• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

this intel processor = ???amd

Thermite Paste

Thermite Paste

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
5,650
i have a pentium 4 2.0a ghz processor, what would it measure up to in terms of an amd processor?
 
Thermite Paste said:
i have a pentium 4 2.0a ghz processor, what would it measure up to in terms of an amd processor?
Click to expand...

What is a P4 2.0 a Ghz? Does it run the Willimate core or something?
 
{NcsO}ReichstaG said:
What is a P4 2.0 a Ghz? Does it run the Willimate core or something?
Click to expand...
A chips are Northwood. Willemettes don't have a letter designation.
 
2.4A=northwood 400 ( 130nm)
2.4B= northwood 533 (130nm)
2.4C= northwood 800 (130nm) Hyperthreaded
!!2.4A= prescott 533 (90nm)!!



LKS


Sir-Fragalot posted:

the 3.06 does not actually have a "B" designation. Becuase the "A" and "B" suffixes are only applied to processors of the same frequency that have changed.

For example, the 2.4GHz Pentium 4 didn't have an "A" designation due to the fact that all of them were Northwood cores with a 400MHz FSB. However the later Prescott version 2.4A was given the "A" to show a difference in features and design. The "A" in this case denotes 533MHz bus, Prescott core, 1MB L2.

The "A" thing started with the 1.6A, 1.8A and 2.0A. All of which had a Willamette Predecessor. The "B" series was for chips that had overlapping speeds with the "A"'s or first Northwood series. Like the 2.6B for example. The original 2.6 had no designation either way.

The same is true today. The 3.06GHz Pentium 4 has no "B" designation. However if there were a 3.06 Prescott on a 533MHz bus to come out it would get an "A" designation for being the second version of the 3.06 in the Pentium 4 family.

However sometimes Intel uses the letter designation when the cores change. In which case they have a designation showing they all have certain features. So "A"'s and "B"s have been used in the P4 line to show that changes have been made to processors of a certain frequency.

And "C" and "E" as well as "J" have been used to differentiate cores and feature sets as well.

The public has a skewed but somewhat accurate view of this as well. It's generally assumed that all 533MHz bus chips were "B"'s and all Northwood's without HT and a 400MHz FSB were "A"s and all 800MHz HT chips are "C"'s. Prescott's are all "E"s and this confusion continues with people thinking that the "J"s are all 64 bit when in reality "J" denotes the XD bit. "F" is actually the designation for 64 bit Prescott processors. All of which are of course LGA775. EE of course is known as the Extreme Edition.

So the public thinks of A's as 400MHz FSB parts, 533MHz FSB's as B's and 800's as C's. This is somewhat accurate and less confusing. But it's not what Intel intended.

That confusing enough for you?

I really wish Intel would name thier processors differently. Then again they've always done stuff like this. The Xeon for example used to be "Pentium II Xeon" denoting that it was the server version of the processor. Same was true for the "Pentium III Xeon". In the Pentium 4 generation the Pentium name was dropped and the processor became known as "Xeon" alone. With no mention of Pentium or anything else. What Intel needs to do is become more consistant.

Above from this thread
 
Slava said:
athlon xp 2000+
Click to expand...

The athlon naming scheme does not correspond to intel CPUs but to the original Athlon. Thus the Athlon 2000+ does not equal a P4 2.0ghz, but actually a Tbird 2.0ghz.
 
dariob said:
The athlon naming scheme does not correspond to intel CPUs but to the original Athlon. Thus the Athlon 2000+ does not equal a P4 2.0ghz, but actually a Tbird 2.0ghz.
Click to expand...
you actually believe that a palo( or even throughbred, it was just a die shrink) core athlon XP 2000+ would perform the same as a thunderbird 2.0ghz? man, i want some of whatever youre smokin, cause the thunderbird would rape the xp 2000+

yes, this is what AMD's official stand is.. but we all know it corresponds to the p4 lineup... case and point: there is no way in hell a 3200+ barton could beat out a thunderbird running at 3.2 ghz.
 
lithium726 said:
you actually believe that a palo( or even throughbred, it was just a die shrink) core athlon XP 2000+ would perform the same as a thunderbird 2.0ghz? man, i want some of whatever youre smokin, cause the thunderbird would rape the xp 2000+

yes, this is what AMD's official stand is.. but we all know it corresponds to the p4 lineup... case and point: there is no way in hell a 3200+ barton could beat out a thunderbird running at 3.2 ghz.
Click to expand...

Well, they name em, and they created the naming scheme. So, if you accept one you must accept the other.
 
dariob said:
Well, they name em, and they created the naming scheme. So, if you accept one you must accept the other.
Click to expand...
huh?
confused.gif
what do i have to accept when i accept what? if you look at it logically, the Palo was a slight mod of the tbird core, the tbred was a plain and simple die shrink of the palo core, and the barton was the tbred with 512l2, with a few optimazations along the way. a barton running at 2.2ghz would not out perform a tbird at 3.2ghz, there arent enough core optimazations between them to even suggest that a 1ghz difference in clock speed could be made up by an extra 256l2 and a die shrink. the fact that the last thunderbird core was clocked at 1.4ghz even furthers my point, i dont think there is a way in hell they could clock at tbird at 3.2ghz if they tried their damndest, the .18 micron process wouldnt allow for it
 
lithium726 said:
huh?
confused.gif
what do i have to accept when i accept what? if you look at it logically, the Palo was a slight mod of the tbird core, the tbred was a plain and simple die shrink of the palo core, and the barton was the tbred with 512l2, with a few optimazations along the way. a barton running at 2.2ghz would not out perform a tbird at 3.2ghz, there arent enough core optimazations between them to even suggest that a 1ghz difference in clock speed could be made up by an extra 256l2 and a die shrink. the fact that the last thunderbird core was clocked at 1.4ghz even furthers my point, i dont think there is a way in hell they could clock at tbird at 3.2ghz if they tried their damndest, the .18 micron process wouldnt allow for it
Click to expand...

What I meant was, if they created the naming scheme, and they named them, then you have to take it or leave it, all in one package. You cant use thier names to compare with a naming scheme which you say is valid but they do not. I am not disputing your technical comparisons, just the fact that the XP and 64 naming process is determined by AMD based on what they say is a comparison to other AMD products, not Intel's.
 
fair enough, but to say that a 2ghz p4 and a 2000+ will not perform on par because of AMD's "official" naming scheme is rather silly, i dug up an old benchmark for ya: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020107/p42200-14.html the p4 gets some, the XP gets some; they are very comparable. along those same lines, i am positive a thunderbird clocked at 2.0ghz would use both the xp2000 and the p4 2ghz as toilet paper. remember, the 2.0ghz chip from AMD was the xp2600+

i just think theyre offical stand on naming processors is rather flawed, as if anyone actually sat down and looked at the technical aspect of it, they would see that it just doesnt work that way...
 
lithium726 said:
fair enough, but to say that a 2ghz p4 and a 2000+ will not perform on par because of AMD's "official" naming scheme is rather silly
Click to expand...

Ok. It is silly. Looking back on my previous post it does come across that way. What I was trying to do though, was to question the basic assumption that the two would be equal based on the naming scheme.
 
Thermite Paste said:
i have a pentium 4 2.0a ghz processor, what would it measure up to in terms of an amd processor?
Click to expand...

Since I have this processor and I also have a AMD Athlon XP 1700+ I must say the 1700+ beats my 2.0A in most applications except video encoding.
 
The_Mage18 said:
That has to be edited. They never made a 2.4A Ghz with 1MB of L2 Cache. The Prescots start at 2.8Ghz and run on 800Mhz FSB, not 533Mhz. Also it was the B designation chips that run on 533Mhz bus, A's are all 400Mhz Frontside.
Click to expand...

That's NOT correct. There are two different sorts of Prescotts:

1. 1MB of L2 Cache, 800Mhz FSB, with HT. Starting at 2.8E upwards.
2. 1MB of L2 Cache, 533Mhz FSB, without HT. Starting at 2.4A. (comes only in 2.4A & 2.8A)

From the Intel site:
SL7E8 2.40A GHz 533 MHz 90 nm C0 1 MB 478 pin PPGA
SL7D8 2.80A GHz 533 MHz 90 nm C0 1 MB 478 pin PPGA
SL79K 2.80E GHz 800 MHz 90 nm C0 1 MB 478 pin PPGA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top