Old AMD CPU naming system

[ncovert]

Hi all, I was wondering why, on old AMD CPU's, that they name it like Athlon XP 2600+ when the clock is 2.133Ghz. Does anyone know why they did that?

[shadow]

Re: Old AMD CPU naming system

From the top of my head, an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ is clocked at 2.1333GHz, however it is equivalent to an Intel Pentium 4 2.6GHz (the Netburst based Pentiums).

[370forlife]

Re: Old AMD CPU naming system

It was suppose to be their intel equivalent speed.

[mariushm]

Re: Old AMD CPU naming system

There was a processor company Cyrix which made (Super) Socket 7 compatible processors that were about as fast as some Pentium processors at arithmetic operations yet they were running at lower frequency.
For example they named their CPU P166+ while they internally ran at something like 120-133 Mhz,

AMD later adopted this trick because they considered the Mhz was no longer good performance indicator, as the Netburst architecture of Intel was designed to scale very high with the Mhz but not deliver performance.

So the 2600+ simply says the AMD processor would behave like a 2600 Mhz Pentium 4 in most normal tasks people use them for.

[Scenic]

Re: Old AMD CPU naming system

Officially, AMD said the XP____+ rating would be the equivalent speed a Athlon Thunderbird (the original Athlons.. non-XP, ceramic package) would have to run at to perform about the same.

In reality though, it was more like the Pentium 4 equivalent speed, i.e. Athlon XP2600+ (2.13GHz) performed about the same as a P4 2.6GHz.

The Athlons were much more efficient ("do more work per MHz"), but that was bad from a marketing standpoint. John Doe who's out to buy a new computer would probably not believe a Athlon XP at 2.13GHz is faster or at least on the same performance level than a Pentium 4 2.6GHz.. ("higher number is better, right?")

It was a combination of the CPUs (Athlon XP's) being more efficient per MHz and marketing.

The Pentium 4 was designed from the ground up with high clockspeeds in mind, neglecting efficiency. And in the end, that's what killed them... nobody wanted a singlecore CPU using close to 100W of power (for example the Pentium 4 Prescott lineup) or a Dualcore cobbled together from two Pentium 4 CPUs using 130W or more (Pentium D 830) and putting most of that out as heat instead of computing power..

Even intel realized that the Netburst architecture (which was the Pentium 4's / Pentium D's "base platform") was a dead end. They then took the very efficient Pentium M notebook CPU lineup (which were heavily modified Pentium 3) as a base, modified it even further and later came out with the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.. and I probably don't need to tell you how successful they were..

/historylesson

[Newbie2]

Re: Old AMD CPU naming system

The Athlons were much more efficient ("do more work per MHz"), but that was bad from a marketing standpoint. John Doe who's out to buy a new computer would probably not believe a Athlon XP at 2.13GHz is faster or at least on the same performance level than a Pentium 4 2.6GHz.. ("higher number is better, right?")

I have to admit, in the past I fell for the high clock speed of the Pentium 4 versus the AMD processors, thinking it'd mean better performance.

Back in '05 when I was a bit younger (didn't know as much as well) and wanted to build a PC, the two processors that I was looking at were the Athlon 64 3200+ 2.2GHz in Socket 754 and the Pentium 4 HT 3.2GHz Prescott in Socket 478.

At the time I thought the Pentium 4 was the better buy and so I bought it, being 1GHz higher in clock speed than the Athlon 64 and having Hyper-Threading technology (which actually doesn't make much a difference). Looking back, I should've chosen the Athlon 64 because it was a 64-bit processor (vs. the 32-bit P4), had a much lower TDP (59W vs. the P4's 89-103W), and overall it had around the same performance as the Pentium 4 HT 3.2GHz in benchmarks and applications.

[ncovert]

Re: Old AMD CPU naming system

I have to admit, in the past I fell for the high clock speed of the Pentium 4 versus the AMD processors, thinking it'd mean better performance.

Back in '05 when I was a bit younger (didn't know as much as well) and wanted to build a PC, the two processors that I was looking at were the Athlon 64 3200+ 2.2GHz in Socket 754 and the Pentium 4 HT 3.2GHz Prescott in Socket 478.

At the time I thought the Pentium 4 was the better buy and so I bought it, being 1GHz higher in clock speed than the Athlon 64 and having Hyper-Threading technology (which actually doesn't make much a difference). Looking back, I should've chosen the Athlon 64 because it was a 64-bit processor (vs. the 32-bit P4), had a much lower TDP (59W vs. the P4's 89-103W), and overall it had around the same performance as the Pentium 4 HT 3.2GHz in benchmarks and applications.

I did not know they made Socket 478 Prescott CPU's; or at least had never seen one.

[dood]

Re: Old AMD CPU naming system

They made some - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors

But a majority of them were LGA775

[Newbie2]

Re: Old AMD CPU naming system

My old Pentium 4 3.2E Prescott in Socket 478 has the S-Spec number of SL7PN. This is what it looks like:



I'm going to give it away in a rebuilt PC to one of my aunts soon, since she doesn't have her own computer yet.

[Scenic]

Re: Old AMD CPU naming system

full list of all prescott P4's
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentiu...0Prescott.html

..and all P4's in general, regarless of socket and core
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium_4/index.html

Personally, I've tried to go for the slightly older Northwood P4's on S478. They just ran much cooler and were available up to 3.4GHz (some with HT).
On LGA775, you're pretty much out of luck, as there's only Prescott and Cedar Mill.

Any LGA775 board that doesn't support Core 2 based CPUs yet is pretty much worthless IMO.
Some i945G's and most i965/i975 support Core 2 based CPUs, which includes Celeron S series (S 420 - S 450), Celeron Dualcore, Pentium Dualcores (not to be confused with Pentium D) and of course Core 2 Duos.

One easy way to tell Pentium Dualcores (core 2 based) from Pentium D's (Pentium 4 x2) is the model number.

- Pentium dualcore model numbers always start with an "E" and have a 4 digit model number (like E2180)
- Pentium D model numbers always start with a "D" and a 3 digit model number (like D820)

[ncovert]

Re: Old AMD CPU naming system

I actually have an Athlon XP 2600+ in an Asrock K7S41GX board. Its a decent overclocking board, that is, its easy to do.

[Lenny_Nero]

Re: Old AMD CPU naming system

It was because the AMD chips could get more done each clock cycle than the then Pent IV, so the 2600+ did the same work as a 2.6 gHz p IV.

Something AMD have been really good at (working smart), Intel just put more on die cache needing 10's of millions of trannys to get a few 100's of MHz speed bump, where as the Tbreads (before and after) only needed a few 1000's of trannys to get the same MHz boost.

Until Intel RE'ed the Opteron and called it the i3/5/7 range that was there only way to gain real speed ...or so I was told.

I still use (everyday) a box I built around a 2600+ (I have a 2500+mobile to put in and play with when I can find the time) some 8~9 years back, can do everything any avg user would need today.

Its my local usenet/Pdf/doc server, and have stuff open in palemoon[Firefox] and sitting there for me to read and research.

Edit...Damn Jscript was off I could not see any replies, sorry

[severach]

Re: Old AMD CPU naming system

Intel got it right with the Core 2 Duo.

Anandtech: Intel's Core 2 Extreme & Core 2 Duo: The Empire Strikes Back

But make no mistake, what you see before you is not the power hungry, poor performing, non-competitive garbage (sorry guys, it's the truth) that Intel has been shoving down our throats for the greater part of the past 5 years. No, you're instead looking at the most impressive piece of silicon the world has ever seen - and the fastest desktop processor we've ever tested. What you're looking at is Conroe and today is its birthday.

AMD was conservative with their plus ratings but unfortunately no single core at any speed can match the crispness from the lowest multiprocessor core: Pentium 4 2.4/800 HT.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: Old AMD CPU naming system

I did not know they made Socket 478 Prescott CPU's; or at least had never seen one.

I used a lot of those back in the day...
I skipped P4 in socket 775 completely and went to sockets 771(XeonC2) and 775(C2D).
.