Comments Locked

55 Comments

Back to Article

  • Tujan - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    'Emphasis. Im not a loreate of writing style. Both writing and speaking converge sometimes. Double quotes is 'quoted,'quoted written"".

    Since syntax of computers with parameters etc,in for example 'DOS will use computer langauge etc,I dont use them in practice ':) for example.

    Might find a more 'legal' way for writing,but doing so is just as much a 'program,so......

    ........if you weren't speaking(writing) to me. Never mind.

    ....... Get in trouble lots for not having correct usage. But cant edit stuff easily or 'proof it,such that looks same way as 'studied authors/article writers. The 2 dimensions of speaking/writing hasn't really come to a full context. Prefer writing to speak.For all practical purposes,everybody is silent to this.
    Never gauranteed of readers display characteristics.Or 'commentors ,program variations.

    The Anandtech forum here,makes a brief reply look long and out of place. Didn't mean to scarf it up.
    Think the balance is in what your trying to say when commenting.

    ....ya know.
  • stephenbrooks - Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - link

    What's with all the extra apostrophes (') you keep putting in your posts before the words?
  • Tujan - Saturday, May 21, 2005 - link

    "" As for components, PCIe and DDR2 are definitely not necessary for a computer. They may help in certain tasks, and they may be more "future proof", but if you were to set two PCs next to each other, one with AGP and DDR and the other with PCIe and DDR2, most people couldn't tell the difference without opening up the control panel."""

    ..idea being it makes no difference the question of 'can a hippopotamus swim"". Perhaps maybe both you and me know the answer. What makes a difference is it is still a valid question. Wich has a definite answer.
    Problem being,spend more or less for your computer ""? People arent buying computers to give you their money. Then - I dont want performance based on a cost of a machine. Information is necesary to tell how 'lucky I will be as a purchaser. Where participation of technology is the relationship of buyer. The 'platform,AMD,Intel,both have a signifigant performance to that participation. I have not yet seen the stats in wich show'd other than relationship between 'highest tier,and 'others. Would like to see,all the performance stats for the platforms ,for anything other than FX,or EE processors. (make it 775,939).
    Again,these are really affordable,very good performing machines,new technology,and 'upgradable to a future 'partipation of the technological accesory.You could for example,simply take the two 775,or 939 pin 'platform as basic criteria. Then tool the charts consistent to all other processors excluding FX,or EE. If you look,the same person w/o knowing a frame rate,from the control panel,is the same person looking at the same frame rate(Pcie,Agp). The person looking at memory output,is dealing with the memory output they have on the platform with the processors. Different apps,have different stats as to how they will perform. This pertains to the same person utilizing them to their participation to it.
    AGP/PCI express ...same affordable graphics cards. Motherboards ..same affordable motherboards. Memory same affordable memory.
    But I have yet to see anybody do the changout for the processors. The affordable processors.
    ____________________
    Sure I know that if you did this on a monthly basis it wouldn't show a great deal of difference. But even giving the same info over again,leaves room for a highlighted proprietors system accesory.,though not the criteria for the comparison. Since there are always someone 'new,to surmise their systems,it would be certainly good for them.

    Making a mistake to leave the criteria out simply to deem 'cost analysis. Since we know these are performance,better than that before - the technology still has not been given its air of dayview. At least not with the processors. Knowing you could do this is just well enough an upgradable powerful platform. Leave 'cost analysis to THAT criteria. Fact is they are affordable,they are powerful,they are participation in new better technology.
    Might consider applications when dealing with the hardware facet such as 'dual-channel memory/non-dual channel memory.Again along with the ''multi-tasking''.
    The big deal however is the 'fact of making the stats for the processors.AMD has been way too expensive.Affordability is just coming on line.Same goes with Intels 'Prescotts. Maybe the processors will show distributive results across the platform.

    ..........had to look up hippopotamus. Hi ya. I'll be reading. Really apreciate the reply here. This WAS a question for a processor to resolve.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, May 20, 2005 - link

    A budget system doesn't imply that it's a slow PC by any means, but there are certainly tasks which will bring a budget system to its knees. Gaming is one such task, but video editing and content creation in generaly really require more than a typical budget PC. We also had the Gaming Guide at the end of November, which included PCs for the Low, Mid, and High end price ranges. That was intended as a Christmas computer Guide, and it covered all the options we feel are important.

    If you don't want a good graphics card, I assume you understand that the Buyer's Guides are merely meant as recommendations. You can easily remove the graphics card from the equation if you want. We probably could do a monthly Buyer's Guide covering each segment, but some times very little changes.

    As for components, PCIe and DDR2 are definitely not necessary for a computer. They may help in certain tasks, and they may be more "future proof", but if you were to set two PCs next to each other, one with AGP and DDR and the other with PCIe and DDR2, most people couldn't tell the difference without opening up the control panel.

    Our Guides always try to make it clear that if you're happy with your computer, there's really no reason to buy a new one. Upgrade when *you* want to, not just because a new technology comes out. Many people and corporations are still running Pentium III and Athlon systems with 1 GHz or less processors, and for the most part they're okay with the performance level offered. I still wouldn't suggest anyone actually buy such a system NEW right now unless it cost less than $100. (I just gave away my old Pentium 3 1.4 GHz PC with 512MB of RAM to a friend - it had become useless to me, as I had better PCs available to replace it.)

    Anyway, Tujan, you might not want to read the Mid-Range to High-End Guide when it comes out next week, as it targets the $1500+ price range. :) Kidding, of course, but please realize when you read it that we're not saying people HAVE to spend that much. I'll be starting another Budget Guide soon as well, for those interested in the price/performance options.

    Take Care,
    Jarred Walton
    Buyer's Guide Editor
    AnandTech.com
  • Tujan - Friday, May 20, 2005 - link


    Buyers Guide Mid-Range,January 2005
    Author Jarred Walton..
    http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=232...

    Just one more tug at your attention here one tiny moment. This article came out in January 2005. It is well put together,and sums up some of the same components that will go into todays computers. Although the selection will be of course those included to June 2005 if anybody was to include them.

    The technology space is the same pretty much,pci-e or no pci-e,socket/socket wich socket,and where art thou processor,and memory,where oh where is my memory,or what did I do with it. And whichever be the case.

    Comment being this article was out in January 21 2005 ! The very same day,probably to the hour that those xmas credit card bills became due. We needed this article a month before xmas,....actually we need this article every freeky month. In otherwords the timing of this article couldn't be worse.

    And these are performance computers. They are not 'low-end,just on the count of a lesser priced video card,or lower amount of memory/processor type. Something is very wrong with the insultive frequent in the likes of "Longhorn" Dec 2006, AMD DDR2 Feb 2006,Intel 945g Motherboard 250$,AMD DualCore 500$,Intel EE 950$. Ah crack corn and dance XBox now.

    While I couldn't bett against them I could certainly fit between them.So some of your stories at least should 'light up for somebody. I just dont see the benifits of the change involved in being informed about it lately. Since nobody is showing us the score of that performance information. So at least a person could be 'lucky at that performance level.

    I just find it quite insultive to know Im being ignored. The chronology of presentation in statistics of performance of systems in articles couldn't be worse.

    Wont bother you with this again. Said my piece,geuss thats well enough.
  • Tujan - Thursday, May 19, 2005 - link

    JarredWalton,..Hi ya..ufphhhh - your the author here (LOL).
    The point Im trying to let you know about is that for a new buyer,939,and 775 pci systems,are 'performance systems.The lack of memory,or want of a processor does not mean that we as a buying public are gathering low end dirt.
    Your article is detailed for the processor.But marketwise,lets be honest about what you know about them. You or I can put them together for under 1300.00,so why should I be insulted with being ignored to the use of the technology as a consumer.Being told,I have a low end system,or a 'value system - simply because I didn't stuff a gig,or a 400-500$ graphics card into the system.
    When you look the conspiracy gets deeper in that for both AMD,or Intel it will cost 500$ min,to keep with the dual cores on your platform !!.
    AMD has been very expensive,period.The platforms have been mixed (no-pci,yes-pcie). With Intel still being just as bad now,with its 'new motherboard etc.
    Mean 18mos on the market then your gone ? Think that was 18 months to market,two day (Ill exajerate) gone on the shelf.

    Your story is fitted for everybody (Hi everybody), processors. I think everybody is waiting to go as it is. Nothing to do with YOUR story if you want to say so. (if you say so must be so). Still,I would like to see the benches from all like made processors besides FX,or EE on the similar platforms.

    Wouldn't hurt if sales floors had outlines ,with pictographs,detailing differences of socket types ,boards/bus,mem/mem ram types.Ya know,say you got a good deal"...,for a AMD 754. Nevermind they dont use PCI-e (do they have pci-e?),..or dual channel memory for some of the boards.

    Mean if you know a marketing guy,tell him to put some balls on.The consumer needs the power in todays machines.They are upgradable.They are powerful.They are participation to new technology.

    Thanks for reply.Have a good day now.
  • Viditor - Thursday, May 19, 2005 - link

    My own take on the naming scheme is that it is strictly for Joe-Six-Pack, those of us who post here (thanks to the AT staff) have a much clearer idea of what they actually have/do.
    That said, the question is...do the AMD model numbers actually corelate to the chips performance level?
    AMD has said that to arrive at model numbers, they test the CPU on a battery of commonly used apps and compare it to the original Athlon 1GHz.
    I have actually never seen an independant reviewer attempt to emulate this to see if their numbers are justified or not, but I would be most curious to see the results! (hint, hint...)
  • nserra - Thursday, May 19, 2005 - link

    #41 Without the XP's ans some of the 64 i have already 10 3000+ from AMD database.

    ADA3000DEP4AW AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 1800Mhz Socket 939 1.50V 89W View Details
    ADA3000DIK4BI AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 1800Mhz Socket 939 1.40V 67W View Details
    ADA3000DAA4BP AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 1800Mhz Socket 939 Variable 67W View Details
    ADA3000AEP4AP AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 2000Mhz Socket 754 1.50V 89W View Details
    ADA3000AEP4AR AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 2000Mhz Socket 754 1.50V 89W View Details
    ADA3000AEP4AX AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 2000Mhz Socket 754 1.50V 89W View Details
    SDA3000AIP2AX AMD Sempron 3000+ 1800Mhz Socket 754 1.40V 62W View Details
    SDA3000AIO2BA AMD Sempron 3000+ 1800Mhz Socket 754 1.40V 62W View Details
    SDA3000AIO2BO AMD Sempron 3000+ 1800Mhz Socket 754 1.40V 62W View Details
    SDA3000DUT4D AMD Sempron 3000+ 2000Mhz Socket A 1.60V 62W View Details
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, May 19, 2005 - link

    Tujan, I'm not sure what that has to do with this article. This wasn't intended as a Buyer's Guide or Price Guide. We're talking about what each aspect of each core means (in a simplified manner). We recommended some upgrade options, but nothing we recommended was more than a few hundred dollars, and it wasn't meant as a "you MUST upgrade" but more as "you might consider upgrading if...."

    My comment about not getting the point of your post #37 was genuine. You say you're being critical, but I don't see how your comment is related to this article. If you can point out specific statements we made that you have problems with, I'm all ears. Right now, I'm simply confused. Sorry.
  • justly - Thursday, May 19, 2005 - link

    I understand how the generic names can be disapointing to a "techno-snob" (LOL) like yourself. I just got carried away with my post and didn't want to just delete it after writing so much. I must not be as much a "techno-snob" as some :) BTW, nice crib sheet (I mean article).
  • 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. :D
  • justly - 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. =)
  • 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 SSE3

    PS 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.
  • flatblastard - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    "you're probably best off waiting a bit longer to upgrade from anything sporting an 865PE or 875P chipset (or else jumping ship and purchasing an AMD system)."

    I would like to know which one of you, Kris or Jarred, decided to throw in that last little tidbit. While I agree that it's probably best to wait on upgrading from 865pe/875p, was that last part really necessary? I was really enjoying the unbiased explanations right up until that moment. You should save comments like that for the conclusion section, where your opinions belong.
  • JustAnAverageGuy - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    :thumbsup;
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    Irwindale is Xeon variant of Prescott 2M, Prescott 2M is the code name for... Prescott 2M.
  • ta2 - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    I have a Socket 754 Sempron 2800+. CPU-Z gives me this information:

    Codename: Palermo
    Technology: 90nm
    Revision: DH8-D0

    This processor DOES NOT have SSE3 as stated in your article.
  • Rand - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    " At the time of publication, the only Paris Sempron comes in the form of the Sempron 3100+"

    The Paris core Sempron's are also available at 2600+ and 2800+, and available in 128KB varians not just 256K variants.
    I've no idea on 3000+ varients, but I'd be surprised if there weren't some Paris 3000+ models out there.

    I also didn't see any mention made of the S754 Athlon64 3300+. Granted it would appear to be available only to OEM's and that in relatively small quantities but still worth mentioning.
    (2.4GHz/256K Winchester core).

    Given the above you should also mention that the Winchester is available in 256K varients... at least in the one model only.
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    17 - the "partial" was to indicate that not all Prescott or Celeron D chips have EM64T. I probably should have made that more clear. Basically, I didn't want to put "EM64T" and have people assume that *all* Prescotts have it. They do, of course, but it's only enabled on the +1 models.
  • BlvdKing - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    I also have a 'CG' Clawhammer with 1mb L2 cache.
  • ElFenix - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    thanks!
  • pxc - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    Kristopher or Jarred: You labelled the Celeron D and P4 5xx columns "Partial EM64T". What is "partial" about it?

    I happen to have a P4 551 I got in December and there is nothing "partial" about EM64T support on it.
  • icarus4586 - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    "Hammer chips (Sledgehammer and Clawhammer) are the oldest in the Athlon 64 fleet, and still us the "C0" stepping."

    There are also newer CG stepping models. (Clawhammer at least, I have one)
  • Son of a N00b - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    Great Article!
  • Quanticles - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    I think all of the confusion would be helped if you stopped using the marketing names.

    If people would just call them by their rev numbers... I have a D0 part... less confusion, no?
  • JBird7986 - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    #9,

    I don't think anything was forced. As soon as I booted up the system for the first time, the HyperTransport link read 1000MHz with no input from me. It would seem then that the 800MHz spec is inaccurate.
  • webchimp - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    I was just coming round to the idea of upgrading my Athlom XP Socket A, AGP system to a Socket 939 PCI-E based one when I hear mention that socket 939 is to be replaced by socket M2 in about a year.

    The possibility of buying a motherboard with the ability to upgrade to more powerful CPU a couple of times within it's lifespan seems to be going out of the window.
  • Zebo - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    Kris or Jarred

    Why hav'nt we seen any San Diego or Venice reviews from you guys... In fact I've scoured the web and hav'nt found one San Deigo review... 3700 would be nice.

  • Zebo - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    Very helpful gentlemen.:-)
  • johnsonx - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    Good article, thanks Guys.

    Minor typo on the last page: "We would strongly recommend a socket 939 or one of the new (Intel 845/855 or NVIDIA nForce 4 SLI chipsets) socket 775 systems...". Obviously you meant Intel 945/955.

    #2: you may be able to force the HT link to 1000Mhz, but the fact remains that the processor is spec'd for 800Mhz, and it is obscure. I only saw them for sale at newegg for a few weeks it seems.
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    Just FYI, the article went live early. Sorry if you see this. Check back at noon tomorrow.
  • bob661 - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    Scratch that. Windsor is on the new socket. I'll get the 4800 instead.
  • bob661 - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    I think I'll buy a new video card within the next 4-6 months and upgrade to a Windsor core CPU next summer.
  • Tarumam - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    BTW, thanks Kris & Jarred. This is just the kind of article that helps us readers to make the right decision. Much better read then those EE P4 or FX 59 dual core non sen$e...
  • Tarumam - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    I mean I don´t care about upgrade unless I realy need my system to do something faster or need it to do something the older can´t do at all. Who cares if I don´t have the fastest machine on the planet? All I want is a capable PC and I want to wear it out before the next leap.

    And save some cash doing that is just great!
  • Tarumam - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    Well, what can I say? I use to love my socket A (XP 1700+ Via KT266A and Radeon 8500) as it was a screaming beast 4 years ago. when I bought it everyone was talking about how good and expensive P4 was. Now I just love my 754 3400+ in a small desktop (mAtx) as it does everything I need it to do very fast. The latest and gratest are there so I can build myself an incredible system (64 bit capable, lots of mem, SATA HD and a very decent 6600GT) for a reasonable bargain! Just love when some geek panics in distress: "OMFG my 939 single core is now obsolete! I gotta upgrade again...".
  • JBird7986 - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    My only issue with this article occurs with the statement that the "obscure" Socket 939 A64 3400+ is limited to an 800MHz HyperTransport link. Seeing as how I own one, and it is running at the full 1000MHz HyperTransport link, this seems to be a misstatement.
  • Amplifier - Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - link

    First

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now