AMD naming system

[Spartan III]

Ok so I have read this sticky The Truth About Processor Performance (a.k.a AMD GHz vs. Intel GHz) but it still leave a lot of loose ends.

For one example there is a difference between a sempron and an athlon that have been named the same, ie "sempron 2000+ vs athlon 2000+"
The athlon performs better so that means they can't both be equivalent to an intel at 2.0GHz.

My other questions are:
1. What is up with the athlon fx series' naming system? How do you tell what there performance is?
2. Same question for opterons? I know practically nothing about these things.
3. Finally the intel core 2 duo processors. I am told they have the best performance, but other than testing them how can you know? does the part of their name "6600, 6400" ect.. mean that they perform like a 6.6GHz and 6.4GHz?

 

[TriEclipse]

Here's a tip to make things simpler; Don't look at things so simply.

The names are only to help laymen understand the processors, and in some cases, not even that. Logically, one needs to have a sequential series of names for one's processors, to set them apart. No rules dictate that these names have to correspond to performance, they simply have to be easy to remember and have to make sense.

As for your dilemma; Forget that part names, look at their specs. Most processors in the same series have atleast similar specs across the board except for the clockspeed. So basically if the clockspeed of a processor is higher, then it is faster than another processor in the same series.

Cross-comparisons have always been tricky. I don't want to start any sorts of arguments, so I won't say how much better I think the Core 2 Duos are. If you want to make comparisons, then go look at benchmarks.

Anandtech Gaming and System benchmarks.

Anandtech Overclocked Core 2 Duo benchmarks.

Xbit Labs Gaming and System benchmarks.

 

[lancec2c30]

Yep what triclpise said, about 99% of the time the name has absolutely nothing to do with the specs or performance of a cpu.

 

[Pepsiboy700]

Its different now that Intel came out with the Core 2 Duo. The only amd cpu that is faster than any Core 2 Duo is the FX-62 which just barley beats the lowest Core 2 Duo which is the e6300. The e6300/e6600 are probably the top most bought c2d's. The e6300 is just a e6600 that didnt pass at those specs and has half the cache and lower clock speeds. Both cpu's have alot overclocking potential and good stock power. I personally bought a amd x2 3800+ because I got one dirt cheap and I was set for the upgrade. It does get destroyed by all the c2d's even when I overclock it to 2.7ghz from 2ghz. Pretty sad when you think about it.

 

[Spartan III]

So why is an athlon 2000+ faster than a sempron 2000+?

 

[Spartan III]

bump

 

[Nagasama]

Its different now that Intel came out with the Core 2 Duo. The only amd cpu that is faster than any Core 2 Duo is the FX-62 which just barley beats the lowest Core 2 Duo which is the e6300. The e6300/e6600 are probably the top most bought c2d's. The e6300 is just a e6600 that didnt pass at those specs and has half the cache and lower clock speeds. Both cpu's have alot overclocking potential and good stock power. I personally bought a amd x2 3800+ because I got one dirt cheap and I was set for the upgrade. It does get destroyed by all the c2d's even when I overclock it to 2.7ghz from 2ghz. Pretty sad when you think about it.

not sad, bro.
just the way it is. love your amd.
and to clarify we should say that c2d beats out x2 when OVERCLOCKED. stock performance the 3800-4400 are very close/similar to 6300-6400...at least on the scale of real world usage.
i just like to be specific there.
but, yeah...a 6400 overclocked to 2.7 beats the crap outta my cpu at 2.7 benchmark-wise.

 

[Nagasama]

So why is an athlon 2000+ faster than a sempron 2000+?

google.