AMD's New Naming System

[apt403]

http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+to+Announce+New+Naming+System+Next+Week/article7527.htm

How the hell am I going to remember this? I still don't know how the old system works!

 

[Xpyrofuryx]

I can almost already feel people buying the wrong procs because they have no idea what they're buying...

"Whats that? a BE-2350! sweet! it has numbers, AND letters!! it must be awesome!"

 

[CaptRobertApril]

The numbers are just working codes. The K10 will have the public title of:

Chimeron.

:lol:

AND WHY IS THG'S SERVER GIVING ME CHINESE ADS AGAIN??? GRRRRRrrrrrrr!

 

[turpit]

I don't like the idea of throwing in random numbers...

Whats 56 wrong 723 with 69 random 789 numbers 5342?

 

[shinigamiX]

I don't like the idea of throwing in random numbers...

Well, E6600 is a pretty random as well... and don't even get me started on how inaccurate AMD's PR rating system/naming scheme has become.

 

[jackluo923]

AND WHY IS THG'S SERVER GIVING ME CHINESE ADS AGAIN??? GRRRRRrrrrrrr!

can you give me a link where THG's Server giving chinese ads? I can't seemed to find any Chinese ads on the site.

 

[CaptRobertApril]

AND WHY IS THG'S SERVER GIVING ME CHINESE ADS AGAIN??? GRRRRRrrrrrrr!

can you give me a link where THG's Server giving chinese ads? I can't seemed to find any Chinese ads on the site.

It's not a link. In the past couple of weeks every once in a while, THG decides to replace all the various banners, etc. that litter up this forum with Chinese ads. It's back to normal now, but for about an hour earlier I was getting all Chinese! And I'm in the mood for TexMex!

 

[tamalero]

I don't like the idea of throwing in random numbers...

blame intel, they started with their core2 duo numerical ones XD

 

[1Tanker]

I don't like the idea of throwing in random numbers...

blame intel, they started with their core2 duo numerical ones XDIMO...it's easy enough for AMD owners/appreciators to figure out, and decipher the differences, just as Intel owners/appreciators can do the same with Intel chips. What gets more confusing is for totally non-biased enthusiasts(and as much as we all{well most} like to consider ourselves as value-only fans...there's usually a smidgeon of brand preference in all of us), and even sadder....the unknowledgeable public. :x

 

[Alsone]

Its bullshit.

AMD can't compete with Intel so they want to draw the emphasis away from speed (in my opinion). We saw the same thing a while ago when AMD introduced the system - their processors were faster than the indicated core speed so the (xx)00+ system was evolved to show how much faster they really were.

If ever I needed a reason not to go back to AMD, this is it. Speed is everything and the numbers communicate it.

If I can't easily see the speed, I'm not buying, period!

 

[shinigamiX]

Its bullshit.

AMD can't compete with Intel so they want to draw the emphasis away from speed (in my opinion). We saw the same thing a while ago when AMD introduced the system - their processors were faster than the indicated core speed so the (xx)00+ system was evolved to show how much faster they really were.

If ever I needed a reason not to go back to AMD, this is it. Speed is everything and the numbers communicate it.

If I can't easily see the speed, I'm not buying, period!

With all due respect, I disagree. Speed is not everything. In my opinion, AMD is right to draw emphasis away from clockspeed, just as Intel did with its Core 2 Duo naming scheme. Clockspeed is slowly losing relevance when it comes to performance and both companies are right to change their naming schemes to reflect this. If you ask me, drawing attention away from clockspeed is the right thing to do. As for seeing the speed, why would you want to see it anyway? It's only relevant performance-wise when compared with CPUs of similar architecture, and when comparing those you can just look at model designations. When we get used to the new naming scheme it will make much more sense than AMD's outdated PR rating.

 

[Grimmy]

They are trying to brain wash us... :lol:

I mean dang:

"Athlon 64 X2 4000+ 45W 1MB L2 Brisbane," for example, will be renamed the "AMD BE-2400."

The BE-2400 doesn't show a hint of a 4000+, and its actual speed is 2.1 ghz from what I recall.

Edit:

Not that even 4000+ has any hint that is a 2.1 ghz as well.

 

[BaronMatrix]

http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+to+Announce+New+Naming+System+Next+Week/article7527.htm

How the hell am I going to remember this? I still don't know how the old system works!

Just remember how much each one costs. Oh wait that's displayed. More expensive means faster.

I thought the old scheme sucked because there were several overlaps between Sempron, A64 and X2.

 

[turpit]

Its bullshit.

AMD can't compete with Intel so they want to draw the emphasis away from speed (in my opinion). We saw the same thing a while ago when AMD introduced the system - their processors were faster than the indicated core speed so the (xx)00+ system was evolved to show how much faster they really were.

If ever I needed a reason not to go back to AMD, this is it. Speed is everything and the numbers communicate it.

If I can't easily see the speed, I'm not buying, period!

With all due respect, I disagree. Speed is not everything. In my opinion, AMD is right to draw emphasis away from clockspeed, just as Intel did with its Core 2 Duo naming scheme. Clockspeed is slowly losing relevance when it comes to performance and both companies are right to change their naming schemes to reflect this. If you ask me, drawing attention away from clockspeed is the right thing to do. As for seeing the speed, why would you want to see it anyway? It's only relevant performance-wise when compared with CPUs of similar architecture, and when comparing those you can just look at model designations. When we get used to the new naming scheme it will make much more sense than AMD's outdated PR rating.

I dont think hes talking about speed in terms of clockspeed. Note he correctly points out the AMDs were faster than the Intels for a given clockspeed. I think he means speed in terms of performance.

 

[m25]

http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+to+Announce+New+Naming+System+Next+Week/article7527.htm

How the hell am I going to remember this? I still don't know how the old system works!

This is more or less like Intel's actual naming scheme; do you find it somehow easier :roll: And AMD's oldest one with plain, linearly scaling performance ratings was a lot easier.

 

[Grimmy]

I'll admit when intel came out with C2D, the scheme seemed complicated, but I'll also admit I got used to it.

But even with what I posted above about the BE-2400, which was the 4000+, its just plain confusing:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 BE-2000
Model
Core
Frequency L2 Cache
TDP
BE-2400 2.3 GHz 2x512KB
45W
BE-2350 2.1 GHz 2x512KB
45W
BE-2300
1.9 GHz 2x512KB
45W

There's a BE-2400 listed there at 2.3 ghz, and BE-2350 at 2.1 ghz.

. o O (oh my head hurtz)

 

[ComputerCustomizer]

AMD is just trying to show off with the high numbers and that makes me mad. Plus, as THG benchmarks show, even a low end C2D (the e4300 overclocked to 2.4 ghz) can beat the athlon 64 x2 4600+

 

[BaronMatrix]

http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+to+Announce+New+Naming+System+Next+Week/article7527.htm

How the hell am I going to remember this? I still don't know how the old system works!

Just remember how much each one costs. Oh wait that's displayed. More expensive means faster.

Not true and now you are deviating from your own logic.

6000+ 229
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103773&ATT=19-103-773&CMP=OTC-pr1c3grabb3r

FX-62 299
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103861&ATT=19-103-861&CMP=OTC-pr1c3grabb3r

Just in case you are unaware:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/02/22/amd_athlon_64_x2_6000/3
The 6000+ is indeed faster than an FX-62.


I'm talking about the new chips ... Edited

 

[NMDante]

Okay, I understand the BE part is suppose to be for watt-TDP assignment, but where exactly does the processor series and speed come in?

The new alphanumeric modeling system allows AMD to designate different models by thermal design power, processor series and speed.

I mean, the Athlon X2 BE-2000 series, at first glance would indicate a low watt-TDP (in this case lower than 65 watt-TDP) and one would assume that it's starting processor speed is at 2.0GHz (as in the 2000 numbering), but if the BE-2300 is at 1.9GHz, and the 2350 is at 2.1GHz, where exactly is the processor speed listed in the naming scheme? Also, why the jump to 23xx for the series, and not start at 20xx?

Did I miss something in the article?

 

[Alsone]

Its bullshit.

AMD can't compete with Intel so they want to draw the emphasis away from speed (in my opinion). We saw the same thing a while ago when AMD introduced the system - their processors were faster than the indicated core speed so the (xx)00+ system was evolved to show how much faster they really were.

If ever I needed a reason not to go back to AMD, this is it. Speed is everything and the numbers communicate it.

If I can't easily see the speed, I'm not buying, period!

With all due respect, I disagree. Speed is not everything. In my opinion, AMD is right to draw emphasis away from clockspeed, just as Intel did with its Core 2 Duo naming scheme. Clockspeed is slowly losing relevance when it comes to performance and both companies are right to change their naming schemes to reflect this. If you ask me, drawing attention away from clockspeed is the right thing to do. As for seeing the speed, why would you want to see it anyway? It's only relevant performance-wise when compared with CPUs of similar architecture, and when comparing those you can just look at model designations. When we get used to the new naming scheme it will make much more sense than AMD's outdated PR rating.

I dont think hes talking about speed in terms of clockspeed. Note he correctly points out the AMDs were faster than the Intels for a given clockspeed. I think he means speed in terms of performance.

No I'm not talking about clockspeed.

Intel's system doesn't reflect clock speed it reflects equivolent speed which is a system that was started by AMD. eg. E6600 is actually 2.4GHZ but has 6600 equivolent performance. Same relationships can be found in AMD's range eg. the 4800+ doesn't run at 4800!

Shifting the emphasis away from performance indicators won't do AMD any favours.

I could care less about TDP as most people could, its great for laptops and nothing else.

Sure I'm all for energy saving and if any company can deliver high performance in a low energy package then I'm all for it. However, if TDP is being sold to me as the primary consideration with the chip a second rate performer, then that company is on to a loser. Performance is everything in this game and I'm not going to buy a chip to save power, only to get faster performance. The power saving, if any, is a bonus.

 

[shinigamiX]

Its bullshit.

AMD can't compete with Intel so they want to draw the emphasis away from speed (in my opinion). We saw the same thing a while ago when AMD introduced the system - their processors were faster than the indicated core speed so the (xx)00+ system was evolved to show how much faster they really were.

If ever I needed a reason not to go back to AMD, this is it. Speed is everything and the numbers communicate it.

If I can't easily see the speed, I'm not buying, period!

With all due respect, I disagree. Speed is not everything. In my opinion, AMD is right to draw emphasis away from clockspeed, just as Intel did with its Core 2 Duo naming scheme. Clockspeed is slowly losing relevance when it comes to performance and both companies are right to change their naming schemes to reflect this. If you ask me, drawing attention away from clockspeed is the right thing to do. As for seeing the speed, why would you want to see it anyway? It's only relevant performance-wise when compared with CPUs of similar architecture, and when comparing those you can just look at model designations. When we get used to the new naming scheme it will make much more sense than AMD's outdated PR rating.

I dont think hes talking about speed in terms of clockspeed. Note he correctly points out the AMD's were faster than the Intel's for a given clockspeed. I think he means speed in terms of performance.
I thought so too until I saw stuff like "Speed is everything and numbers communicate it" and "If I can't easily see the speed...". What can that be but clockspeed? Also, he seems to contradict himself by saying saying AMD is attempting to draw attention away from its inferior performance with its new naming scheme, them comparing the scheme to AMD's PR system, which was devised to overcome the fact that AMD's CPUs were faster than their clockspeeds indicated. Anyway, my reply is based on the assumption that he is referring to clockspeed. If he isn't then my apologies.

 

[m25]

AMD is just trying to show off with the high numbers and that makes me mad. Plus, as THG benchmarks show, even a low end C2D (the e4300 overclocked to 2.4 ghz) can beat the athlon 64 x2 4600+

Compare overclocked vs stock performances and you're just out :lol:
A 2.4GHz E4300 is almost an E6600, so what is the point, of course that the E6600 wins vs a X2 4600+.

 

[1Tanker]

AMD is just trying to show off with the high numbers and that makes me mad. Plus, as THG benchmarks show, even a low end C2D (the e4300 overclocked to 2.4 ghz) can beat the athlon 64 x2 4600+

Compare overclocked vs stock performances and you're just out :lol:
A 2.4GHz E4300 is almost an E6600, so what is the point, of course that the E6600 wins vs a X2 4600+.I agree.... overclocked performance has absolutely nothing to do with this.