Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
Generally speaking, the older AMDs (pre-AMD64) have a "false" performance rating. For example, the 3000+ is comparable with a 2700 mhz P4 (if it existed). The AMD64s are more accurate with their speed rating.
|
First off, when AMD started their market technique of labelling the CPUs with model names, HT technology didn't exist. Some people think that even now the AMD CPU model name refers to the equivalent of an Intel P4 without HT technology.
The model names do fluctuate as you say, but I don't think it's quite as severe. An Athlon XP 2500+ is definitely the equivalent of a 2.5 GHz P4, and an Athlon XP 1900+ is DEFINTELY the equivalent of a 1.9 GHz P4. Pentium 4's simply failed in comparison to the Athlon XP CPUs from the 1GHz-2GHz range. The model names worked very well in that speed range.
I'd put an Athlon XP 3000+ Barton at about 2.8 C Core P4. Maybe 2.9 if they made one. The Athlon 64's do match up really well, however. I think there was simply a small gap from about 2.4 GHz to 3.0 GHz that AMD over-estimated a bit. Not by much, however, and in some cases they were right. It simply depends on whether the compared P4 has HT, and whether the compared Athlon is a Barton. Generally speaking, the model names are a very good comparison to their performance compared to Pentium 4's.
-Lasereth