backtop

Print 48 comment(s) - last by IcY18.. on Jun 3 at 11:01 PM
Before Phenom, there's the Athlon X2 BE-2000-series

AMD will introduce a new modeling system for its processors. Under the new naming scheme, the performance rating goes away in favor of an alphanumeric model. AMD will also refer to the new Athlon 64 X2 models simply as AMD Athlon. AMD will drop the “64” suffix claiming it is no longer necessary to claim 64-bit support and allows for a shorter name.

The new naming scheme debuts early next week with the Athlon X2 BE-2350 and BE-2300 models. The new alphanumeric modeling system allows AMD to designate different models by thermal design power, processor series and speed.

The first two alphabetical characters of the model number indicate the processor class and TDP rating. AMD designates the Athlon X2 BE-series processors as sub-65-watt TDP models. The new Athlon X2 BE-2350 and BE-2300 feature 45-watt TDP ratings. AMD intends to release different processor classes as it becomes necessary.

The first numeral in the model number indicates the processor series and processor attributes, while the remaining three numerals indicate speed within the series and class. AMDs new modeling system names processors on a higher-is-better system.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 BE-2000
Model
 Core
Frequency 		L2 Cache
Price
BE-23502.1 GHz 2x512KB
 $91
BE-2300
1.9 GHz2x512KB
$86

AMD has prepared to launch the new Athlon X2 BE-2350 and BE-2300 early next week. Pricing for the new models is set at $91 and $86 for the Athlon X2 BE-2350 and BE-2300, per-processor in 1,000-unit quantities, respectively.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Nesretep on 6/2/2007 12:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
This is supposed to be helpful in identifying their new processors? Unless one is carrying their AMD secret decoder ring, they would have a heck of time trying to figure out what all of that means. Just look at how much space the article needed to explain it!




By kenji4life on 6/2/2007 8:06:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The first two alphabetical characters of the model number indicate the processor class and TDP rating. AMD designates the Athlon X2 BE-series processors as sub-65-watt TDP models. The new Athlon X2 BE-2350 and BE-2300 feature 45-watt TDP ratings. AMD intends to release different processor classes as it becomes necessary.


That's a pretty short explanation. If you can't remember that, you should wear a helmet when you go out.


By kenji4life on 6/2/2007 8:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
The first numeral in the model number indicates the processor series and processor attributes, while the remaining three numerals indicate speed within the series and class. AMDs new modeling system names processors on a higher-is-better system.

the second part didn't paste into my original post..


By GeorgeOrwell on 6/3/2007 11:08:31 AM , Rating: 4
No, it really isn't a good explanation. AMD could have done something very very simple but instead chose to use a complex system of obscure letters and implied meanings when there was no need.

Here is a simple naming system:

[model name] [revision][cores]-[# of mhz in 1000s][thermal]

So you'd have:

Athlon E62-1945 for a rev E6 dual core 1900Mhz 45W thermals
Athlon E62-3095 for a rev E6 dual core 3000Mhz 95W thermals
Phenom F04-2395 for a rev F0 quad core 2300Mhz 95W thermals
Phenom G02-2865 for a rev F0 dual core 2800Mhz 65W thermals
Phenom G04-2365 for a rev G0 quad core 2300Mhz 65W thermals

Mathlon A064-2045 for a rev A0 64 core 2000Mhz 45W thermals
Minium B11-1905 for a rev B1 1 core 1900Mhz 5W thermals
Minium B22-1909 for a rev B2 2 core 1900Mhz 9W thermals
Hellion F08-3690 for a rev F0 8 core 3600Mhz 90W thermals

There is no guessing here. The customer knows exactly what he is buying, from the model name to the revision, to the number of cores, to the actual Mhz, to the actual thermals.

Plus, it gives a really nice shorthand for consumers to use for particularly good revs, i.e. "G04". Although once you get to massive numbers of cores the shorthand breaks down a bit.

The existing AMD system is not very clear and lends itself to distancing the customer. The closer the customer is to the process, the more opportunity to turn that customer into a fan.

Note that if the existing stepping system used letter revs instead of numbers, i.e, "FA" instead of "F0", the naming system would be even cleaner and easier to use.

Lastly, note that the existing schemes, both Intel and AMD, inflict costs on the customer and the vendor themselves by not making it clear how fast the chip runs and what the TDP is. The overall process market would be more efficient if all processor models contained more information. No guessing, no lookups, fewer wrong part orders, etc. Plus it would be far easier for computer makers to inform the consumer what stepping/wattage is used by a particular model computer.

Copyright (c) 2007 by the author. All rights reserved.


By Haltech on 6/3/2007 5:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
the whole purpose is to change the name to show they are moving on from the past and to make it shorter. Now Phenom GO4-2365 for a rev G0 quad core 2300Mhz 65 thermal dosent exactly give it a ring to it.


By Visk on 6/3/2007 10:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the whole purpose is to change the name to show they are moving on from the past and to make it shorter. Now Phenom GO4-2365 for a rev G0 quad core 2300Mhz 65 thermal dosent exactly give it a ring to it.


the 23 means GHz(23 x 100MHz) and the 65 means TDP

So Phenom GO4-2365 means...
- Phenom family
- Revision GO
- 4 Cores
- 2.3Ghz
- 65W


By Belard on 6/2/2007 8:08:23 PM , Rating: 4
Wouldn't this type of model numbering is EASIER:

Athlon X2-1900
Athlon X2-2100

Since pretty much ALL new AMDs are low TDP, BE doesn't mean a thing.

Then there could be:

X4-2400 = quad core 2.4Ghz with 512k cache x # of cores.
X4-2450 = quad core 2.4Ghz with 1mb cache x # of cores.

X4-2460 = quad core 2.4Ghz with 1mb cache x # of cores.
= Revised core, but still basiclly a x4-2450.

If the cpu is OVER 65watts:
X4-2460H = quad core 2.4Ghz with 1mb cache x cores
(H = High Wattage)

Not much, if any conversion chart is needed!

What idiot came up with be 2300? 1.9Ghz is pretty low on the scale of things. Basicly, these are x2 3600 and x2 4000 CPUs.

But anyone who knows about CPU/RAM bus speed - the odd number CPUs are not prefered chips. (1.9 / 2.1 / 2.3 etc) The better AMDs with current tech is 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 2.8, 3.0ghz.


why so complicated?
By Gul Westfale on 6/2/2007 12:28:33 PM , Rating: 3
i understand that with different cache sizes, speeds, number of cores, and so on that there is now a multitude of chips that have similar clockspeeds and thus different names are in order.
but why does it have to be so complicated? do they not want people to know what they are buying?




RE: why so complicated?
By lumbergeek on 6/2/2007 12:45:14 PM , Rating: 4
Most retail sites will tell you what the cache size and clock speed is. It's only a name. Nobody complains when Ford calls a car "Mustang" without a detailed description of engine size, horsepower, max RPMs etc.

Simple naming is good. When in doubt, Google the damned thing.


RE: why so complicated?
By Hare on 6/2/2007 2:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
You have a good point but still I wouldn't mind having a simpler naming scheme. Look at BMW. It's pretty obvious what you get from a 316 or a 320. 3-series with 1.6L or 2.0L engine. Same thing with 525 etc.

Actually I don't think the current names are that bad. At least people nowadays don't blindly compare mhz to mhz when looking at different processors.


RE: why so complicated?
By johnsonx on 6/2/2007 3:40:17 PM , Rating: 3
Actually BMW is a poor example these days, as their model numbers have been skewed for marketing reasons, at least in the US. The 335 is not a 3.5 liter, it's a 3.0 Turbo. A 328 isn't a 2.8 now, it's a 3.0 non-turbo. For quite awhile now, the x23, x25, x28 models have been numbered more by their position in the lineup than by displacement; the x23 was never a 2.3, always a 2.5, the x25 was only a 2.5 some years, 2.8 other years, and likewise the x28 isn't a 2.8 any longer, but it was in the past. The good news at least is that today's 328 would blow the doors off yesterday's 328.


RE: why so complicated?
By JustKidding on 6/3/2007 12:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
Well, actually many companies do this. It is to their and their retailers advantage to not make it clear just exactly what you are buying. This stops or reduces comparison shopping and makes it easier to unload old or undesireable stock. Ever notice the different model numbers on exactly the same item from one retailer to the next? As an example, my purchase recently of a Fuji F20 camera. (great little camera, btw) The BestBuy version is a F20se. What's special about it? Only that it is being sold at BestBuy. Most stores have disclaimers about price matching that include 'same model number'. It is somewhat anti-consumer, but it has always fallen to the consumer to do his homework. Sorry if I have rambled a bit, but the point is the same. The burden of investigating a product still falls on the consumer. The numbering system isn't much of an improvement to the average consumer, but proper geeks will still have to do their homework before purchasing.


You know...
By cscpianoman on 6/2/2007 12:30:22 PM , Rating: 3
This is one name change I don't mind. With Intel changing the whole playing field it needed to be done. However, there does seem to be a lot of numbers involved here. It will take a nerd just to decipher what BE-XXXX or whatever means.




RE: You know...
By lumbergeek on 6/2/2007 12:41:14 PM , Rating: 1
Most retail sites will tell you what the cache size and clock speed is. It's only a name. Nobody complains when Ford calls a car "Mustang" without a detailed description of engine size, horsepower, max RPMs etc.

Simple naming is good. When in doubt, Google the damned thing.


RE: You know...
By Targon on 6/2/2007 5:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
If the engine in a car were the same with a different feature set, then you need to look at the features. If the features are all the same but there are different engines, then you need to look at a LOT of numbers to figure out which engine you want. With a combination of the two, it leads to confusion on the part of the consumer if they all have the same product name.

So, AMD is making changes to their product names, but the confusion will be how similar products with a different "family" name compare if the specs are similar.

Is the 2.6GHz version with 2 megs of cache faster than the 2.8GHz version with 1 meg of cache? How about the low power versions, if they have the same specs, will they perform the same, or will they be slower because of slower transistors that are better for power usage reasons? And then you need to know how the AMD parts compare to the arbitrary part numbers from Intel and THEIR set of product designations.


RE: You know...
By Faust0 on 6/3/2007 1:28:41 AM , Rating: 2
Actually Ford's nomenclature for the mustang isn't that simple, in it's current iteration from economic to high performance you have

Mustang V6
Mustang Deluxe(V8)
Mustang CS(convertible only, don't remember if this a v6 or v8 )
Mustang HEAT
Mustang BOSS 302(future model, Camaro Z28 fighter)
Shelby Cobra


RE: You know...
By Faust0 on 6/3/2007 1:48:26 AM , Rating: 2
meant GT not Deluxe. There are Deluxe and Premium versions of the the V6/GT, and Convertible versions of all of those.


RE: You know...
By kenji4life on 6/2/2007 8:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
You're a nerd anyways if you are trying to decode a processor name. No shame in that. But really it's not that hard. It's like the codes for car engines. VQ35DETT =

VQ engine series
35 displacement
D Dual overhead camshaft
E fuel injected
T turbocharged
TT twin turbocharged

If we can't be as 'nerdy' as car geeks, we don't deserve to be computer geeks.


Thermal Data Power?
By GaryJohnson on 6/2/2007 12:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
A minor point, but I thought TDP was 'Thermal Design Power'?




RE: Thermal Data Power?
By lumbergeek on 6/2/2007 12:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
It is, right you are.


RE: Thermal Data Power?
By soydios on 6/2/2007 1:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
TDP = Thermal Design Point


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/2/2007 1:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
Thermal Design Point or Thermal Design Power are both correct. But yes, we had a typo before and it's fixed.


By raven3x7 on 6/2/2007 1:05:35 PM , Rating: 3
Wow 45W TDP for dual core. Thes are perfect for HTPCs and SFF cases. Ad to this a HD2400 oe Geforce 8500 and you got yourself one hell of a media center.




By FireTech on 6/2/2007 6:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed and available in a few weeks?
My only concern is the pricing.
How do these compare with the current 65w - G1 stepping - x2 3600+/4000+ pricing?


By raven3x7 on 6/2/2007 7:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
According to the chart in the article:
BE-2350 2.1 GHz $91
BE-2300 1.9 GHz $86


clarification
By lplatypus on 6/2/2007 6:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD will also refer to the new Athlon 64 X2 models simply as AMD Athlon.
So both "64" and "X2" are being dropped, or just the "64"? Later in the article I see the new processors referred to as "Athlon X2" and "Athlon 64 X2".




RE: clarification
By AnnihilatorX on 6/2/2007 7:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
yeah that confuses me as well. The article mentioned the dropping of the X2 suffix then is used a sentence later.


core
By Esteem on 6/2/2007 6:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
Are these brisbane cores?




RE: core
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/3/2007 6:37:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yes


At least
By Regs on 6/2/2007 5:19:43 PM , Rating: 3
Something is new.




interesting
By GhandiInstinct on 6/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: interesting
By Suomynona on 6/2/2007 12:22:49 PM , Rating: 1
Can't even spell Gandhi right...


RE: interesting
By exanimas on 6/2/2007 12:27:13 PM , Rating: 1
Because it was good but left you wanting more.


Pentium E is better
By maroon1 on 6/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: Pentium E is better
By johnsonx on 6/2/2007 3:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
That may or may not be true, but what does that have do with this article?


RE: Pentium E is better
By raven3x7 on 6/2/2007 4:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
With the limited cache and slow FSB the Pentium Es have they loose quite a bit of performance so imo that is highly unlikely. Whats worse they have a much higher TDP. In addition to that Cool 'n Quiet is superior to Speedstep so for OEMs these are definetly worse chips in any case.


RE: Pentium E is better
By maroon1 on 6/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: Pentium E is better
By maroon1 on 6/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: Pentium E is better
By maroon1 on 6/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: Pentium E is better
By FireTech on 6/2/2007 6:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
but what about raven3x7's points regarding heat output etc. It's very easy to link to articles but not actually answer the question....


RE: Pentium E is better
By maroon1 on 6/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: Pentium E is better
By ninjaquick on 6/3/2007 8:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
You forget that most PC components move in the OEM area, and OEMs will do whatever they can to make a PC that uses the smallest (and subsequently cheaper) powersupply, use the cheapest ram without hindering performance too badly, and use the chepest cooler possible (since many OEMs buy their chips in bulk and bulk means no cpu cooler. We enthusiasts might not care but the money making OEMs do, Offices do, and thats where the money is.


RE: Pentium E is better
By defter on 6/3/2007 7:57:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but what about raven3x7's points regarding heat output etc


His claims didn't had any point (he didn't show any proof). It's obvious that a Core2 based CPU running at 1.6-1.8GHz will have significantly lower load power consumption than K8 based CPU at 1.9-2.1GHz.


RE: Pentium E is better
By raven3x7 on 6/2/2007 7:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
So why didnt they do any multithreading tests? Why dont they give more information abou the various tasks? No memory bandwidth tests... And the Pentiums still have a significantly higher TDP. Finally gaming performance obviously is worse than the Athlons.


RE: Pentium E is better
By maroon1 on 6/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: Pentium E is better
By rbuszka on 6/3/2007 10:09:28 AM , Rating: 2
TDP is an important parameter when it comes to specifying cooling systems (not necessarily having to do with power consumption), so processors with lower TDPs can be stuffed into more compact enclosures. If the TDP becomes sufficiently low, fanless cooling systems can be used, eliminating a failure point and making the processor a more attractive option for media center systems, where heat and noise output are significant concerns. So no, you wouldn't necessarily always choose performance over heat output.


RE: Pentium E is better
By IcY18 on 6/3/2007 11:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
While TDP is an important parameter to consider when purchasing a CPU the TDP of these newer processors is low enough that it is a non concern at this point until Intel or AMD were to go to 45nm and bring out something with a TDP almost half as much as the current TDPs. Right now the little difference in heat output between the Athlons and Core 2's that it really doesn't make a difference either way.

Where as in the past the Pentium 4/D's did not perform and had a high TDP that is not the case now and they perform just as well and better while having a TDP close enough to the competition. Just like in the graphic card market, if it makes more performance, than most likely other things like TDP and size are ignored.


RE: Pentium E is better
By RjBass on 6/3/2007 10:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm an AMD/ATI fanboy, but for the last year I seem to be finding myself building customers computers with Intel.

Hmmmmmmm


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes



Latest Headlines
2/10/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 10, 2012, 5:50 PM
2/9/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 9, 2012, 11:54 AM
2/8/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 8, 2012, 1:11 PM
Ex-Acer CEO Slapped With Lawsuit for Joining Lenovo
February 7, 2012, 5:38 PM
2/7/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 7, 2012, 12:23 PM
2/6/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews -- Intel 520 240GB SSD Edition
February 6, 2012, 12:04 PM
botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki