How AMD rates there CPU's is wierd

[john19055]

They have a AMD 754 Sempron 64 3300+ that runs at 2 gigs and has 256K L2 cache
a AMD 754 NewCastle 3400+ that runs at 2.4gig with 512k cache and a 939 A64 3200 that runs at 2 gig with 512k cache and I know that a A64 754 3400 newcastle running 400mhz faster and has 256k more L2 cache is more then 100+ better then the Sempron running at 2gig.

[TierMann]

Semprons are benched and rated against Celerons, not Pentiums.

[Sazar]

They decide the numbers by having a munkeh !!! throwing darts at a board full of ratings :cool:

[Son Goku]

Actually AMD rates their CPUs based on what clock Thunderbird based Athlon would yield the same performance (or an estimate of it).

Yes it's been weird, and I would have prefered they stuck to actual clock. They largely did this due to Intel's "clock is everything" marketing bit...

[superklye]

Actually AMD rates their CPUs based on what clock Thunderbird based Athlon would yield the same performance (or an estimate of it).

Yes it's been weird, and I would have prefered they stuck to actual clock. They largely did this due to Intel's "clock is everything" marketing bit...
Well, that's how it was with the Athlons, but I don't think it really applies anymore. if they were still doing that, compared toa a Thunderbird, the 3500+ would be like 6200+ or higher.