<b>Updated</b> CPU Cheatsheet - Seven Years of Covert CPU Operations
by Jarred Walton on August 28, 2004 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Introduction to the Processor Charts
Before we get to the actual charts, I want to take a minute to make clear how the charts are organized. Due to the number of features involved with modern processors, it can become difficult to determine which CPU is actually faster when comparing different models. For example, do you go with the 2250 MHz Athlon XP using the Thoroughbred core, which has a 2800+ model number, or should you go with the 2000 MHz Athlon XP that uses the Barton core, which also has a 2800+ model number? With Intel, it can be even more difficult: you have different cache sizes, bus speeds, and even architectures.
Since I figure a lot of people may actually find some sort of relative sorting useful, I have attempted to do this. How you wish to rate the various factors is of course a topic that could be debated ad nauseum . What I am presenting is by no means a definitive answer on which model is faster, but it should give a rough estimate. Below are the various families of processors and the weighting values that I used. I then took the weight factor and multiplied that by the actual clock speed to come up with a final performance ranking.
Since this is simply a rough estimate on my part, I am not including these ranking values in the actual charts, but they are how I sorted the data. Really, the reason for their existence was to get a sorting function that more or less agreed with my own personal opinion, so if I happen to have missed a processor, or if a new processor is released, I can simply add in the processor(s) to the chart and resort it. I'm open for suggestions on how these ratings might be improved, but please realize that there will never be a definitive formula, as relative performance depends on what specific code you are running.
If you don't like math or don't really care to know precisely how the charts are sorted, feel free to just skip to the next page. This is only for people that really want to know details. Also, the weighting factors are within each family - they have no correlation with other processor families. (So don't get upset that the Dothan has a 1.6 weighting and Athlon FX only has 1.15!) With that said, here are the weighting factors that I used.
Duron, Athlon, Athlon XP and Sempron
64K L2 + 100 MHz bus = 0.7 64K L2 + 133 MHz bus = 0.75 256K L2 + 100 MHz bus = 0.8 256K L2 + 133 MHz bus = 0.85 256K L2 + 166 MHz bus = 0.9 512K L2 + 133 MHz bus = 0.95 512K L2 + 166 MHz bus = 1.0 512K L2 + 200 MHz bus = 1.05
Athlon 64
256K L2 + single-channel (Socket 754) = 0.9 512K L2 + single-channel (Socket 754) = 0.95 1024K L2 + single-channel (Socket 754) = 1.0 512K L2 + dual-channel (Socket 939) = 1.04 1024K L2 + dual-channel (Socket 940) = 1.11 1024K L2 + dual-channel (Socket 939) = 1.15
Celeron 2 and Pentium 4
128K L2 + 400 FSB = 0.6 256K L2 + 400 FSB = 0.75 256K L2 + 533 FSB = 0.80 512K L2 + 400 FSB = 0.84 512K L2 + 533 FSB = 0.91 1024K L2 + 533 FSB = 0.93 1024K L2 + 800 FSB = 0.98 512K L2 + 800 FSB = 1.0 512K L2 + 800 FSB + 2048K L3 = 1.15 2048K L2 + 1066 FSB = 1.2
Mobile Celeron, Mobile P4, Celeron M and Pentium M
128K L2 + 400 FSB = 0.6 256K L2 + 400 FSB = 0.75 256K L2 + 533 FSB = 0.80 512K L2 + 533 FSB + Northwood = 0.91 1024K L2 + 533 FSB + Prescott = 0.93 512K L2 + 400 FSB + Dothan = 1.25 512K L2 + 400 FSB + Banias = 1.3 1024K L2 + 400 FSB + Dothan = 1.35 1024K L2 + 400 FSB + Banias = 1.4 2048K L2 + 400 FSB = 1.5 2048K L2 + 533 FSB = 1.6
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Monday, August 30, 2004 - link
#50 - Good catch. Obviously, there was some cutting and pasting involved. At some point, I corrected all of the names, but missed some of the clock speeds (at least on the Intel charts).#53 - Yes, you are correct. Someone corrected me before, but I didn't change both AMD charts. The Clawhammer supposedly does not have all three HyperTransport paths, so the FX would have to use the Sledgehammer core. It's just a little odd trying to figure out what AMD is doing on those cores. If it were Intel, every core version (i.e. different cache size, different memory controller, different socket) would probably get its own name. :)
OC DETECTIVE - Monday, August 30, 2004 - link
Actually #25's assertion that the FX 939 is a Clawhammer is incorrect. See details of correspondence with AMD's technical dept.over hereit is a Sledgehammer!
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...
Pumpkinierre - Sunday, August 29, 2004 - link
#49 There was a post not so long back that had the Prescott pipeline at 22 stages. But your information is right at launch. I just wonder how valid all this pipeline model is or whether the processor takes what it needs for the task required.karlreading - Sunday, August 29, 2004 - link
very informative article, very handy when talking hardware!!!heintjeput2 - Sunday, August 29, 2004 - link
A found a few things who are probably wrongP4 2.2 2800 Northwood 512 100 28.0X 478
should be:
P4 2.2 2200 Northwood 512 100 22.0X 478
and:
P4 3.2E 3800 Prescott 1024 200 19.0X 478
should be:
P4 3.2E 3200 Prescott 1024 200 16.0X 478
P4 540/J 3800 Prescott 1024 200 19.0X T/775
should be:
P4 540/J 3200 Prescott 1024 200 16.0X T/775
P4 3.2C 3800 Northwood 512 200 19.0X 478
>>
P4 3.2C 3200 Northwood 512 200 16.0X 478
P4EE 3.2 3800 Gallatin 512 200 19.0X 478 2048
>>
P4EE 3.2 3200 Gallatin 512 200 16.0X 478 2048
PM 1.2 (LV) 1800 Banias 1024 100 18.0X 478M
>>
PM 1.2 (LV) 1200 Banias 1024 100 12.0X 478M ??
MP4 3.2 HT 3800 Northwood 512 133 28.5X 478M
>>
MP4 3.2 HT 3200 Northwood 512 133 25.5X 478M
Athlon XP-M 2600+ 1933 Barton 512 133.3 14.5X
>>
Athlon XP-M 2600+ 2000 Barton 512 133.3 15.0X
Sempron 3100+ 1800 Paris** 256 200 9.0X 754
>>
Sempron 3100+ 1800 Paris* 256 200 9.0X 754
add:
Athlon XP-M 2400+ (ULV) 1800 Barton 512 133.3 13.5X
Athlon XP-M 2400+ (LV) 1800 Barton 512 133.3 13.5X
Athlon XP-M 2500+ (LV) 1867 Barton 512 133.3 14.0X
Athlon XP-M 2600+ (LV) 2000 Barton 512 133.3 15.0X
IntelUser2000 - Sunday, August 29, 2004 - link
I don't understand why people don't look up at Anandtech's old articles for information(or at least don't seem to)Take a look at the Pentium 4 Willamette article that states 10-stage pipeline for Pentium III and 20-stage pipeline for Pentium 4. I believe the most common figures are the Integer pipelines not including fetch/decode stages(according to your article anyway).
Link to article: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
Also why does it say Prescott have 23 stage pipelines?
"The Prescott further extended the NetBurst pipeline to 23 stages in addition to the 8 fetch/decode stages. For whatever reason, Intel generally describes the pipeline of the Prescott as 31 stages while only calling the earlier design a 20 stage pipeline."
JarredWalton - Sunday, August 29, 2004 - link
47 - Somehow I screwed that up in the update. Sorry. The 133 MHz bus (533 FSB) Xeon chips run in socket 604, so the two later Prestonia core Xeons are socket 604 parts. As far as I know, all the Gallatin Xeon cores are still socket 603.Marlin1975 - Saturday, August 28, 2004 - link
ALL the P4 Xeons are listed at socket 603. I know the later and even current ones are now 604.Zebo - Saturday, August 28, 2004 - link
One of the best guides I even read thanks I learned a lot.:)JarredWalton - Saturday, August 28, 2004 - link
Not like anyone is going to notice anymore (*wink*), but the article has now been updated with all of the corrections as well as additional commentary. I hope this clarifies a few things. If there are still errors, send them my way!