Processor Obfuscation and You: An Update on AMD and Intel CPUs
by Kristopher Kubicki & Jarred Walton on May 17, 2005 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Introduction
The choice of processor used to be pretty straightforward. You had AMD or Intel, sometimes with a couple overlapping options from each company. With multiple platforms from each company as well as varying features, it can be difficult to determine which CPU you really want to purchase for your system. Over the last few years, things took a turn for the worst - even without the mobility options for Athlon 64, there are four desktop Athlon 64 3200+ variants (and that's just the tip of the iceberg). We felt that it was time for an overview of all the currently shipping processor models, as well as a look at the pros and cons of each model.Before we get into the details, we want to make it clear that this is not intended to be an all-inclusive processor article. Information on many of the older processors can be found in our last CPU Cheatsheet, and this is intended partly as an update and partly as a more focused look at each model. We aren't going to go into details about every single CPU that you might find for sale right now; we're more interested in the mid-range and higher processors to be honest, as the budget chips are mostly last year's mid-range chips.
One of the key areas of interest is still something of a future release. There has been quite a bit of coverage recently about the dual core solutions from both AMD and Intel. At present, none of the dual core chips are really available (other than in OEM systems), but it's important to keep them in mind before you spend hundreds of dollars on a CPU that could be totally outdated in a few months. If you haven't already, you'll definitely want to take a closer look at our Dual Core Performance Preview.
In order to tie all of this together and bring it back to the real world, we're going to be giving our opinions on upgrade options for most of the processor platforms. This is not meant as a definitive statement of when you should upgrade and to what you should upgrade - only the individual can really determine that. Instead, it is intended as an overview of what tasks work well on various platforms and when you may find a platform inadequate for your needs. Some of you may find this information helpful, while others might simply take it as common sense. Nevertheless, we receive numerous emails every week asking for such advice, so we hope that it will prove beneficial.
For those of you who don't have the time to track every single CPU on the market - unlike some of us - we have a few tips and hints that can help you get the right processor. Not only will we look at the core names, but we will also delve into some details concerning the SKUs, or Stock Keeping Units, of several processors as well.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
55 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Thursday, May 19, 2005 - link
justly, that's why the detailed AMD specs weren't put out in the article. I dislike both naming schemes to a large extent, but I'm something of a techno-snob. Heheh. I liked getting FSB, core speed, cache amounts, etc. as the CPU name rather than a generic "3200+" or "Pentium 531". The main idea was to explain what each of the specific CPU cores offers. Some people will prefer AMD's PR ratings to Intel's ratings. Either way, it gives guys like me something to write about. :Djustly - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
Jarred, you seem to be a overly concerned about the AMD numbering scheme. While it does have some flaws it still seems better to me than Intels system, for most people at least.In fact I would go as far as to say that AMDs PR numbers where better even before Intel stopped using their MHz/GHz numbering policy.
You say that its your friends and relatives that you worry about, well how many of them (without your help) know the difference between a 505, 520, 530, 530J, and a 630? of course they could ask a retail sales accociate (now there is something to be worried about).
I remember a few months ago (maybe a year) going to Newegg and doing a search for Intel and 2.4 GHz and recieving no less than 8 uniquely different CPUs in the result. Yes this was a combination of Celerons, P4s and Xeons but even then I think at least 4 of them where P4s. They varied in bus speeds, HT support and even cores and cache if I remember correctly.
Ok, so there are 10 CPUs that use the 3000+ designation. I'll agree that using the Sempron name for socket "A" AND 754 shouldn't have been done. On the other hand I see no problem using the same PR for Athlon 64 and Athlon XP, as these are totally different platforms (no worse than seperating performance by using a letter behind the GHz of a CPU like Intel has done in the past with their 400, 533 and 800 MHz versions).
It would also have been nice to see more emphisis placed on how the Athlon XP and 64 processors are rated (many people still think that a Thunderbird is used as the base CPU for the A64 rating). Maybe I am wrong (its been a long time) but I seem to recall reading (on Anandtech I believe) that the A64 is based on a different set of benchmarks than the XP and uses the 1800+ XP as a baseline.
Anyway, if we eliminate the models that compete in different classes (mobile and entry level either by design or age) that only leaves 3 models of the 3000+ (Newcastle, Winchester and Venice) only 2 of those share the same platform and they have the same clock speed, cache and bus speed.
Sure, it can be confusing for some but no worse than comparing 400MHz FSB 2.4GHz P4 using single channel pc133 memory to a 800MHz FSB 2.4GHz P4 W/HT running with duel channel pc3200 memory. In fact all Athlons recieved far less of an impact from varying memory or bus speed, so the average (non-geek)
consumer was more likely to get preformance close to what they expected from AMDs PR numbers.
I know it must sound like I am biased (I probably am, even though I try not to be) but if anyone wants to know exactly how any of these CPUs (AMD or Intel) compare a crib sheet is almost a necessity.
I'd have to say the best thing about these numbering schemes has more to do with the transition to AMDs 939/754 and Intels LGA 775 since now its more difficult to make a faster CPU perform pooly becase of the wrong choice of chipset or memory.
All in all, both systems work and both have flaws. There seems to be only two answers to this problem, be informed or trust some one else to give you the correct information.
Tujan - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
Well JarredWalton, bottom line is MAKE IT A 939 OR 775 PCI EXPRESS. AND MAKE IT FOR LESS THAN 1300 DOLLARS. Tell me it can be upgraded and let me be happy about it. They are not 'value machines,they are not 'low-end machines. If the criteria for a low end machine is 256MB of RAM,then we are really in trouble for words arent'we.You and I can put them together,. So why would I be insulted by somebody showing me some 4000$ rig asking me for my money on it ? WE KNOW THAT.Back off so somebody can enjoy some technology. Dont need all those PCI slots,or usb slots,or duel gigabit ethernet for example. Or 'top not firebreathing graphics card. AND YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
Why ride this technology around when nobody can get on.Bring on the power for your money,its never been here before.A great opportunity to put it where your mouth is for real. Like everybody we are hungry and I know you got it.
And for the AMD numbering.If you could be satisfied to referencing simply socket #s this would be welcome enough. Then when you think about it,I believe Intel changed to numbering scheme so that AMD would have nothing to refer to and they dont.
AMD Winchester...
Intel Prescott w,hyperthreading....
both winners.
939s w PCI-e, 915s w PCI-e......
Less than 1300s and they are really good technology. Worth the money.
Tell me Im on a salvage crew.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
If you want to download an Excel spreadsheet containing the table from my post #41, here it is:http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/cores/...
JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
37 - I'm not sure what that was about. Sorry.JohnsonX: You can still find the 939 3400+ around at a few places. Check out our pricing engine:
http://labs.anandtech.com/links.php?pfilter=2051
There were three retail outlets when I started the article, and now Axion Tech is the only one showing up. Oh, well.
True, the equivalently rated Athlon 64 chips are also equivalent performance, give or take. Here's something I was considering including in the article that I decided to cut. Remember: we're the "informed public" - it's my friends and relatives that I worry about.
-----------------------------
If you *don't* think AMD's names are confusing, than you're a geek like me and you know your CPU cores by heart. However, consider the following table of AMD processors: [I'm going to put this up as a downloadable file in a minute, as it doesn't look good without HTML markup.]
CPU Name Core Name Clock Speed L2 Cache Bus Speed Socket Process Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sempron 3000+ Thoroughbred 2.0GHz 512K 333 462 130nm
Sempron 3000+ Palermo 1.8GHz 128K 400 754 90nm SSE3
Athlon XP Mobile 3000+ Barton 2.2GHz 512K 266 462 130nm
Athlon XP 3000+ Barton 2.16GHz 512K 333 462 130nm
Athlon XP 3000+ Barton 2.1GHz 512K 400 462 130nm
Athlon 64 3000+ Newcastle 2.0GHz 512K 400 754 130nm
Athlon 64 DTR 3000+ Clawhammer 1.8GHz 1024K 400 754 130nm
Athlon 64 Mobile 3000+ Clawhammer 1.8GHz 1024K 400 754 130nm
Athlon 64 3000+ Winchester 1.8GHz 512K 400 939 90nm
Athlon 64 3000+ Venice 1.8GHz 512K 400 939 90nm SSE3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athlon XP 3200+ Barton 2.2GHz 512K 400 462 130nm
Athlon 64 3200+ Clawhammer 2.0GHz 1024K 400 754 130nm
Athlon 64 3200+ Newcastle 2.0GHz 512K 400 754 130nm
Athlon 64 DTR 3200+ Clawhammer 2.0GHz 1024K 400 754 130nm
Athlon 64 Mobile 3200+ Clawhammer 2.0GHz 1024K 400 754 130nm
Athlon 64 3200+ Winchester 2.0GHz 512K 400 939 90nm
Athlon 64 3200+ Venice 2.0GHz 512K 400 939 90nm SSE3
Ten (TEN!?) CPUs all bearing the "3000+" designation, and seven with 3200+. Hell, there are six and five (respectively) "Athlon 64" chips with each name. And I probably missed one or two less common variations.
Yes, I "unfairly" included Athlon XP and Sempron into those charts. The problem is, I hear from people on a regular basis that think the model number is all that matters. "Celeron, Pentium, Athlon, Sepron... it's all the same, right?"
Curse the marketing departments. Although, it keeps guys like me employed, so maybe I shouldn't complain too much? Anyway, maybe it really doesn't matter that much to Joe and Jen Consumer what type of chip they actually get, but at some point they're bound to have a case of someone telling them that, no, their system isn't as good as another system.
At that point, they're in bad shape, because they really have no idea what they're looking for, and unscrupulous sales people can now convince them that they "need" a new computer. Especially if they get conned into buying a 256MB RAM system initially, because when they feel it's too slow, the salesperson isn't going to say, "Oh, you just need to spend $50 on more memory."
-----------------------------
johnsonx - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
A final point of interest:On their SKU list, AMD no longer admits the existence of the "obscure 2.2 GHz 512K 939 chip that is limited to an 800 MHz HyperTransport link".
I know it did exist, NewEgg sold them. It was a Socket 939 chip called a 3400+. AMD now says ALL 939 chips support 1000Mhz HT, and says ALL 3400+'s are socket 754.
johnsonx - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
I'd also point out, despite what poster 21 said, there don't appear to exist any Paris core Semprons below 3000+ or above 3100+; D0 and E3 Palermos are the only Semprons for 2600, 2800, and 3300. The not yet available 2500+ will be E3 only, while the 3000+ and 3100+ are covered by all three Sempron cores (though the only Paris core I can actually find at NewEgg is the 3100+).My guess is the 3000+ Paris cores are the ones with some bad cache.
BTW, have I complained again that AMD selling 64-bitless Semprons is a big mistake?
johnsonx - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
AMD's model scheme is designed to allow AMD to bring different processors into and out of production without changing marketing names. Changing marketing names confuses the masses; AMD doesn't have to worry about confusing the enthusiasts - enthusiasts will figure it out anyway.From all the testing I've seen over the years, there is little arguement that all the various processors in the same family with the same model numbers do in fact perform fairly close to each other by most measurements. Sure, there are always a few benches that favor the big-cache versions, and a few that favor extra clock speed, but overall, the various A64 3200+ chips perform about the same, and likewise the 3000+ and 3400+ variants.
If you are a typical end user, Athlon64 3200+ tells you all you need to know... any extra digits would only confuse the issue.
Tujan - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
Ok. So I'll be a little critical here. Even though adjoining 'marketing,in order to keep your presentations advertisers consistent,and happy,it is still 'slightly 'goody two shoes,to constently only do reviews with the'top notch processors and motherboards. Then leave the stats for 'the rest of us out,while we could use some of that 'being informed,just as well as the benifits of using the 500.00,and 1000$ processors.True,you've got business quarters,deadlines and the likes,and perhaps ...maybe its not your place to create the relationship of an 'informed buying public. While you do anyway,there is always the 'nitch of us that are trapped with our technology wich now,we might be considered 'loosers to be advocating using,buying,or convey as 'good technology.
Just a little historical reference first for this rubber band train. The AMDs - the Socket 775s didn't have what ? PCI-express,this to them is only several months past if they have it at all. The same with the 939s,they really have been 'marketed for less than a year !! They really really have PCI-express slots on them. But alas,they are using DDR400 memory,and still am I advocating 'new technology,or market speak to say I dont think DDR2 is a looser.
Then Intel,the 865s...they finally got dual-channel memory. But they didn't have pci-express.And the memory is still DDR400.
Go to the 915s,they have (some of them)and finally PCI-express. With a large assortment of hyperthreading cpus (thats two processors working in one package). And the 925s well here finally all the stops are in,but now,we have not only dual core 'hyperthreading,but we have affordable dual core ACTUAL processors. And your investments of perhaps the past several months are still performers.
Comparitively speaking,Intels processors will outperform any of the non FX AMD processors besides in multitasking. And monitarily speaking,the AMD processors have been very expensive. Then seeing as 939 has only been around for less than a practical year you still would be hardpressed to find the difference created in either virtual-cores,or multitasking using them.
Well the difference between the platforms isn't what Im server to get to.Fact is the show has always been the fastest most powerful computer there.With a front page show,of something that costs thousands of dollars.Frankly Ive got to tell you,that today,if that 3 or 4 thousand dollar computer was on the front page I would like to fire the salesman.
Simply on a basis of fact,that there are performers there,of wich plenty of people would like to participate to.And now they dont have to spend the for the top notch ticket to do so.
A 939 mb with a gig of ram,a so so AMD processor,gives an upgrade path far into the future.And is very good participation to the technology.
An Intel platform,utilizing any of the 2.8 or better 775s is as well 'good enough a welcome to someone wanting to participate as well. And you dont have to spend 4 grand to do so.
Both platforms can have very competitive systems for just under 1300s. AND THEY ARE WORTH THE MONEY!!!!.
And they are BETTER THAN PREVIOUS TECHNOLOGIES!!!.
They should be on the front page.Why is it that such systems by OEMs are saying,oh low end,'low cost,value machines ? These are performers make no doubt about it.
You can take a closer look at this than me.But I would prefer being an informed happy customer.Than someone who is said to be a looser becuase tommorow,my system is shut down.
Really dont think its like that.But I dont see that anybody is confirming this to me.We need the systems,now,.You know how to build them.So a suggestion is to just shuck corn like that,and see what the gross is.
Mean these systems are really atractive !!!.Back those expensive things to a later page or something.
Quanticles - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
I'm pretty sure AMD wants you to be confused. If they didnt, they'd just call the parts by the rev's. =)