AMD Nomenclature?

OK, I can't find it on AMD's website, but someone has to know. I understand
that the higher numbers i.e. 2800, 3000, 3200, etc. are increasingly better,
but what does it mean. I see that most of these have the same clockspeeds,
but the higher numbers (2800,3200...) cost more, so they must be better,
right? Why? What makes them better if not clock speed?

Thanks,
Ad

OK, I can't find it on AMD's website, but someone has to know. I understand
that the higher numbers i.e. 2800, 3000, 3200, etc. are increasingly better,
but what does it mean. I see that most of these have the same clockspeeds,
but the higher numbers (2800,3200...) cost more, so they must be better,
right? Why? What makes them better if not clock speed?

In general, higher numbers mean faster CPUs, but the numbers are not
influenced by clock speed alone--FSB speed, L2 cache size, memory
bandwidth (single vs. dual channel), and marketing expedience are also
taken into account.

For example, the Clawhammer 3200+ runs at 2.0GHz and has a 1MB L2 cache.
The Newcastle 3000+ runs at the same 2.0GHz, but has just 512KB L2
cache. Both of the above chips have a single memory channel (socket
754). The Winchester 3200+ runs at 2.0GHz and has 512KB L2 cache, but
has a dual channel memory interface (socket 939), earning it an extra
200 computron bonus over the Newcastle.

Bottom line? It's hard to quantify a processor's performance with just
one number. AMD would have been sensible to just abandon the
performance number altogether just like they did for the Opteron. Or
maybe not.

"Lachoneus" wrote in message
...
OK, I can't find it on AMD's website, but someone has to know. I
understand that the higher numbers i.e. 2800, 3000, 3200, etc. are
increasingly better, but what does it mean. I see that most of these have
the same clockspeeds, but the higher numbers (2800,3200...) cost more, so
they must be better, right? Why? What makes them better if not clock
speed?

In general, higher numbers mean faster CPUs, but the numbers are not
influenced by clock speed alone--FSB speed, L2 cache size, memory
bandwidth (single vs. dual channel), and marketing expedience are also
taken into account.

For example, the Clawhammer 3200+ runs at 2.0GHz and has a 1MB L2 cache.
The Newcastle 3000+ runs at the same 2.0GHz, but has just 512KB L2 cache.
Both of the above chips have a single memory channel (socket 754). The
Winchester 3200+ runs at 2.0GHz and has 512KB L2 cache, but has a dual
channel memory interface (socket 939), earning it an extra 200 computron
bonus over the Newcastle.

Bottom line? It's hard to quantify a processor's performance with just
one number. AMD would have been sensible to just abandon the performance
number altogether just like they did for the Opteron. Or maybe not.

Thanks for the clarification, inasmuch as that is possible .

The machine I intend put it in is my "workhorse" system. I mostly use it to
record and process video and audio, burn DVDs & CDs and other time and
somewhat processor intensive jobs. According to your explanation and since I
want to stick with 754 (& 3400+), Obviously the right choice is the
Clawhammer w/the 1 mb L2 cache. Any recommendation on motherboards? I've
been checking out Gigabyte GA-K8NS PRO.

Thanks again,
Ad

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:18:17 -0600, Adjacent wrote:


"Lachoneus" wrote in message
...
OK, I can't find it on AMD's website, but someone has to know. I
understand that the higher numbers i.e. 2800, 3000, 3200, etc. are
increasingly better, but what does it mean. I see that most of these have
the same clockspeeds, but the higher numbers (2800,3200...) cost more, so
they must be better, right? Why? What makes them better if not clock
speed?

In general, higher numbers mean faster CPUs, but the numbers are not
influenced by clock speed alone--FSB speed, L2 cache size, memory
bandwidth (single vs. dual channel), and marketing expedience are also
taken into account.

For example, the Clawhammer 3200+ runs at 2.0GHz and has a 1MB L2 cache.
The Newcastle 3000+ runs at the same 2.0GHz, but has just 512KB L2 cache.
Both of the above chips have a single memory channel (socket 754). The
Winchester 3200+ runs at 2.0GHz and has 512KB L2 cache, but has a dual
channel memory interface (socket 939), earning it an extra 200 computron
bonus over the Newcastle.

Bottom line? It's hard to quantify a processor's performance with just
one number. AMD would have been sensible to just abandon the performance
number altogether just like they did for the Opteron. Or maybe not.

Thanks for the clarification, inasmuch as that is possible .

The machine I intend put it in is my "workhorse" system. I mostly use it to
record and process video and audio, burn DVDs & CDs and other time and
somewhat processor intensive jobs. According to your explanation and since I
want to stick with 754 (& 3400+), Obviously the right choice is the
Clawhammer w/the 1 mb L2 cache. Any recommendation on motherboards? I've
been checking out Gigabyte GA-K8NS PRO.

Thanks again,
Ad

Why do you want to stick with 754? The 939s support more memory than the
754s because they have two separate memory buses. I'd go with a 3500+ 939
rather than a 3400+ 754.

"Adjacent" wrote in message
news:9eUmd.10898$nj.8923@lakeread01...

" I understand that the higher numbers i.e. 2800, 3000, 3200, etc. are
increasingly better, but what does it mean. I see that most of these have
the same clockspeeds, but the higher numbers (2800,3200...) cost more, so
they must be better, right? Why? What makes them better if not clock speed?
"


AMD's early Athlon, based on the Thunderbird core, didn't have a PR Rating
such as the 2800+, 3000+ or 3200+ that you refer to. The Thunderbird's
marketing relied on its clock speed, and buyers tended to compare it to an
Intel processor of similar clock speed.

When AMD moved to the Athlon XP, firstly with the Palomino core, the new
architecture had significantly begun to out-perform Intel per clock cycle.
If they were to continue marketing their processors by clock speed alone,
they would only be selling themselves short. Therefore, they introduced the
PR Rating, indicating the relative performance to their early Athlon
Thunderbird. However, these PR ratings generally bear more relevance to the
competition from Intel than to the Thunderbird.

AMD processors with the same clock speed may have differing PR ratings
because of a number of factors. Core architechture, L2 cache, FSB and
socket type are the major factors in their performance.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^10248,00.html

"General Schvantzkoph" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:18:17 -0600, Adjacent wrote:


"Lachoneus" wrote in message
...
OK, I can't find it on AMD's website, but someone has to know. I
understand that the higher numbers i.e. 2800, 3000, 3200, etc. are
increasingly better, but what does it mean. I see that most of these
have
the same clockspeeds, but the higher numbers (2800,3200...) cost more,
so
they must be better, right? Why? What makes them better if not clock
speed?

In general, higher numbers mean faster CPUs, but the numbers are not
influenced by clock speed alone--FSB speed, L2 cache size, memory
bandwidth (single vs. dual channel), and marketing expedience are also
taken into account.

For example, the Clawhammer 3200+ runs at 2.0GHz and has a 1MB L2 cache.
The Newcastle 3000+ runs at the same 2.0GHz, but has just 512KB L2
cache.
Both of the above chips have a single memory channel (socket 754). The
Winchester 3200+ runs at 2.0GHz and has 512KB L2 cache, but has a dual
channel memory interface (socket 939), earning it an extra 200 computron
bonus over the Newcastle.

Bottom line? It's hard to quantify a processor's performance with just
one number. AMD would have been sensible to just abandon the
performance
number altogether just like they did for the Opteron. Or maybe not.

Thanks for the clarification, inasmuch as that is possible .

The machine I intend put it in is my "workhorse" system. I mostly use it
to
record and process video and audio, burn DVDs & CDs and other time and
somewhat processor intensive jobs. According to your explanation and
since I
want to stick with 754 (& 3400+), Obviously the right choice is the
Clawhammer w/the 1 mb L2 cache. Any recommendation on motherboards? I've
been checking out Gigabyte GA-K8NS PRO.

Thanks again,
Ad

Why do you want to stick with 754? The 939s support more memory than the
754s because they have two separate memory buses. I'd go with a 3500+ 939
rather than a 3400+ 754.

Cost concerns, but after reading your post, I see I may be able to swing
3500+ for about $50 more. However, I'd like to know more regarding the
differences between the cores at that level (i.e., the 3500+ cpus on Newegg
have the Newcastle and the Winchester cores, with the Winchester costing
slightly more). I checked at amd.com, but a search of their website turns up
unrelated items. Do you know of a site that can fill me in on the details?

Thanks,
Ad

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:53:43 -0600, Adjacent wrote:

Why do you want to stick with 754? The 939s support more memory than the
754s because they have two separate memory buses. I'd go with a 3500+ 939
rather than a 3400+ 754.

Cost concerns, but after reading your post, I see I may be able to swing
3500+ for about $50 more. However, I'd like to know more regarding the
differences between the cores at that level (i.e., the 3500+ cpus on Newegg
have the Newcastle and the Winchester cores, with the Winchester costing
slightly more). I checked at amd.com, but a search of their website turns up
unrelated items. Do you know of a site that can fill me in on the details?

Don't take the model numbers of the A64 for much. They aren't a very good
indicator of real performance. I'd suggest you do a little more reasearch
before speding your money. For instance, a socket 754 Sempron 3100+
overclocks easily over the speed of the stock speed of the 4000+, and gets
very close to it in performance. Now consider a MB and 4000+ CPU will
cost you about $850 while the Sempron system would cost less than $200.
And the 3400+ 754 beats the 3500+ 939 in a lot of benchmarks. Don't be too
concerned abpout cache size and dual channel. It's the clock speed that
produces the real performance increase in most apps. Here's one reference
link.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...n-3100-oc.html


--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:16:56 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:53:43 -0600, Adjacent wrote:

Why do you want to stick with 754? The 939s support more memory than the
754s because they have two separate memory buses. I'd go with a 3500+ 939
rather than a 3400+ 754.

Cost concerns, but after reading your post, I see I may be able to swing
3500+ for about $50 more. However, I'd like to know more regarding the
differences between the cores at that level (i.e., the 3500+ cpus on Newegg
have the Newcastle and the Winchester cores, with the Winchester costing
slightly more). I checked at amd.com, but a search of their website turns up
unrelated items. Do you know of a site that can fill me in on the details?

Don't take the model numbers of the A64 for much. They aren't a very good
indicator of real performance. I'd suggest you do a little more reasearch
before speding your money. For instance, a socket 754 Sempron 3100+
overclocks easily over the speed of the stock speed of the 4000+, and gets
very close to it in performance. Now consider a MB and 4000+ CPU will
cost you about $850 while the Sempron system would cost less than $200.
And the 3400+ 754 beats the 3500+ 939 in a lot of benchmarks. Don't be too
concerned abpout cache size and dual channel. It's the clock speed that
produces the real performance increase in most apps. Here's one reference
link.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...n-3100-oc.html

I beg to differ, it's total RAM size that matters most. The clock speed
differences are trivial, generally about 10% per speed step. Human beings
don't notice tiny differences like 10 or 20%. However having enough RAM so
that your applications all stay in memory rather than having to be paged
in from disk is huge, that's the sort of thing that you can notice.

As for overclocking, don't do it unless your hobby is overclocking.
Reliablity is far more important than wringing out a little more
performance.

Finally there is one more thing to take in to consideration and that's
future upgrades. There will be dual core 939 pin parts next year, the 754
pin package is only being used for bottom of the line processors so it
won't have a dual core option available.

"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2004.11.18.20.20.54.743599@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:53:43 -0600, Adjacent wrote:

Why do you want to stick with 754? The 939s support more memory than the
754s because they have two separate memory buses. I'd go with a 3500+
939
rather than a 3400+ 754.

Cost concerns, but after reading your post, I see I may be able to swing
3500+ for about $50 more. However, I'd like to know more regarding the
differences between the cores at that level (i.e., the 3500+ cpus on
Newegg
have the Newcastle and the Winchester cores, with the Winchester costing
slightly more). I checked at amd.com, but a search of their website turns
up
unrelated items. Do you know of a site that can fill me in on the
details?

Don't take the model numbers of the A64 for much. They aren't a very good
indicator of real performance. I'd suggest you do a little more reasearch
before speding your money. For instance, a socket 754 Sempron 3100+
overclocks easily over the speed of the stock speed of the 4000+, and gets
very close to it in performance. Now consider a MB and 4000+ CPU will
cost you about $850 while the Sempron system would cost less than $200.
And the 3400+ 754 beats the 3500+ 939 in a lot of benchmarks. Don't be too
concerned abpout cache size and dual channel. It's the clock speed that
produces the real performance increase in most apps. Here's one reference
link.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...n-3100-oc.html

Not a bad consideration, however, circumstances dictate that I go with
64-bit, and I'd still be interested in any info regarding differences
between the two cores at the 3500+ level.

Thanks,
Ad

"Cuzman" wrote in message
...
"Adjacent" wrote in message
news:9eUmd.10898$nj.8923@lakeread01...

" I understand that the higher numbers i.e. 2800, 3000, 3200, etc. are
increasingly better, but what does it mean. I see that most of these have
the same clockspeeds, but the higher numbers (2800,3200...) cost more, so
they must be better, right? Why? What makes them better if not clock
speed?
"


AMD's early Athlon, based on the Thunderbird core, didn't have a PR Rating
such as the 2800+, 3000+ or 3200+ that you refer to. The Thunderbird's
marketing relied on its clock speed, and buyers tended to compare it to an
Intel processor of similar clock speed.

When AMD moved to the Athlon XP, firstly with the Palomino core, the new
architecture had significantly begun to out-perform Intel per clock cycle.
If they were to continue marketing their processors by clock speed alone,
they would only be selling themselves short. Therefore, they introduced
the
PR Rating, indicating the relative performance to their early Athlon
Thunderbird. However, these PR ratings generally bear more relevance to
the
competition from Intel than to the Thunderbird.

AMD processors with the same clock speed may have differing PR ratings
because of a number of factors. Core architechture, L2 cache, FSB and
socket type are the major factors in their performance.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^10248,00.html

Thanks, Cuzman, especially for the link, as that lays it all out. However, I
still can't find any info regarding the cores.

Thanks!