what is lowest dual core AMD?

[HiddenStupid]

1: what is the lowest dual core AMD cpu? what number? x2 2800+? x2 2200+?

2: what is the lowest AMD athlon(64)? what is the number?

 

[erocker]

3600+ X2 (dual core) skt AM2

2800+ (single-core) skt 754

 

[trog100]

interesting what amd thought the performance gain from having the extra core was in their pr rating system..

not as much as some would think.. 2800 to 3600.. same chip just in dual core form as opposed to single core..

for example amd thought a single core at 2.4 gig.. the 4000+ was more powerfull than the dual core at 2 gig.. the 3800+

they seem to think the extra core was only worth about 400mhz in core speed..

interesting because because my single core sandy 4000+ overlocked to 3 gig would have had a higher pr rating than many of the current amd dual core chips..

in short amd didnt think the extra core was worth a great deal.. for example a single core chip clocked at 3.6 gig would carry a 6000+ pr rating.. more if the higher memory speeds of am2 is thrown in..

trog

 

[kwchang007]

interesting what amd thought the performance gain from having the extra core was in their pr rating system..

not as much as some would think.. 2800 to 3600.. same chip just in dual core form as opposed to single core..

for example amd thought a single core at 2.4 gig.. the 4000+ was more powerfull than the dual core at 2 gig.. the 3800+

they seem to think the extra core was only worth about 400mhz in core speed..

interesting because because my single core sandy 4000+ overlocked to 3 gig would have had a higher pr rating than many of the current amd dual core chips..

in short amd didnt think the extra core was worth a great deal.. for example a single core chip clocked at 3.6 gig would carry a 6000+ pr rating.. more if the higher memory speeds of am2 is thrown in..

trog

lol I always wondered why the numbers were so hard to follow. Probably was back when dual cores first came out they thought that because there weren't really any multi-core optimized programs.

 

[btarunr]

It's the X2 3600+ but comes with 256 KB L2 caches /core.

 

[Solaris17]

which i own and it pWnes

 

[btarunr]

because Solaris17 + X2 3600 is like an added core

 

[Solaris17]

because Solaris17 + X2 3600 is like an added core

bta ur the man.

 

[trog100]

lol I always wondered why the numbers were so hard to follow. Probably was back when dual cores first came out they thought that because there weren't really any multi-core optimized programs.

they had to guess.. the PR meant compared to an intel p4 chips.. lets say the 3000+ was suposed to compare performance wise to an intel P4 clocked at a real 3 gig.. the amd chip was actually clocked way slower but performed better clock for clock..

back then the amd flagship chip.. the silly price one at over a 1000 dollars was the FX57.. clocked at 2.8 gig.. it was really an overclocked 3700+ 2.2 gig chip or a 4000+ clocked at 2.4 gig chip.. same san diego core..

those were the last of the fast single core amd chips.. the next amd flagship chip was dual core.. this chip was clocked at 2.6 gig.. it got called the FX60..

even thow it lost out in very gaming benchmark to the faster single core FX57 chip.. they gave it the crown and the silly price..

like it or not the world had gone dual core.. he he he

the real problem here is due to software being years behind hardware there still arnt many properly optimixed dual core programs or games .. things havnt changed quite as much as folks are lead to believe they have..

trog

ps.. just for interest my 4000+ sandy single core chip clocked up to 3.2 gig at its default core voltage without batting an eyelid.. with more voltage it would have made 3.6 gig and that was over two years ago..

 

[Deleted member 3]

they had to guess.. the PR meant compared to an intel p4 chips.. lets say the 3000+ was suposed to compare performance wise to an intel P4 clocked at a real 3 gig.. the amd chip was actually clocked way slower but performed better clock for clock..

Get your facts straight, the PR rating was compared to a Thunderbird 1400 in the early days. (well first to the Pentium 75 if you want to go back that far) After that the PR was basically to compare differences between the models in the same line. ie the PR of an Athlon XP can't be compared to a Athlon64 or an X2. And even though it has been comparable to Intel chips in many cases, AMD never claimed anything like that.

 

[trog100]

Get your facts straight, the PR rating was compared to a Thunderbird 1400 in the early days. (well first to the Pentium 75 if you want to go back that far) After that the PR was basically to compare differences between the models in the same line. ie the PR of an Athlon XP can't be compared to a Athlon64 or an X2. And even though it has been comparable to Intel chips in many cases, AMD never claimed anything like that.

my facts are right enough.. the claim was with the P4 in the latter days.. or at least thats what the commonly held belief was.. it was also deemed by most to be somewhat optimistic.. i cant remember amd making any attempt to deny the commonly held belief..

not being privvy to amds innermost secrets my "facts" might be slightly off but the gist is there for the purpose i intended..

trog

 

[cdawall]

my facts are right enough.. the claim was with the P4 in the latter days.. or at least thats what the commonly held belief was.. it was also deemed by most to be somewhat optimistic.. i cant remember amd making any attempt to deny the commonly held belief..

not being privvy to amds innermost secrets my "facts" might be slightly off but the gist is there for the purpose i intended..

trog

it doesnt help that it actually works out that a 3000+ is pretty dead on even to a 3ghz P4

 

[trog100]

it doesnt help that it actually works out that a 3000+ is pretty dead on even to a 3ghz P4

they used to win some lose some when compared as they always were..

the last amd chip i remember that was sold under its real clock speed was the T/bird 1333.. that was about the time the high clock but low performance per clock P4 first came out.. which forced amd to adopt the PR system cos folks bought by mhz..

cirix started the PR thing years before with ( i think) the PR 150 and PR 200.. i think the true cirix 200 speed was 150 but the PR was with the intel pentium 200mhz chip..

i know it needed an overclock on the fsb from 66 to 75 to run.. so it would have been 150..

the last cirix (i think) ran at 233 or 266 and had a PR rating of 300 and 333.. it was along time ago..

my "facts" might be slightly out cos its from memory and it was a long time ago..

trog

ps.. and interestingly its gone full circle.. P3 at 1 gig on a par with T/bird at 1.333 gig.. just like we are now.. intel roughly clock for clock 25/30% faster than amd.. the P3 with modifications lives again under a new name.. conroe..

 

[Deleted member 3]

No Cyrix copied it from AMD, the 5x86 had a PR rating.

 

[AsRock]

No Cyrix copied it from AMD, the 5x86 had a PR rating.

But Cyrix sucked ass. with the 120mtz 150+ i hated that chip with passion.

 

[cdawall]

ps.. and interestingly its gone full circle.. P3 at 1 gig on a par with T/bird at 1.333 gig.. just like we are now.. intel roughly clock for clock 25/30% faster than amd.. the P3 with modifications lives again under a new name.. conroe..

now for AMD to take the cake again

maybe its time for some cheating AMD throw 4 phenom B3s on one die 16core cpu=conroe beater? hahahaha

 

[Deleted member 3]

But Cyrix sucked ass.

Yes, that really adds a lot to the discussion. Bravo.

 

[trog100]

No Cyrix copied it from AMD, the 5x86 had a PR rating.

i never knew that one dan.. but dont doubt it..

trog

 

[Solaris17]

just to show you.....this is with 200mhz ddr2 ram with no HS...so it isnt stable but the processor can reach this...b4 the ram cops out.


http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=324645


3142mhz

 

[btarunr]

But Cyrix sucked ass. with the 120mtz 150+ i hated that chip with passion.

No it doesn't. At one point Cyrix and AMD went neck-to-neck as Intel alternatives.

 

[Saakki]

yeah trog San Diego 4000+ is a good one..got mine from massive sale out and still running it...should get better cooling for it tough :shadedshu

 

[HiddenStupid]

It's the X2 3600+ but comes with 256 KB L2 caches /core.

comes with 256kb l2 caches? how many kb and cache does something like 4000+ x2 has?

1: how many kb and cache does something like 4000+ x2 has?

2: how many kb and cache does something like 64 3200+ winchester single core has?

 

[btarunr]

comes with 256kb l2 caches? how many kb and cache does something like 4000+ x2 has?

1: how many kb and cache does something like 4000+ x2 has?

2: how many kb and cache does something like 64 3200+ winchester single core has?

1. 2x (64 KB code L1 + 64 KB data L1 + 512 KB L2) that's 640 KB per core

2. 64 KB code L1 + 64 KB data L1 + 512 KB L2.

 

[mandelore]

ahh... i remember my san diego 4000+ TEC cooled to a lubly -15, did 3.2ghz. was teh pwnzer back in the day when dual cores where almost uneard of

 

[trog100]

ahh... i remember my san diego 4000+ TEC cooled to a lubly -15, did 3.2ghz. was teh pwnzer back in the day when dual cores where almost uneard of

the last off the line ones did better.. i started with a sandy 3700.. £170 when i first bought it.. ran it at FX57 speeds on air for a few months.. then i happened to see some sandy last off the line 4000 chips for £60 on OC/UK.. i bought one..

it went straight up to 3.2 gig on its default core voltage without batting an eyelid.. i ran it at 3 gig default core for a long time.. it would have done 3.6 with more volts..

now if amd had have continued i am sure we would be at 5 gig with them today.. but it never was.. and it took em a year and half to get a dual core up to the same 3 gig-ish speed at a sensible price .. when they did i went dual.. he he

trog