X2 is dual core?

[suhr65]

ive read much on x2 in fact just orderd a 3800 but i was wondering
why is it that the 3800 is considered a x2 but is not dual core?
yet the 4200 is the lowest dual core yet the 4000 is not
just wonerding

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

er... there's two 3800+'s

a64 3800+ = 2.4ghz, 512kb (single core)
a64 X2 3800+ = 2.0ghz, 512kb cache per core (and is dual core)

 

[Majin]

... What he said ^^^

 

[BillR]

AMD does have a terrible habit of calling different things the same thing until you read the fine print.

On the other hand Intel gives processors a name/number scheme which makes even less sense, so go figure.

It’s no wonder the web sites can’t keep up and get the specs right all of the time

 

[suhr65]

i didnt know there were two 3800's

 

[arentol]

i didnt know there were two 3800's

No surprise there... 3 days ago there weren't two 3800's (well, there kind of was, but the difference was the model of their core, and not that they were dual cores).

 

[the@ntipop]

i didnt know there were two 3800's

I so called this 2 weeks ago. However, I didn't expect someone knowledgable enough to build their own computer wouldn't be able to tell the difference...

BTW, did you notice one said "Athlon 64" and the other said "Athlon X2"?

 

[ufster8]

AMD should drop this pr rating all together, it's stupid, confusing and worst of all demeaning in the sense that it seems they have to justify the performance of their processors in terms of Intel's GHz models all the time. It leads to distrust in buyers also, for example, was an Athlon XP 3200+ as powerful as a P4 3.2GHz Northwood?, absolutely not.
AMD should be more like Apple used to be, show belief in their architecture, advertise for the strong aspects of it, so people will eventually overlook the GHz deficit and understand there is more to it. Instead they play silly numbering games which eventually leads to confused customers not trusting tha brand name anymore. Unlike Apple, AMD has the products to back their claim of superior performance despite lower clock speed.
Whats wrong with calling an Athlon64 3000+ say Athlon64 1.8 512K? People who know too little to judge cpu performance by GHz solely will end up buying a Celeron anyway, they probably are more familiar to the Intel brand anyway. AMD is a great company with innovative products, but for some reason they are not as strong a BRAND, as they can possibly be. Heck, people respect the sour "Apple" more.

 

[dextrous]

I agree about the PR thing now that intel goes by model numbers. Maybe AMD should use Opteronlike model numbers much like Intel has started doing. In a perfect world... a new independent ratings board should be established that rates processors based on speed and then AMD and Intel would get on board and use those numbers to market their processors so the average consumer will actually know the processing power they are buying. Of course this would not work because I'm sure Intel wouldn't want to be rated by an independent board.... after all they would most likely be rated lower than an equivalently priced AMD processor.

 

[suhr65]

it really doesnt take much to build a computer ive built 3 already how ever anthon 64 and the x2 technology is so new that i did not know about it im still reachering on it