what do you think the numbers of AMD stand for?

Archangel

Archangel

VIP Member
i just asked myself,.. where does that 3000+, 3500+ and so on stand for?
i mean.. it cant be acrually the speed, of the efficientcy, because a 3000+ venice is alot faster as a 3000+Xp (at least, thats what ive heard)

anyway,.. could it maybe tell how hot the CPU is?
i mean.. all AMD heatsinks have something like. cools to 3400+ and so on.
i hope someone can help me, because that stupid thingy is driving me nuts :P
 
Didnt we just have a thread about this? The numbers used to mean the speed but have been warped over time and now just confuse consumers who:

a. Think a 4000 runs at 4 gigahertz

and b. Think a 4000 runs at an intel equivelent of 4 gigahertz
 
common folks it obvious, it the performance rating, i.e. a rating of the chips performance :)

yes.. but a 3000+ xp is about the same temp as a 3000+ venice isnt it?
Click to expand...
No, but the then thats not to say the temperature idea is any less bollocks

@Archangel
I think visited your town one drunken friday night.
 
The numbers were put in place because people believe the core speed has everything to do with actual speed. AMD knew this, and made a decision to place these numbers on their processors.

They are designed to compare against Intel processors. For example, a 3000+ is "equivalent" to a 3.0GHz P4.
 
chaosblizzard said:
They are designed to compare against Intel processors. For example, a 3000+ is "equivalent" to a 3.0GHz P4.
Click to expand...

How many people are going to believe this do you honestly think AMD would sell something equivelent to an intel 3 gigahertz for $150? Intel's is priced at $170 and AMD wouldnt let even that slip by. Also the 4000 which would run at an intel equivelent of 4 gigahertz according to you, is only $470, while intels is $625... seriously, just use commen sense, you cant compae intel's and AMD,s
 
34erd said:
How many people are going to believe this do you honestly think AMD would sell something equivelent to an intel 3 gigahertz for $150? Intel's is priced at $170 and AMD wouldnt let even that slip by. Also the 4000 which would run at an intel equivelent of 4 gigahertz according to you, is only $470, while intels is $625... seriously, just use commen sense, you cant compae intel's and AMD,s
Click to expand...

You can't compare AMD and Intel CPUs? Then why do you buy a certain brand, if you don't compare them? Do you stick two pieces of paper with Intel on one, and AMD on another under a hat, and go with luck? Please do share this information with us.

No one said supply and demand would make the prices make more sense here. A dual core processor by AMD costs double compared to an Intel dual core CPU.

AMD made that number system to compare the Intel CPUs to their processors. If you were a consumer with NO computer knowledge whould you buy an Intel P4 running at 3.0Ghz, or an AMD running at 2GHz?

Yes, those numbers are designed for the reason(s) I stated.

AMD Quote:
"Q: What does the 3200+ model mean?
A: This is a model number. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz. Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors. As additional evidence that performance is not based on megahertz alone: the AMD Athlon XP processor 3200+ operates at a frequency of 2.2GHz yet can outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 3.0GHz with an 800 FSB and HyperThreading on a broad array of real-world applications for office productivity, digital media and 3-D gaming."

There you have it, a 3000+ will compare to an Intel P4 running at 3.2GHz. The model number doesn’t match up to the P4 processor, because it doesn’t have to. AMD put a fancy plus sign after their model numbers, meaning the AMD counter part generally has a better performance index then the given base number.

Reference:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_861_3876,00.html#24357
 
Last edited:
@both of you 2
your both right and a little wrong, the pr numbers were never offically claim to be used as a direct comparison to intels clock speed (even in the above example quote they are not explicitly saying it), but amd obviously new that is how they would be percieved. At the time it was a brilliant peice of marketing, nothing more.
Today however the PR rating bears less relevence on its original intent.
So in the modern high end amd 64 and x2's the PR vs intel clock speed comparison can be misleading, as in the case of you 2
 
I think nowaday's AMD's naming system is just worthless besides the Higher # means higher performance. Everyone has figured out that it's not a direct Intel comparison, and that it's not a GHz indication...but as stated above when it FIRST came into play that's how it was read and it did some pretty good marketing.
 
34erd said:
Didnt we just have a thread about this? The numbers used to mean the speed but have been warped over time and now just confuse consumers who:

a. Think a 4000 runs at 4 gigahertz

and b. Think a 4000 runs at an intel equivelent of 4 gigahertz
Click to expand...

Thats what most people think, that is what I used to think, but it is completley wrong.
 
An AMD 3800+ is obviously not equivilent to a 3.8Ghz P4, if it was, then AMD would market it as such. And an AMD 3800+ deffinetly wouldnt be just as good as an Intel 3.8Ghz if your trying to do video rendering. its like what intels doing now, with the 530J, 650, ect, although i dont know why amd calls the athlon xp and athlon 64 both 3000+, has anyone actually contacted AMD and asked them that? if not, then i just might do that.
 
i read this in AMD's FAQ page, it referrs to Athlon XP cpu's, but im sure its pretty similar to the Athlon 64:


When referring to the AMD Athlon™ XP processor, what do the 3200+, 3000+, 2800+, etc., numbers mean?

These are model numbers. The AMD Athlon™ XP processor is identified using model numbers, as opposed to frequency (megahertz). AMD initially released 1800+, 1700+, 1600+ and 1500+ versions of the AMD Athlon™ XP processor. Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors, as well as communicate the architectural superiority over existing AMD Athlon processors.

so you can see, it doesnt say that there athlon xp 1800+ is equivialent to something like Intel's 1.8Ghz Celeron. And if it was, then i think AMD would use that as a marketing technique.
 
most peopel still think that, just not most people, that lets say go to this forum and such, its the people who DONT konw about computers, which makes up most of the copmuter owning world.
 
All cpu manifacatuers use diffrent clocking medthods. If you compare amd and intel of the same type. amd will have a lower clock speed than intel but the same preformance. Amd used a diffrent math to figure clock speed and intel uses a diffrent on all together. The powerpc for mac is the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top