<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
Anemone - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
Isn't the Athlon 64 3700 the Odessa or what was supposed to be Odessa in the original code names?Just checking, love this article sorting through all the would be's and once were's, back in time.
JarredWalton - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
plewis - Rosewood is correct in stating that *all* Athlon 64 processors have an integrated memory controller. That means that all S754, S939, and S940 motherboards do not have a memory controller, so any other chips made for those boards (i.e. Sempron 3100+) also have to have an integrated memory controller. I believe there are some benchmarks on AT that show how the 1.8 GHz Sempron 3100+ compares to the Athlon XP chips. Basically, it beats them in almost all cases.Rosewood - Regarding the 250 nm 233-333 processors, they definitely existed in at least a couple of the processors, late in the PII lifetime. I personally purchased a Pentium II 300 batch SL2W8 - there was a big deal made over many of these being downmarked PII 450 chips at the time. It overclocked to 450 MHz like a champ! :)
How many of these were made? I don't think there were very many. After all, it wasn't too long after the introduction of the 100 MHz bus PII chips that the 66 MHz bus chips were discontinued by Intel. (At least, that's how I remember it.) However, I don't know if they only released 250 nm versions inthe 300 and 333 models, or if they were also in some 233 and 266 models. I do know that *some* of the chips at least exist.
rosewood - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
plewis00 - unless im on crack, I think all the A64s have had the memory controller on chip and not on the NB, including the 754s.plewis00 - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
Can I ask, I am not that well informed on AMD processors, but if the Sempron 3100+ is an S754 chip, then how can it have an integrated memory controller, because I thought on all S754 boards, the memory controller is in the Northbridge? Am I right?rosewood - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
Great article - good history. Two thingsKlamath P II Slot 1 233-333 512K 7.5 + 37.2 350/250 203 + L2 66
Are we sure that there were 250 parts of this line? I beleive ya but a bro says thats not right so ... yea?
2)
Can you include the A64 Mobiles as they are a bit different. IIRC, I have a 3000+ in my laptop and its 1.8ghz but 1meg L2 Cache.
3) I said two? Well, I just thought of this one :P Could you add pictures of the stuff if possible as well as model # guides / how to tell. I was recently given a tray of CPUs and if I try I can probably noodle through which is which but it would be nice to just look here and say "Ah yes, this 2200+ is a barton because the core looks like this ..."
But seriously, AWESOME article.
Holobits - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
Good Job Jarred!! Reading your article started bringing me back memory of my pentium 2 and 2 3dFX Voodoo 2s in SLI:) Your article is very informative and I look forward to seeing another.JarredWalton - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
srg - They're with the Pentium 3 and early Celeron processors. :) If people are really interested in getting the list of Slot A and Slot 1 processors for AMD and Intel, I can work on compiling that. Initially, I just felt they were old enough that it wasn't worth the effort.MAME - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
ha, whoopsanyway, nice article!
MAME - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
srg - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
What about the Slot A Thunderbirds? OK, their basically 'B' types but still.srg