Was looking at the AMD CPU chart, and there's tons of 3000+'s and 3200+'s of all different kinds. There's some with 130nm, 90nm, lower cache, higher cache, different sockets, different cores, blah bla you get the point. I was wondering, since they're all marked withe the same AMD rating, do all these 3000+'s perform, on average, with other 3000+'s, i.e. Sempron 64 3000+, Athlon XP 3000+, Athlon 64 3000+ Venice, 3000+ Clawhammer etc.
AMD 3000+ vs. AMD 3000+
- Thread starter pc_boy
- Start date
- Status
Mr. Switch
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,841
No, they do not all perform the same.
When comparing a Sempron 3000 with an athlon 3000 there will be a noticable difference. mostly becuase of the cache.
Clawhammer Athlon 64 3000's vs. Venice Athlon 64 3000's is a differnt story. they perform almost exactly the same, the only difference is in the cache and the nm process. the vneices have half the cache, but are 90nm instead of 130nm like the Clawhammers, so they run cooler.
for Athlon 64 3200's vs. Athlon XP 3200's, the 64 will run a little bit quicker. However, there is a completly different architecture, so you can't really compare them.
When comparing a Sempron 3000 with an athlon 3000 there will be a noticable difference. mostly becuase of the cache.
Clawhammer Athlon 64 3000's vs. Venice Athlon 64 3000's is a differnt story. they perform almost exactly the same, the only difference is in the cache and the nm process. the vneices have half the cache, but are 90nm instead of 130nm like the Clawhammers, so they run cooler.
for Athlon 64 3200's vs. Athlon XP 3200's, the 64 will run a little bit quicker. However, there is a completly different architecture, so you can't really compare them.
- Status
