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systems), but it's important to keep them in mind before you spend hundreds of dollars on a CPU that could be totally outdated in a few months.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
nserra - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
I agree that the amd scheme is confusing in the point of detecting which model really is.One problem that was easily solved by adding two numbers or a letter, something like this:
Model 3200+:
>3210+ - socket 754,512Kb cache
>3251+ - socket 939,512Kb cache
>3225+ - socket 754,256Kb cache (fiction)
Or just 3210, 3220, 3230, ... or like the GPUs 3250 and 3200.
And I don’t think that Intel model scheme is better I can also be buying something that I don’t want.
muffin - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
Clawhammers can be CG. They can also overclock well, better than a Newcastle can...No mention of Newark cores? Seem to overclock very well.
nserra - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
Also here:http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/default.as...
is a very good database.
nserra - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
There is something you could add to the sempron part of the article.Only sempron 3000+ and up have cool&quite. The others don’t.
I don’t know also if all Amd64 processor are cool&quite(older ones).
JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
29 - I don't know a whole lot about Turion, so if I'm completely wrong feel free to let me know. Indications so far (that I've heard) are that it will basically be a renamed Athlon 64 for socket 754, only with improved power characteristics and better sleep states. When you see the power usage reduction of the Winchester vs. the Newcastle on 939, it's safe to say that 90nm SOI parts for 754 would be much better as "Mobile" chips. Hopefully there's more to it than that, though.JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
I'm not entirely sure I believe the memory controller makes the new San Diego and Venice "more compatible", although I suppose it could. Memory compatibility is usually more of a factor of BIOS and motherboard support. Anyway, we did (briefly - on page 3) mention the improvements to the caching algorithms/controller on the 90nm chips. I sort of lump the caching and memory controller into one group, but you are right, changes were made (we're not sure what) and the new cores are overall better choices.As for the CG Hammer cores, I'll just have to take your word on that. Kris is the stepping/SKU man. I just provided the rambling commentary. :)
Capodast - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
A question about Turion.As mentioned in a previous article here "The Turion 64 is based on the latest revision E4 of the K8 core, meaning that it supports SSE3 instructions as well as lower power states ... The Turion 64 will be available in both 1MB L2 and 512KB L2 cache models, but both models will only support a 64-bit (single channel) DDR400 memory controller".
Does anyone know if it will be generally available as a socket 754 option as with the Athlon XP-M for socket A?
Heidfirst - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
You don't appear to have mentioned that the Venice & San Diego have an improved memory controller allowing more RAM to run at 400. To many people that is the more important reason to get 1 rather than SSE3PS I've got a "CG" stepping Clawhammer too ...
flatblastard - Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - link
I don't blame you for what you said, i just thought it was a little out of place on the page.I mean after all, you were just being honest I guess I'm just being too picky, please forgive me. I'm Looking forward to the next buyers guide...JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link
It wasn't meant to be biased, and you can blame me for that. I'm just saying that *if* you've got an 865/875 system and you're thinking of upgrading, I'd either wait for Pentium D or go for socket 939. Anyway, I'll cover that more in an upcoming Buyer's Guide. Actually, the Guide is all done and submitted, so next article slot that opens up should get the Guide in it. With E3 going on this week, though, it might be Friday before the BG gets posted.I'm not trying to be biased here, but it's *really* hard to recommend a current socket 775 system. Give me 945/955 (of nF4SLI) and Pentium D and there are many cases to be made for Intel. 915/925 and Prescott is just trailing.
Worth noting (although I wasn't with AnandTech at the time) is that I said the same thing at the end of the Athlon XP era. At the lower prices, Athlon XP was still really attractive, but only a completely biased person would have recommended Athlon XP 3200+ over a similarly priced Pentium 3.0/3.2C.