Why doesn't AMD say the speed in their processors?
- Thread starter BillyBobJoel71
- Start date
For the same reason video cards are sold as "7800GTX" or "X850XT" as opposed to "430 mhz vga adapter" or "520 mhz vga adapter." Mhz doesn't mean as much as it used to.
They have to compete with Intel products running at higher clock speeds but with lower performance, so they use a "performance rating" which should roughly equal a P4. They can't use their actual MHz because:
a) performance is all that really matters not clock speed
b) most people buy clockspeed because they know nothing about CPUs
a) performance is all that really matters not clock speed
b) most people buy clockspeed because they know nothing about CPUs
an Athlon XP 3200+ is equivalent to the Pentium 4 2.8C, the Athlon 64 line re-sync the performance rating though. like an Athlon 64 3400+ can generally be considered on par with the Pentium 4 3.4GHZ.
Actually the AMD performance ratings are based off their AMD 1ghtrz (can't remember the core revision) original Athlon. In reality it is measured against the comparable speed rated Intel parts. Have you looked at the naming conventions for Intel and their processors recently? It is even worse than AMD. Tell me, is Pentium 630 faster than a 570J? The answer is the 570J is faster. Go figure.
Since the AMD64 have three chipsets, (by chipsets I mean cpu sockets basically) that support it (one with registered dual channel memory support (940), one with unregistered, unbuffered "regular" dual channel memory support (939) and one that only supports a single channel memory controller (754)), different AMD64 chips on different sockets will have different peformance ratings. Along with the three cpu sockets (and subsequent integrated memory controller) AMD also realeased AMD64's with different amounts of L2 cache. We have the 1024 L2 cache chips, the 512K L2 cache chips, and the new Sempron X86-64 chips with 128K L2 cache chips. As you can see it can become confusing.
The extra 1024K L2 cache on your 2.2ghrtz Clawhammer supposedly makes up the 200mghrtz difference in performance ratings over your identical in features but with only 512K L2 cache Newcastle 2.4 chip. In most instances however, on the AMD64 platform the processor speed makes a bigger difference than the L2 cache size. You 2.4 Newcastle probably benches a little faster in real world tests than will the Clawhammer except where the program requires a lot of cache.
The older Athlon XP 3200 rating was a real stretch and was usually overtaken by the Pentium IV 3.06 Northwoods (sometimes even the 2.8 gave it a run for its money). The AMD64 3200 on the hand will easily defeat the Athlon XP 3200 and equal or surpass the equivalent Pentium IV 3.2ghrtz chip. Games, the AMD64 will always win chip per chip. Encoding wise, the Intel chip (if it has hyperthreading) will win more often than not. Everything else is usually split.
What would you rather buy at the store looking at comparably priced products (ignoring all the other potential performance parts).
3.4ghtrz Pentium IV 650!
or
2.2ghrtz AMD64 San Diego
In most cases the San Diego would outperform (and run cooler and use less wattage) the 3.4 Pentium part (Encoding I would imagine the Intel would win and the gaming the AMD would win).
Since the AMD64 have three chipsets, (by chipsets I mean cpu sockets basically) that support it (one with registered dual channel memory support (940), one with unregistered, unbuffered "regular" dual channel memory support (939) and one that only supports a single channel memory controller (754)), different AMD64 chips on different sockets will have different peformance ratings. Along with the three cpu sockets (and subsequent integrated memory controller) AMD also realeased AMD64's with different amounts of L2 cache. We have the 1024 L2 cache chips, the 512K L2 cache chips, and the new Sempron X86-64 chips with 128K L2 cache chips. As you can see it can become confusing.
The extra 1024K L2 cache on your 2.2ghrtz Clawhammer supposedly makes up the 200mghrtz difference in performance ratings over your identical in features but with only 512K L2 cache Newcastle 2.4 chip. In most instances however, on the AMD64 platform the processor speed makes a bigger difference than the L2 cache size. You 2.4 Newcastle probably benches a little faster in real world tests than will the Clawhammer except where the program requires a lot of cache.
The older Athlon XP 3200 rating was a real stretch and was usually overtaken by the Pentium IV 3.06 Northwoods (sometimes even the 2.8 gave it a run for its money). The AMD64 3200 on the hand will easily defeat the Athlon XP 3200 and equal or surpass the equivalent Pentium IV 3.2ghrtz chip. Games, the AMD64 will always win chip per chip. Encoding wise, the Intel chip (if it has hyperthreading) will win more often than not. Everything else is usually split.
What would you rather buy at the store looking at comparably priced products (ignoring all the other potential performance parts).
3.4ghtrz Pentium IV 650!
or
2.2ghrtz AMD64 San Diego
In most cases the San Diego would outperform (and run cooler and use less wattage) the 3.4 Pentium part (Encoding I would imagine the Intel would win and the gaming the AMD would win).
Intel doesn't say their processor speeds anymore either. THey use a numbering system. AMD does need to clean up their system, though. They should only have one processor per model number.
Show me reputable benchmarks that show a P4 3.0 faster than a 2.4 Ghz Newcastle...
Even in Divx, xvid, and with the AMD running single channel we are talking about a very close race. Intel wins Divx, AMD wins everything else, including Xvid.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353&p=8
What exactly are you doing that the P4 is faster at?
edmundoab
Diamond Member
just their own identity.
it doesn't have to follow what its specs would be.
Of course definately easier to identify should it be labeled accordingly
it doesn't have to follow what its specs would be.
Of course definately easier to identify should it be labeled accordingly
the pentium 4's dont show their speed either. they are called "Pentium 4 530 (3.0ghz)" just like "Athlon 64 3000+ (1.8ghz)"
Just buy an A64 3000+ (1.8Ghz)Venice core ($145, retail version w/HSF), then OC it to 2.7Ghz. This will give you the performance equivelant of a Pentium 4 (4Ghz processor) for $145.
Nothing else to think about after that!!!!!!
Nothing else to think about after that!!!!!!yes intel very ick
i hope they get what they deserve in this lawsuite (aka amd gets a crap load of money and rights to crappy compnies like dell)
i hope they get what they deserve in this lawsuite (aka amd gets a crap load of money and rights to crappy compnies like dell)
it gets very confusing indeed.
I have a socket 754 3000+ Sempron that runs at 1.8ghz with 128k cache
also have a A64 2800+ that runs the same 1.8ghz too but has 512k of cache.
So why is my A64 lower number than the Sempron when it's got lots more cache.... very confusing ....
I have a socket 754 3000+ Sempron that runs at 1.8ghz with 128k cache
also have a A64 2800+ that runs the same 1.8ghz too but has 512k of cache.
So why is my A64 lower number than the Sempron when it's got lots more cache.... very confusing ....
sempron ratings are supposed to be compared to celerons.
amd64 ratings are supposed to be compared to pentium 4s.
amd64 ratings are supposed to be compared to pentium 4s.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 407
-
Facebook
Twitter