Model Numbers Help and Confuse

We've chastised AMD in the past for insisting on a model numbering system instead of just reporting actual clock speeds, but for the first time ever, AMD's model numbering system makes a lot more sense than this drivel that Intel has been using to name their LGA-775 Pentium 4s. We get more complaints today from Intel's model numbering system than we've ever had about any other CPU model numbering system in AnandTech history; that includes attempts from AMD and Cyrix to do the same. While this could be too many users used to referring to CPUs by their clock speeds, it is definitely a present day issue.

Here's a quick recap of what Intel's model numbers mean as we're featuring all LGA-775 chips in this review:

CPU Name - Clock Speed - L2 Cache

Pentium 4 560 - 3.6GHz - 1MB
Pentium 4 550 - 3.4GHz - 1MB
Pentium 4 540 - 3.2GHz - 1MB
Pentium 4 530 - 3.0GHz - 1MB

AMD does have an interesting case for model numbers today; with the release of the Athlon 64 4000+ AMD has a total of five 2.4GHz CPUs in their Athlon 64 line:

CPU Name - Clock Speed - L2 Cache - Memory Interface

Athlon 64 4000+ - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 128-bit
Athlon 64 3800+ - 2.4GHz - 512KB - 128-bit
Athlon 64 3700+ - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 64-bit
Athlon 64 3400+ - 2.4GHz - 512KB - 64-bit
Athlon 64 FX-53 - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 128-bit

This is a prime example of where the model numbering system can actually help, differentiating between the three chips, but we also have to make sure to keep AMD honest in their ratings, which is one area we'll be investigating in this review.

Index The Test
POST A COMMENT

89 Comments

View All Comments

  • coolme - Monday, January 10, 2005 - link

    #85 yeah, but when comparing to Tom's Hardware review, it's totally off track... (Tom's is more believeble because there is pics of how he measured it and based on the fact that there is no way a A64 could handle 200+ watts)

    http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041115/pentium4...
    how Tom tested it: http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041115/pentium4...
    Reply
  • eight - Monday, December 27, 2004 - link

    Has anyone information about A64 performance with Premiere Pro 1.5? I assume thet A64 does beat P4, but assumption is mother of... :) Reply
  • euanw - Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - link

    #44
    Wesley,
    I am very impressed by your articles. Can you inform me of the procedure you used to overclock the FX55? With the Neo2 board I am not clear on CPU vid and CPU voltage, what do they mean? When I change the multiplier to 13.5 my new PC reaches winXP and then reboots.

    My setup is MSI K8N-Neo2-54G, FX-55, 2 x 512MB - OCZ EL DDR PC-3200 Platinum Rev2, Nvidia Quadro FX3000, 2x Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 120 GB, Matrox RTX-100 real time video editor, Antec TrueBlue 480W ATX-12V, BenQ DVD Dual DW1610, WinXP-SP2.
    Reply
  • euanw - Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - link

    #44
    Wesley,
    Reply
  • Gioron - Sunday, October 24, 2004 - link

    While I'm unsure of the exact method used in this review, I'm sure that there is no built-in power measurement devices on the motherboards and processors listed (unless its new and no one told me...) so its NOT just just a matter of installing software that can read a sensor thats already there (as in all the CPU temp monitors). This means it requires some hardware to measure the voltage and current flow to various components (or you can cheat a little and assume the voltage is constant and just measure current).

    Unfortunately, this is not as easy as it sounds, since isolating various components can be a problem. Its fairly easy to measure things like hard drive power useage since there is only one power connector going to it and its easy to access, so you measure the current on the 5v line and the current on the 12v line, and you're pretty much done. Things like CPUs, motherboards and graphics cards are a bit more difficult. On the newer graphics cards you can measure the power consumption from the additional molex connector, but in all likelyhood, the card will also draw a certain amount of power from the AGP slot power lines, and no one in their right mind is going to unsolder the AGP slot and raise it half an inch in an attempt to put a current sensor in line with the power leads. Thus, you need to rely on indirect means and educated guesses. You can measure the current going into the motherboard, but how much of that is going to the chipset, the CPU, the RAM and the graphics card? You can swap in a different CPU and see how it changes, but that won't give you absolute readings. You can try to remove the CPU and see what power the MB uses without one, but odds are it'll use more power when its actually interfacing with a CPU instead of beeping error codes at you.

    Bottom line: There is no easy way to measure power consumption, and even dedicated hardware review sites have problems with it. Personally, I trust Anand far enough that I'm sure he didn't completely screw it up, and the numbers he has are probably close enough to the real thing. I'd forget about measuring power for myself.
    Reply
  • xsilver - Friday, October 22, 2004 - link

    Kinda late on the comments but..If anand or anybody can answer -- what is used to measure the "power consumption" software? or hardware? links? I would like to test this myself
    thanks
    Reply
  • Bakwetu - Friday, October 22, 2004 - link

    Whoah, it's been a while since I checked out cpu reviews and I must say Amd has some impressive cpu:s nowadays. Even though I am budget oriented when it comes to buying hardare, I'd choose the 3400+ model before the 3200+, it's not all that much more expensive and seems to perform much better Reply
  • t - Friday, October 22, 2004 - link

    79
    uhuh.... and in a server type situation, how many raid arrays are ran off the chipset controllers? not many i would wager..

    hell... u prolly have an independent fibre optic raid array :)

    hardware, baby, hardware.

    t.
    Reply
  • knitecrow - Friday, October 22, 2004 - link

    I always knew women were trouble when it comes to technology ;)
    Reply
  • screech - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link

    nice ones #79, 78. :) Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now