AMD Athlon X2 BE-2350: Mainstream X2s with 45W TDP
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 5, 2007 4:09 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Eeech, Model Numbers
Although all current AMD processors retain their original names, the two being introduced today are the first to use AMD's new model numbers. As announced during its Phenom introduction, AMD is dropping the 64 from its product names - the new chips are simply Athlon X2s. The 64-bit race is over now that both AMD and Intel have 64-bit support on a majority of their processors, and now it's time to move on. All previous X2s will still be called Athlon 64 X2s and AMD isn't changing the logo just yet, but eventually it will phase out the old names/model numbers in favor of the new system.
What exactly is the new system? It's a slightly more complicated version of Intel's model number system. Here's the explanation of the new system straight from AMD:
The introduction of the AMD AthlonTM X2 dual core processor BE-2350 and BE-2300 brings the first opportunity to learn about AMD's new model methodology. The goal with the new system was to better inform processor choice and utilize a methodology that be long lasting. Existing products will retain their current model numbers. Our customers are familiar with the current models and we will continue to utilize that system until it is phased out over a period of time by new product introductions.
Let's look at a sample model number: BE-2350 (This is the AMD Athlon X2 dual-core 45-watt desktop CPU you have for review)
Format:
The new AMD desktop processor models have an alpha numeric format of A A - # # # #.
First two characters: BE-2350
The first and second alpha indicate the processor class. The second alpha character indicates the TDP of the processor. The "BE" class is comprised of sub-65W processors. This chip's TDP is 45 watts. As additional products are introduced, new classes will also be introduced and these new classes will distinguish between key attributes of the processors.
First numeric digit: BE-2350
The first numeric digit after the dash is the processor series and indicates reflects major increments in processor attributes. The "2XXX" series is currently contained within the AMD Athlon X2 family of processors.
Note that we have dropped the "64" from the Athlon X2 name. AMD pioneered simultaneous 64/32-bit x86 processing. Now that 64-bit processing is ubiquitous and AMD is recognized for its leadership, maintaining a "64" in our desktop product naming methodology is not necessary, and the shortened name simplifies product references.
Last three numeric digits: BE-2350
The last three numeric digits after the dash indicate the relative position of the CPU within its class series. Increasing numbers within a class series indicates increments in processor attributes.
In summary:
Please note that the actual assignment of letters and numbers are intentionally arbitrary, but these digits are combined in such a way as to avoid confusion between models while indicating major and minor processor increments. Just by reading the "BE-2350" model number, you know that it is a mainstream desktop CPU. You know its power consumption level is below 65 watts. You know that it is in the Athlon X2 family. And you know its position relative to other CPUs. As new processors are introduced, the combination of class and models should be of increasing value in identifying and distinguishing AMD processors. Previously, our model numbers indicated relative performance but were unable to capture the step function performance multi-core processors in many usage scenarios and were unable to capture additional processor features or attributes.
Normally we don't quote manufacturer emails to us verbatim, but this one just seemed so appropriate. To break it down for you, we'll compare AMD's new naming scheme to Intel's.
The first letter in Intel's naming system indicates processor class, for example the E6600 vs. X6800. With AMD's new system, we have two letters that describe the class, with the second one being used to indicate TDP. The following four digits in Intel's system simply indicate performance of the processor relative to others in its class; e.g. an E6600 is faster than an E6320, the first digit indicating major performance differences between chips (e.g. E6600 has 4MB L2 cache 1066MHz FSB, while the E4300 has a 2MB L2 cache and 800MHz FSB). AMD's system is similar, the first digit is reserved for major differences in performance, while the latter three digits are used for minor differences (think speed bins).
All in all, AMD's system is a response to Intel's system, neither of which is perfect. We liked Intel's naming system on the Core 2 lineup back when it was simple and each model was separated by increments of 100. The introduction of the E6420 and E6320 made the system a bit more messy and the upcoming 1333MHz FSB CPUs will only further complicate the lineup. AMD appears to be starting in a period of disarray and if recent articles on the forthcoming lineup are correct, we'll absolutely hate talking about CPUs from both manufacturers.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
lopri - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
Then why didn't you include Pentium D's in the charts?Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
I mentioned the Pentium 4 based processors on the front page in this quote:"While you can get older Pentium 4s for less than $100, you wouldn't really want to from a power and performance standpoint."
We've always recommended the X2s over the P4s, thus the real question is how big of a gap is there between these X2s and the lowest end Conroes.
Take care,
Anand
lopri - Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - link
You're mixing things up. I do understand where your argument is headed, but unfortunately the presentation isn't exactly relecting your intention.dm - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
It overclocks well (http://fanboyreview.blogspot.com/2007/03/brag-anot...">http://fanboyreview.blogspot.com/2007/03/brag-anot...And the best thing is, it should be really affordable ;)
Spoelie - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
What was the point of increasing the latency of the L2 cache for the 65nm process if AMD isn't increasing cache size?? Now, as proven in this article, we have situations where 2ghz 90nm parts are outperforming 2.1ghz 65nm parts, and the K8 is in dire need of any performance it can extract.Sometimes I think AMD is doing it on purpose, they're now at a point where I'm starting to lose confidence in any sort of comeback. Underperforming r600, delayed barcelona, delayed agena, delayed hd2600xt, initial reports on all upcoming parts "disappointing", process technology 1+ years behind Intel. Way to piss away your 3 years head start with hammer AMD.
I know this is the kind of post that gets downrated but as a long time ATi/AMD believer, the bad news just keeps piling up.
TA152H - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
Because, AMD will probably increase the cache size in the future. They indicated this earlier. Even now, it probably increases yields a little, and thus allows lower costs. I'm not sure where the bottleneck is on AMD processors though, but you probably remember the Coppermine and the problems it had getting over 1 GHz. Actually, Intel did release a successful Coppermine at 1.1 GHz, but it was a Celeron. This is because the problem was with the L2 cache not being able to hit the higher clock speeds. Considering this, and the fact AMD did add wait states to the cache in the event they increase the size, it is very possible this is improving yields.AMD never had a three year advantage over Intel. Intel mobile chips were always better in power/performance than anything AMD, just as the Pentium III was. The Athlon and Athlon 64 were not particularly good chips, it was just they were competing against a particularly bad chip (P7, of course), and when Intel ditched it, naturally things got worse for AMD. Also, The P7 was way ahead of the Athlon 64 in technology. It was a much more advanced chip, so even in that regard the Athlon 64 wasn't ahead. Granted, it worked better, but it was a much more prosaic design.
Calin - Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - link
Pentium !!! might have been better in performance per power, but was worse in performance per clock (performance per power was a metric hardly used back then on desktop).The K7 chips (first Athlons) were faster clock-per-clock than Pentium !!! (the 100MHz FSB Pentium !!!) by at least a little. Also, the Athlon64 were better than the AthlonXP it replaced.
True, the Pentium4 C were very good chips, even compared to Athlon64 (teh 2400MHz were very good). Too bad the 2MB cache P4 chips were even worse than the Northwoods per clock, and could not scale in frequency.
TA152H - Thursday, June 7, 2007 - link
The Coppermines were better per clock than the Athlon in most benchmarks except pure x87. Read some old articles if you don't know that. Considering they were much smaller, and used much less power, and had terrible memory bandwidth, this clearly shows what a bad design the K7 was. It was mainly because of the better OoO scheduling of memory loads, although the fast L2 cache helped some (mainly because the memory bandwidth was so poor, and the L1 cache relatively small). The K7 was bigger in almost every way, and had much better memory bandwidth, yet was slower than the Coppermine clock normalized. Of course, they could reach higher clock speeds.I have no idea what a Pentium 4 C is, probably your misnaming the Northwood since people like to think it was good. None of the Pentium 4s were worth a damn. They were really slow for their size and power, and never compared well to Intel's mobile chips based on the Pentium III.
johnsonx - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
It should be noted that, aside from the TDP rating, the BE-2300 and BE-2350 are equivalent to the existing Brisbane core Athlon64 X2-3600+ and 4000+, respectively.One might argue that this review was unnecessarily detailed given the fact these processors are nothing more than the old ones with a lower TDP and new names.
Lonyo - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
Try looking for the new Pentium chips then. Although you don't seem to have been given any for review, they are out there, and in stock at some e-tailers worldwide. And from reports elsewhere (well, one) they seem to be decent performers, and good overclockers.