
Only reason for you to upgrade is a) you feel the need for dual processing power, then X2 is where it's at b) Need a real video card like 7800 which works on 939 PCIe boards.
Could very well just keep the 3400+ and grab a skt754 PCIe board, or even the new Epox SLI version too. Money saved on the CPU would pay for the 7800GT/X.

If you need the multitasking and/or SMP support, X2 is solid choice though.

These guys are throwing new product all the time... missed that.:)
 

AkumaX

Lifer
Apr 20, 2000
12,643
3
81
Originally posted by: forumposter32
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051121/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts-27.html

Finally a chart that shows X2s as well. I like how the 3700+ Clawhammer socket 754 (I just received to build a new system) beats the CRAP out of the X2 3800+. Just proves my point you should wait for more multithreaded programs before buying an X2.

There is a multithreaded test there but it's done with 4 programs running at a time.

too bad they didn't put s754/s939 or sc/dc differences, expecially around the 3400+/3500+ areas. could get confusing for those who read 3400+ Newcastle(2200/200 NF4 DDR400) 4x HTT and 3400+ Newcastle(2400/200 NF4 DDR400)
 

forumposter32

Banned
May 23, 2005
643
0
0
Yeah, they had some before where you could click on the bars and see the setup they used. Don't know why it's not the same this time.
 

forumposter32

Banned
May 23, 2005
643
0
0
Yeah, you can click on setup for those ones. It's almost odd to see the socket 754 3700+ so far ahead of the pack on some benchmarks. It was second behind the FX-55 on WinRAR. Go figure
 

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
2
81
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Could very well just keep the 3400+ and grab a skt754 PCIe board, or even the new Epox SLI version too. Money saved on the CPU would pay for the 7800GT/X.
These guys are throwing new product all the time... missed that.:)

Yup yup. Epox s754 SLI board costs $102 at the 'Egg, in stock last I checked. Also, three great non-SLI PCIe choices would be:

DFI Infinity based on NF4 - known good overclocker for $75
Abit based on NF4 - back in the game, report of 335MHz system bus for $69
Biostar based on Geforce6100 - cheap and overclockable, plus best integrated graphics performance FWIW, and mATX for small systems $60

Originally posted by: forumposter32
It's almost odd to see the socket 754 3700+ so far ahead of the pack on some benchmarks. It was second behind the FX-55 on WinRAR. Go figure

That's because most fanbois here are, hmmm, how should I put it mildly... RETARDED with their biases. Yes, we all know that all else being equal socket 939 is faster. However, all else is NOT equal. With the A64 platform, clock speed is #1 for performance, followed by cache size and dual channel memory. Dual channel memory is NOT #1 - CPU clock speed is.

I'm actually glad that AMD has not released socket 939 Semprons into the aftermarket yet, and that the supply of socket 754 A64 is drying up, plus "modern" motherboards are available for socket 754. This may end some confusion around here. What's your budget for only CPU/mobo? Over $200, get socket 939. Under $200, get socket 754. 'Nuff said.
 

buffdaddy1016

Junior Member
Nov 18, 2005
16
0
0
I do have a good system now, but most of it is old technology. I have an athlon 3400+, 2 512 of OCZ DDR 3200, Seagate 120 paralell ata 100, and a BFG 6800 GT. I've really been wanting a larger SATA hardrive and the advantages of socket 939. Also, with all the graphically demanding games out now I want a 7800GTX, which I need PCI-E for.On top of that I want 2 GB of ram. Thay's why I have the CPU dilemma, do I spend a little less and get the 4000+, go dual core, or say screw it and get the FX-55.