Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > How is AMD's Named measured? (eg : 3200+, 4000+)

How is AMD's Named measured? (eg : 3200+, 4000+)

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - How is AMD's Named measured? (eg : 3200+, 4000+)

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
moneybags   08-30-2005 at 02:20:02 AM

Hello all,

first time on the forums here, have been a long time reader, but I have a question for you all. I have heard many different things to why and how and what AMD's naming scheme is. Getting out of the "clock speed race since they can't compete with Intels". But, my question is, If I have a computer running at 2.0GHz, AMD Athlon 64 3200+, what does the actaul 3200+ signify? Becuase I have had that question for a while, and I still ahve never had a direct answer. If anyone can answer this, it would greatly be appreciated. Thank You

Mike "Moneybags" Baglole

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
shawnlizzle =]   08-30-2005 at 04:09:13 AM
- 0 +

it compairs itself to a p4 running at 3.2 ghz

<font color=red>gforce mx100/200 @ 230/440 =]</font color=red>

Reply to shawnlizzle =]
Ned_Flanders   08-30-2005 at 04:20:46 AM
- 0 +

How <b>are</b>...

_____________________
<A HREF="http://snipurl.com/fxwr" target="_new">Welcome to the House of Horrors, welcome to the House of a 1000 Corpses</A>

Reply to Ned_Flanders
endyen   08-30-2005 at 05:14:00 AM
- 0 +

Amd says that it is a relitive term decided by a group of benchmarks. Generally speaking, the higher the name, the better the chip.
By thier explanation, a 3500 should be 25% faster than a 2800, but that's not quite true.
Comparing to Intel just doesn't work, as too much depends on how well the benchmarks are optimized for Intel.

Reply to endyen
emogoch   08-30-2005 at 05:23:03 AM
- 0 +

The comparing to intel was the original basis for the naming convention. But as the chips progressed, it became less and less relevant, and became a way of comparing to each other.

Reply to emogoch
endyen   08-30-2005 at 05:30:55 AM
- 0 +

Amd started using thier system at about the xp1400. The xp1400 was a little faster than the P4 1.7, so I really doubt that Amd would have so badly downplayed thier own performance.
The original xp # were based on a comparison to the athlon 1 ghz.
I believe that the A64s use a variation on that comarison, though there was a "correction", when they changed from xp to A64.

Reply to endyen
moneybags   08-30-2005 at 10:11:11 PM
- 0 +

Okay,

is that 100% correct about the P4 running at the speed?

AMD Athlon 64 3500+ = P4 @ 3.5GHz? is that correct?

because I've heard that befroe ,but is that for sure?

Reply to moneybags
fishmahn   08-30-2005 at 10:17:17 PM
- 0 +

Exactly? No. P4 # A64. They work differently, so the P4 is better at some things, A64 at others. Approximately? Yes.

Actually in most cases, except for video encoding (and that's debatable depending on your software), the A64 3500+ will perform faster than a P4@3.5ghz. Sometimes more faster, sometimes less faster.

Mike.

<font color=blue>Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside the dog its too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx</font color=blue>

Reply to fishmahn
Anonymous   08-30-2005 at 10:18:24 PM
- 0 +

I was almost exactly true before the P4 with Northwood-800MHZ core came out.
So Athlon XP VS P4 with 533FSB, the rating was almost dead-on.
With the introduction of the P4C(800mhz FSB) the P4 where a somewhat better than the amd's rating.

Now with A64 and especially the X2(4800 is certainly not like a 4.8ghz)!

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0

Reply to Anonymous
endyen   08-30-2005 at 11:53:33 PM
- 0 +

Come on now Wusy. You have a dual chip xp system. Is it twice as fast as a single core system at the same speed?
What would you multiply a single core, to get two core performance.
It looks like they are using a multiplier of 1.5. That seems a little optimistic to me.
Personnally, I would multiply by 1.01, but I've been using single core, low thread progs my whole life.
It looks like they are using a multiplier of 1.5. That seems a little optimistic to me.

Reply to endyen
fishmahn   08-31-2005 at 12:01:22 AM
- 0 +

1.5? Seems more like 1.2.

4800+ is same spec as 4000+ but 2 of them. 4000 X 1.2 = 4800
4200+ is same spec as 3500+ (ditto) 3500 X 1.2 = 4200
3800+ is same spec as 3200+ (ditto) 3200 x 1.2 = 3840.

The others don't fit quite as nicely, but they probably just smoothed out the spread.

Mike.

<font color=blue>Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside the dog its too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx</font color=blue>

Reply to fishmahn
endyen   08-31-2005 at 12:22:09 AM
- 0 +

Yah, you are right. On top of that, the X2s can run 2 F@H WUs as quickly as an equally clocked single core can run one.

Reply to endyen
shawnlizzle =]   08-31-2005 at 01:27:54 AM
- 0 +

3200 + 200mhz+512kb cache = 3700

<font color=red>gforce mx100/200 @ 230/440 =]</font color=red>

Reply to shawnlizzle =]
apache_lives   08-31-2005 at 02:35:01 AM
- 0 +

What you would find is that AMD used to compare to Intels speeds (AthlonXP days mostly) but as we see now - intel doesnt have a 4000 (4ghz model) so there now naming the cpu's to compare with other AMD cpu's - eg 3400 is faster then 3200.

If they did just sell a 4000+ as a "2.4ghz" the average joe would prolly buy the Intel P4 3+ ghz models cause "its faster" and sure - it is, speed wise only.

Theres no real way of comparing the two - intel kills on video and AMD for anything else usually but never equal, and the dual core AMD cpus are the worst - in a Game the X2 3800+ will perform like a 3000 (or was it the 3200?) cause of single threaded software designs.

Reply to apache_lives
mpasternak   08-31-2005 at 07:13:47 AM
- 0 +

hmmmm interesing numbers on the X2's though

if you look at the model number VS ghz
this math though only works on the the highest 1mb cache models
x2 4800+ is 2 cores @ 2400 = 4800
x2 4400+ is 2 cores @ 2200 = 4400

the only difference i see that doesn't fit this is the 512kb cache variety. in which all the numbers are the same, but minus a 200 from the value
they probably did this to somehow denote that the performance isnt supposed to be the same as the 1mb cache.

x2 4600+ is 2 cores @ 2400mhz - 200 = 4600
x2 4200+ is 2 cores @ 2200mhz - 200 = 4200
x2 3800+ is 2 cores @ 2000mhz - 200 = 3800

Reply to mpasternak
jammydodger   08-31-2005 at 03:34:49 PM
- 0 +

Origionally the naming sceme was meant to signify the performance of the athlon XP chips vs the origion althon series of CPU's. I.e a 3000+ athlonXP would perform just as well and a 3.0Ghz CPU based on the origional Athlon core.

When the Athlon64 was released AMD said that an athlon64 CPU will be 10% than an athlonXP with the same performance rating. I.e an athlon64 3000+ would perform on par with a athlon XP 3300+

Reply to jammydodger
emogoch   08-31-2005 at 04:56:42 PM
- 0 +

I still think that AMDs scheme is a hell of a lot better than Intel's right now. They're all over the place.

Reply to emogoch
jammydodger   08-31-2005 at 09:43:39 PM
- 0 +

Intels makes absolutly no sence to me, I bet it confuses the crap out of people that are new to buying a computer.
How the hell do they know the difference between a 620 and a 540? Or and pentium D and pentium M?

Reply to jammydodger
Anonymous   08-31-2005 at 09:58:28 PM
- 0 +

Well thats easy, you let the salesman tell you the bigger the numebr the better the processor and you make a educated choice!!! :wink:

As for pentium D and Pentium M, I would say the same way you do it with the Athlon 64 and the Athlon X2!

Only real confusing thing IMO is the Celeron D and Pentium D. Even if you're relatively deucated when it comes to computer, you migh think the Celeron D is dual core with less cache and slower FSB...

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, MSI 6800Ultra stock, 2X30gig Raid0

Reply to Anonymous
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > How is AMD's Named measured? (eg : 3200+, 4000+)
Go to:

There are 917 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.398 seconds
Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
How do I win badges?