AMD64 vs. Pentium M Speed and Name

the clock speeds vs performance still arent the same between P-M and AMD64. The contrary actually exists, Intel is trying to move away from using frequency names for the processors.

As a correction, an Amd Athlon-M 3400+ will operate about the same as a Pentium 4 at 3.4ghz. Also, Pentium 4 is showing no signs of going away anytime soon, with the Pentium 5 not being due out for quite a while...

I wouldn't expect the Athlon line of CPUs to change their naming conventions anytime soon, for the simple reason that it wouldn't go along with their development. They chose software optimizations instead of sheer power, so while a Pentium 4 operates at 3.2ghz with poorer programming, the Athlon is able to match that speed a 2.2ghz using more efficient lines. And just to further what Anaconda said, Intel is trying to pushing the naming of processors by their ID... as in, the Intel Pentium M 760 is really the 2.0ghz processor. I guess this makes sense, as older processors (7x5) might be confusing if they were all given the same name.

I believe that the Turions use their actual clock speed, however. In that way, its like the Pentium M where they don't necessarily follow the same architecture as their desktop counterparts. The Turion ML-37 is probably coming from the need to differentiate from the ML and MT lines, which use 35W and 25W of power respectively. Not to mention the fact that several versions of the 1.6 processor, for instance, use 512kb and 1024kb of RAM each. Its easier to tell by the model name than saying "Turion 2.0ghz 512kb RAM," and so on.

The numbering system of the Athlon processors is tied to their old Thunderbird core. When you see 3400+, think of it as "This chip runs at least as fast as a Thunderbird overclocked to 3.4GHz, or faster". If the chip happens to perform about as well as an Intel chip at 3.4GHz, then it's largely circumstantial, mainly because the two manufacturers make chips with different strengths and weaknesses. It is not meant by AMD to be a direct comparison to Intel products.

The only time I ever saw AMD say anything about their products vs. Intel was when they said that an AMD chip would cost no more than 75% of an equivalent Intel chip. With the possible exception of dual core, they've pretty much held to that.

Why else would they have it? I mean, as a marketing ploy, its very feasible. Otherwise, they're going to see an AMD 2.2ghz and think, "Wow, AMD is so slow compared to Intel!" Hence, the "####+" naming convention. ITs meant to be a direct competitor to an Intel chip of that same speed, since most consumers are probably not going to know the fine differences between AMD and Intel.

the AMD naming scheme has nothing to do with the Tbird core. it they are named on how their performance compares to a P-4

That is officially untrue anaconda. AMD's official reason for the naming core was a comparison to their tbird line. The naming of the chips like 1800+ instead of 1.5ghz didnt start till the Athlon XP line which came out right after the Tbird line.

Though the naming now is mostly used and marketed to compare to Intel. However that was not the original official intent... so technically he is right.

Their published intent versus their perceived intent is different. I won't say it was accidental, I'm sure AMD knew people would think it was meant to be a comparison to Intel chips. They do not publish or market it that way, though.

I checked AMD's site to see what they had to say about the model numbers, and it is not the same as it was. What I posted above was what we were told by AMD when the first + processors went to market. AMD still makes no reference to any comparison of Intel, primarily because there would be an automatic debate that could leave AMD open to false advertisement suits. Here is what they say about it now:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...,00.html#91032