MadRat
Lifer
I'd like to see AMD formulate a naming convention more akin to NVidia graphics cards. Its a PITA to figure out raw MHz in comparison from one core to the next with their current system. I don't want to know that a 3500+ comes in multiple stepping and more than one speed grade. I'd rather see the top of the line chips stick to their XXXX+ name and the stripped down features of cores elicit suffixes.
4000+ FX = S939 @ 2.4GHz w/1024K L2 + 2C memory controller (future 90nm?)
4000+ MX = S939 @ 2.4GHz w/512K L2 + 2C memory controller (current 130nm?)
4000+ SX = S754 @ 2.4GHz w/512K L2 + 1C memory controller (SEMPRON)
Sure the 4000+ label becomes more or less meaningless to the consumer, but then again marketing is demigod. The Celerons have long been clocked near the A64's and used to confuse the consumer into thinking the latter was worse than the former. Why not use the same logical strategy against Intel? I like the idea that all chips at the same speed grade have a common component. As it is now, the performance rating really does nothing for me.
Here's a rundown of the idea:
S939 Performance-wares:
------------------------------
FX = 1024K L2 + 2C memory + 1GHz HT
MX = 512K L2 + 2C memory + 1GHz HT
CX = 256K L2 + 2C memory + 1GHz HT
S754 Crippled-wares:
-------------------------
EX = 1024K L2 + 1C memory + .8GHz HT
SX = 512K L2 + 1C memory + .8GHz HT
BX = 256K L2 + 1C memory + .8GHz HT
Here's a rundown of the speedgrades:
4000+ = @ 2.6 GHz (eq. x52)
3800+ = @ 2.4 GHz (eq. x50)
3600+ = @ 2.2 GHz (eq. x48)
3400+ = @ 2.0 GHz (eq. x46)
3200+ = @ 1.8 GHz (eq. x44)
3000+ = @ 1.6 GHz (eq. x42)
2800+ = @ 1.4 GHz (eq. x40)
OT - Back in the early days of Pentiums there were chipset suffixes that generally did the same thing. I think the chipset was more of the focus when buying the PC then the actual CPU speed grade. I mean, buying the HX chipset as opposed to the LX was absolutely rudimentary to owning performance even though the actual performance for the average Joe meant nothing.
4000+ FX = S939 @ 2.4GHz w/1024K L2 + 2C memory controller (future 90nm?)
4000+ MX = S939 @ 2.4GHz w/512K L2 + 2C memory controller (current 130nm?)
4000+ SX = S754 @ 2.4GHz w/512K L2 + 1C memory controller (SEMPRON)
Sure the 4000+ label becomes more or less meaningless to the consumer, but then again marketing is demigod. The Celerons have long been clocked near the A64's and used to confuse the consumer into thinking the latter was worse than the former. Why not use the same logical strategy against Intel? I like the idea that all chips at the same speed grade have a common component. As it is now, the performance rating really does nothing for me.
Here's a rundown of the idea:
S939 Performance-wares:
------------------------------
FX = 1024K L2 + 2C memory + 1GHz HT
MX = 512K L2 + 2C memory + 1GHz HT
CX = 256K L2 + 2C memory + 1GHz HT
S754 Crippled-wares:
-------------------------
EX = 1024K L2 + 1C memory + .8GHz HT
SX = 512K L2 + 1C memory + .8GHz HT
BX = 256K L2 + 1C memory + .8GHz HT
Here's a rundown of the speedgrades:
4000+ = @ 2.6 GHz (eq. x52)
3800+ = @ 2.4 GHz (eq. x50)
3600+ = @ 2.2 GHz (eq. x48)
3400+ = @ 2.0 GHz (eq. x46)
3200+ = @ 1.8 GHz (eq. x44)
3000+ = @ 1.6 GHz (eq. x42)
2800+ = @ 1.4 GHz (eq. x40)
OT - Back in the early days of Pentiums there were chipset suffixes that generally did the same thing. I think the chipset was more of the focus when buying the PC then the actual CPU speed grade. I mean, buying the HX chipset as opposed to the LX was absolutely rudimentary to owning performance even though the actual performance for the average Joe meant nothing.
