Processor Obfuscation and You: An Update on AMD and Intel CPUs
by Kristopher Kubicki & Jarred Walton on May 17, 2005 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Closing Thoughts
If you were confused by the recent offerings from AMD and Intel, we hope that this has helped to clear the air a bit. The model numbers on Intel processors are relatively straight forward, though they're definitely not perfect. Intel also hasn't bothered with any new code names for core steppings, though we do have stuff like the "J" extension when the XD bit was added as well as the aforementioned "+1" chips for EM64T. In the end, we have to give Intel credit for a more sensible naming scheme. Yeah, you still need to find out what each model number actually means, but at least there is only one definition for a 540 and a 540J. AMD, on the other hand, seems to be intent to create as much confusion as possible. In most situations, they have the higher performing chips, but the "standardized" performance rating model numbers is really a disservice to the end user. Performance isn't the only factor in purchasing a computer anymore - something AMD has preached in the past - and so, basing the model numbers solely around a performance metric isn't very helpful. We'd actually prefer the Opteron naming scheme to the mess that currently exists in the Athlon and Sempron lines.Let's wrap this all up with some practical advice on what to buy. If you're looking to purchase a new system, all that's left is to determine what features and price that you're comfortable with, and then you might need to wait for the appropriate part to become available. We would strongly recommend a socket 939 or one of the new (Intel 845/855 or NVIDIA nForce 4 SLI chipsets) socket 775 systems as the basis for any system, though the prices of the latest 775 motherboards are rather expensive. The difference in cost between the new platforms and the older platforms is usually under $100, and the longevity of the older platforms is definitely limited.
For those interested in upgrading advice, we have several recommendations. If you're running one of the older platforms (socket A, 754, or 478), you can either upgrade to the maximum CPU speed available for the platform or else, ditch the whole platform and buy a new motherboard, CPU, and perhaps RAM as well. The latter basically puts you back into the "new system" group, so make your selection and go from there. Socket 939 users should probably just stick with what they have for now while we wait for the X2 parts to come out. Have we mentioned how attractive Socket 939 is, with the ability to support both the older CPUs as well as the future dual core chips with only a BIOS update? The catch is that, given the planned pricing of the X2 chips, we would expect only the most performance hungry users to upgrade initially - after all, you've lived without SMP on the desktop for years, so why switch now? People with enough spare change and a desire to multitask will disagree, of course.
775 upgraders are in something of a bind right now. If you're already running such a system, you probably already have a decent processor. Unfortunately, once the dual core parts become available, your current motherboard becomes outdated. At that point, it's a question of whether or not the benefits of dual core are enough to get you to upgrade both the CPU and motherboard. For many people, the answer will probably be "no". We're still not sure why the 915 and 925 chipsets are unable to support dual core processors; they fit in the same socket, so what's the problem? Anyway, AMD definitely planned the dual core transition better than Intel. Let's not be too critical, however - you could purchase a 540J now and an 820 in a month for roughly the same cost as the Athlon X2 4200+. In other words, the pricing of Intel's dual core chips is far more attractive than the AMD counterparts - although AMD is faster in many instances, making a final verdict difficult to render. Socket 939 motherboards are also substantially cheaper than the dual core Intel motherboards, though we expect the price gulf to narrow over the next several months.
So, we've basically said that it doesn't make a lot of sense for most people to upgrade unless they're either wealthy or woefully behind the times. There are still quite a few people who may only be slightly behind the times, so let's look at that area. First, let's talk about whom we feel should upgrade. The most important factor is that you're unsatisfied with performance, and for us, that means that you would have to be running less than a 2.6 GHz/2600+ processor (or any of the Sempron or Celeron parts). If you have a chip that's already faster than that, you probably don't need the additional performance to upgrade. Assuming that you decide to upgrade, we'd recommend going for the fastest or second fastest processor on each of the "old" platforms. That means the Athlon 3400+ or 3700+ on socket 754, the Pentium 3.2 or 3.4 GHz on socket 478, and as we already mentioned, the Athlon XP-M is your best bet for maximum performance on socket A. Any of those upgrades will set you back $125 to $225, and that should hopefully get you to the next platform update.
Speaking of platform updates, it's important to remember that even with all the talk of backwards compatibility, AMD will also be transitioning away from socket 939 in the future. The new socket is currently called M2 and will feature 940 pins reportedly, while a newer socket F for servers will have 1207 pins supposedly. (Wow!) How long Intel will remain with socket 775 is also something of an unknown, but with their talk of multiple front side buses and the limitations of their current shared bus design, we wouldn't be surprised to see socket 775 replaced around the same time that socket M2 launches. The 65nm parts - the single core Cedar Mill and the dual core Presler - are also coming, along with the dual core Pentium M derivative Yonah. The only thing that we can say for certain is that socket 775 and socket 939 won't be around forever.
Thanks to Newegg.com for providing us with the CPU core images.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
55 Comments
View All Comments
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).