What do the numbers in Athlon processors signify?

[abhijit_reddevil]

Hi,

I was just wondering (as I am going for a upgrade, discussed in a separate thread), we have come across many variants of Athlon processors with some typical numbers, like Athlon 64 2800+, Athlon 64 3000+, Athlon 64 3200+, Athlon 64 3500+, etc. What do the numbers 2800+, 3000+ etc signify? Is there any relation between these numbers and the clock speeds of the processor and also the FSB speed?

I have also heard of different core designs like Newcastle, Venice, etc in Athlon processors. What does those signify?

Thanks in advance.

[QwertyManiac]

Thats PR-Rating system
PR rating

The PR rating system was developed by AMD in the mid-1990s as a method of comparing their x86 processors to those of rival Intel. The letters PR stood for "Performance Rating", but many people make the mistake of thinking that it stood for "Pentium Rating", as the PR rating was often used to measure performance against Intel's Pentium processor.

The first use of the PR rating was in 1996, when AMD used it to assert that their AMD 5x86 processor was as fast as a Pentium running at 75 MHz. The designation "PR75" was added to the chip to denote this.

Later that year, Cyrix also adopted the PR rating system for its 6x86 and 6x86MX line of processors. These processors were capable of handling business applications under Microsoft Windows faster than Pentiums of the same clock speed, so Cyrix PR-rated the chips one or two Pentium speed grades higher than clock speed. AMD did likewise with some versions of their K5 processor, but abandoned the system when it introduced the K6.

The PR rating system drew heavy criticism. The ratings were based on a limited set of benchmark suites which measured only integer performance, which the K5 and the 6x86 in particular excelled at. Both processors had weak floating-point (FPU) performance, far below that of a Pentium. Many experts argued that this made the PR-rated chips poor choices for games, any kind of streaming video, or encoding MP3 music; others took the opposing view that (a) the great majority of users at that time were performing integer-intensive tasks like word-processing, spreadsheeting and web browsing, and (b) the substantially lower cost of the PR-rated processors allowed the user to afford a higher-spec part in any case. The question remains controversial to this day.

With the demise of the Cyrix MII (a renamed 6x86MX) from the market in 1999, the PR rating appeared to be dead, but AMD revived it in 2001 with the introduction of its Athlon XP line of processors. The use of the convention with these processors (which are rated against AMD's earlier Athlon Thunderbird cpu core) is less criticized, as the Athlon XP is a capable performer in both integer and FPU operations, and manages to out-perform an Intel Pentium 4 at a PR rating equalling the P4's mhz. The Athlon XP (as well as the Athlon 64) PR rating scheme is not intended to be anything more than a comparison to the same family of processors, and not a direct comparison to Intel or any other company's processor speeds (in raw MHz) which most skeptics say isn't true.

In any case, both raw MHz ratings and the PR scheme are essentially marketing tactics aimed at the naïve consumer. Most professionals or even interested amateurs now consult extensive benchmark tests to determine system performance on various application if performance is actually a consideration in system purchase.

EDIT - Oops sorry i didnt post the source link m8, well its obvious its a wiki isnt it ?
see the link in below posts (2)

[teknoPhobia]

those numbers signify expected performance....1.8 ghz athlon 64 754 is 2800+ wheereas 939 is 3000+ but now in kol you'll only get the sempron series for socket 754

[Ethan_Hunt]

@Qwertyude it wouldn't kill to reveal the source of that post now,would it?
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...PR%20rating%20
Hope you understand or it will be more referred to as Plagiarising Job

[quad master]

AMD Processor Identification Guide - Saved it a long time ago.
Dont know the exact link.

Divided it into four sections:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Desktop (Single Core)
Mobile (Single Core)
Desktop (Dual Core)
Server (Single & Dual Core)
And within each section, it is sorted by age, oldest to newest

Identification
~~~~~~~~~~~~
to break things down, the first line on your heatspreader or cpu should look something like this:
ADA3500DAA4BP
AAABBBBCDE1FF
AAA = which line of cpu's

ADA = Desktop
AMA = DTR
AMN = Mobile

BBBB = PR number

C = which socket and lid type
A = s754, lidded
B = s754, unlidded
C = s940, lidded
D = s939, lidded

D = Voltage rating
A = variable (1.35-1.4)
K = 1.35v
I = 1.4v
E = 1.5v
C = 1.55v

E = Temperature rating. basically, your cpu is rated stable at stock speeds + voltages up to this temperature
A = variable (65-70c)
X = 95c
P = 70c
K = 65c
I = 63c

1 = L2 cache size
6 = 2048kb
5 = 1024kb
4 = 512kb
3 = 256kb
2 = 128kb

FF = Core type
AP = C0 Clawhammer, s754
AR = CG Clawhammer, s754
AS = CG Clawhammer, s939
AX = CG Newcastle, s754
AW = CG Newcastle, s939
BI = D0 Winchester, s939
BP = E3 Venice, s939
BN = E4 San Diego, s939
BU = E5 Newark, s754
LD = E0 (?) Lancaster, s754
BV = E6, Manchester, s939
CD = E6, Toledo, s939

Desktop (Single Core)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clawhammer
130nm , 1mb cache , SSE1/2
desktop = 89w
1.4v mobile = 62w , 1.5v DTR = 81.5w also used for DTR/Mobile cpu's

s754 Models:
2800+ = 1.8ghz (1/2 cache)
3000+ = 1.8ghz
3200+ = 2.0ghz
3400+ = 2.2ghz
3700+ = 2.4ghz

s939 Models:
4000+ = 2.4ghz
FX-53 = 2.4ghz
FX-55 = 2.6ghz (104w TDP)

Newcastle
130nm , 512kb cache , SSE1/2 , 89w TDP

s754 Models:
2800+ = 1.8ghz
3000+ = 2.0ghz
3200+ = 2.2ghz
3400+ = 2.4ghz

s939 Models:
3500+ = 2.2ghz
3800+ = 2.4ghz

Winchester
90nm (first 90nm amd chip, revD) , 512kb cache , SSE1/2 , 67w TDP

s754 Models: none

s939 Models:
3000+ = 1.8ghz
3200+ = 2.0ghz
3500+ = 2.2ghz

Venice
90nm (revE) , 512kb cache , SSE1/2/3 , 67w TDP
replaces winchester and newcastle

s754 Models: none

s939 Models:
3000+ = 1.8ghz
3200+ = 2.0ghz
3500+ = 2.2ghz
3800+ = 2.4ghz

San Diego
90nm (revE) , 1mb cache, SSE1/2/3
2.2ghz = 67w TDP
>2.2ghz = 89w TDP
replaces clawhammer

s754 Models:none

s939 Models:
3500+ = 2.2ghz (half cache.. note that none are for sale yet, this is a "theorized" chip
3700+ = 2.2ghz
4000+ = 2.4ghz
FX-55 = 2.6ghz
FX-57 = 2.8ghz

Mobile (Single Core)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oakville
90nm (revD) , 512kb cache , SSE1/2 , 35w TDP

s754 Models:
2700+ = 1.6ghz
2800+ = 1.8ghz
3000+ = 2.0ghz

s939 Models:none

Lancaster
90nm (revE) , 1mb or 512kb cache , SSE1/2/3
MT = 25w TDP
ML = 35w TDP

s754 models:
Mx-30 = 1.6ghz, 1mb
Mx-32 = 1.8ghz, 512kb
Mx-34 = 1.8ghz, 1mb
Mx-37 = 2.0ghz, 1mb

Newark
90nm (revE) , 1mb cache , SSE1/2/3 , 62w TDP
replaces mobile clawhammer

s754 Models:
3000+ = 1.8ghz
3200+ = 2.0ghz
3400+ = 2.2ghz
3700+ = 2.4ghz

Desktop (Dual Core)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Toledo
90nm (revE) , Dual Core , 1mb cache per core , SSE1/2/3 , 110w TDP

s754 Models:none

s939 Models:
4400+ = 2.0ghz
4800+ = 2.2ghz

Manchester
90nm (revE) , Dual Core , 512kbb cache per core , SSE1/2/3 , 110w TDP

s754 Models:none

s939 Models:
4200+ = 2.0ghz
4600+ = 2.2ghz

Server (Single & Dual core)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sledgehammer
130nm , 1mb cache , Opteron , SSE1/2
x40-x44 = 84.1w TDP
x44-x50 = 89w TDP
*note* HE = 55w, EE = 30w

Venus (1-way), Troy (2-way), Athens (8-way)
90nm (revE) , 1mb cache , Opteron , SSE1/2/3
x42-x50 = 85.3w
x52 = 92.6w
x65-x75 = 95w

s940 Models (for all Opterons):
1xx = 1-way
2xx = 2-way
8xx = 8-way
x40 = 1.4ghz
x42 = 1.6ghz
x44 = 1.8ghz
x46 = 2.0ghz
x48 = 2.2ghz
x50 = 2.4ghz
x65 = 1.8ghz (dual core)
x70 = 2.0ghz (dual core)
x75 = 2.2ghz (dual core)

s940 (non-Opteron):
FX-51 = 2.2ghz (Sledgehammer)
FX-53 = 2.4ghz (Sledgehammer)


This will answer all your doubts.

[abhijit_reddevil]

Originally Posted by QwertyManiac

Thats PR-Rating system
PR rating

The PR rating system was developed by AMD in the mid-1990s as a method of comparing their x86 processors to those of rival Intel. The letters PR stood for "Performance Rating", but many people make the mistake of thinking that it stood for "Pentium Rating", as the PR rating was often used to measure performance against Intel's Pentium processor.

The first use of the PR rating was in 1996, when AMD used it to assert that their AMD 5x86 processor was as fast as a Pentium running at 75 MHz. The designation "PR75" was added to the chip to denote this.


Later that year, Cyrix also adopted the PR rating system for its 6x86 and 6x86MX line of processors. These processors were capable of handling business applications under Microsoft Windows faster than Pentiums of the same clock speed, so Cyrix PR-rated the chips one or two Pentium speed grades higher than clock speed. AMD did likewise with some versions of their K5 processor, but abandoned the system when it introduced the K6.

The PR rating system drew heavy criticism. The ratings were based on a limited set of benchmark suites which measured only integer performance, which the K5 and the 6x86 in particular excelled at. Both processors had weak floating-point (FPU) performance, far below that of a Pentium. Many experts argued that this made the PR-rated chips poor choices for games, any kind of streaming video, or encoding MP3 music; others took the opposing view that (a) the great majority of users at that time were performing integer-intensive tasks like word-processing, spreadsheeting and web browsing, and (b) the substantially lower cost of the PR-rated processors allowed the user to afford a higher-spec part in any case. The question remains controversial to this day.

With the demise of the Cyrix MII (a renamed 6x86MX) from the market in 1999, the PR rating appeared to be dead, but AMD revived it in 2001 with the introduction of its Athlon XP line of processors. The use of the convention with these processors (which are rated against AMD's earlier Athlon Thunderbird cpu core) is less criticized, as the Athlon XP is a capable performer in both integer and FPU operations, and manages to out-perform an Intel Pentium 4 at a PR rating equalling the P4's mhz. The Athlon XP (as well as the Athlon 64) PR rating scheme is not intended to be anything more than a comparison to the same family of processors, and not a direct comparison to Intel or any other company's processor speeds (in raw MHz) which most skeptics say isn't true.

In any case, both raw MHz ratings and the PR scheme are essentially marketing tactics aimed at the naïve consumer. Most professionals or even interested amateurs now consult extensive benchmark tests to determine system performance on various application if performance is actually a consideration in system purchase.

Wow!!! Good funda yaar!!!

[siriusb]

@Quadmaster,
That's some good compilation there.

[indro]

Hey, nice work done there , lottsa AMD fans ,very thorough with AMD and Cyrix history .

Good to know !

[deathvirus_me]

for more details on AMD processores visit :
www.c627627.com

basically the PR rating refer to the performance u should expect out of the processor ... ie though been very low clocked u can expect it to perform like a higher clocked pentium processor ....

[ASH18MARCH]

good work but only few correction
and few addtion


manchister core
4200 x2 is 2.2 ghz x2 with 512 kb cahce
4600 x2 is 2.4 ghz x2 with 512 kb cahce

similarly for toleid

4400 x2 is 2.2 ghz x2 with 1024 kb cahe
4800 x2 is 2.4 ghz x2 with 1024 kb cahe

and the addtion is 3800 x2 with 2.o ghz x2 with 512 kb cahe