AMD Athlon X2 BE-2350: Mainstream X2s with 45W TDP
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 5, 2007 4:09 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Eeech, Model Numbers
Although all current AMD processors retain their original names, the two being introduced today are the first to use AMD's new model numbers. As announced during its Phenom introduction, AMD is dropping the 64 from its product names - the new chips are simply Athlon X2s. The 64-bit race is over now that both AMD and Intel have 64-bit support on a majority of their processors, and now it's time to move on. All previous X2s will still be called Athlon 64 X2s and AMD isn't changing the logo just yet, but eventually it will phase out the old names/model numbers in favor of the new system.
What exactly is the new system? It's a slightly more complicated version of Intel's model number system. Here's the explanation of the new system straight from AMD:
The introduction of the AMD AthlonTM X2 dual core processor BE-2350 and BE-2300 brings the first opportunity to learn about AMD's new model methodology. The goal with the new system was to better inform processor choice and utilize a methodology that be long lasting. Existing products will retain their current model numbers. Our customers are familiar with the current models and we will continue to utilize that system until it is phased out over a period of time by new product introductions.
Let's look at a sample model number: BE-2350 (This is the AMD Athlon X2 dual-core 45-watt desktop CPU you have for review)
Format:
The new AMD desktop processor models have an alpha numeric format of A A - # # # #.
First two characters: BE-2350
The first and second alpha indicate the processor class. The second alpha character indicates the TDP of the processor. The "BE" class is comprised of sub-65W processors. This chip's TDP is 45 watts. As additional products are introduced, new classes will also be introduced and these new classes will distinguish between key attributes of the processors.
First numeric digit: BE-2350
The first numeric digit after the dash is the processor series and indicates reflects major increments in processor attributes. The "2XXX" series is currently contained within the AMD Athlon X2 family of processors.
Note that we have dropped the "64" from the Athlon X2 name. AMD pioneered simultaneous 64/32-bit x86 processing. Now that 64-bit processing is ubiquitous and AMD is recognized for its leadership, maintaining a "64" in our desktop product naming methodology is not necessary, and the shortened name simplifies product references.
Last three numeric digits: BE-2350
The last three numeric digits after the dash indicate the relative position of the CPU within its class series. Increasing numbers within a class series indicates increments in processor attributes.
In summary:
Please note that the actual assignment of letters and numbers are intentionally arbitrary, but these digits are combined in such a way as to avoid confusion between models while indicating major and minor processor increments. Just by reading the "BE-2350" model number, you know that it is a mainstream desktop CPU. You know its power consumption level is below 65 watts. You know that it is in the Athlon X2 family. And you know its position relative to other CPUs. As new processors are introduced, the combination of class and models should be of increasing value in identifying and distinguishing AMD processors. Previously, our model numbers indicated relative performance but were unable to capture the step function performance multi-core processors in many usage scenarios and were unable to capture additional processor features or attributes.
Normally we don't quote manufacturer emails to us verbatim, but this one just seemed so appropriate. To break it down for you, we'll compare AMD's new naming scheme to Intel's.
The first letter in Intel's naming system indicates processor class, for example the E6600 vs. X6800. With AMD's new system, we have two letters that describe the class, with the second one being used to indicate TDP. The following four digits in Intel's system simply indicate performance of the processor relative to others in its class; e.g. an E6600 is faster than an E6320, the first digit indicating major performance differences between chips (e.g. E6600 has 4MB L2 cache 1066MHz FSB, while the E4300 has a 2MB L2 cache and 800MHz FSB). AMD's system is similar, the first digit is reserved for major differences in performance, while the latter three digits are used for minor differences (think speed bins).
All in all, AMD's system is a response to Intel's system, neither of which is perfect. We liked Intel's naming system on the Core 2 lineup back when it was simple and each model was separated by increments of 100. The introduction of the E6420 and E6320 made the system a bit more messy and the upcoming 1333MHz FSB CPUs will only further complicate the lineup. AMD appears to be starting in a period of disarray and if recent articles on the forthcoming lineup are correct, we'll absolutely hate talking about CPUs from both manufacturers.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
TA152H - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
I'm curious, what would you have considered better options to compare these processors with? Certainly not the Pentium D, since they are anything but efficient in terms of power. That leaves the Core 2, which it was compared with. Were you looking for other models in the Core 2 line or something? I'm just a bit unclear.Where AMD is going is pretty clear, isn't it? The Barcelona/Agena and later Fusion. HT 3.0, etc... Is it enough, I don't know. Clearly it's better than the K8 in term of memory load scheduling, but still not as good as the Core 2.
I never liked Hector Ruiz, and always thought Jerry Sanders was an incredible CEO. He was widely criticized because the company wasn't extremely successful, although he was responsible for the success the past few years because it was his leadership that made these products possible. Every other company that fought Intel died, only AMD survived, and he deserves credit for that. Ruiz seems to have no vision, and he has to go. There is no way the K7/K8 should still be around this late in the game, and they should never have gotten so comfortable with assuming Intel would always screw up. The K7 is now almost 8 years old and outside of the minor changes made for the K8, it's still way too old and outdated. The memory scheduling is worse than the Pentium Pro of 1995 vintage. Ruiz needs to go! If this ass-clown malingers for much longer, AMD will be belly-up.
Regs - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
Marketing.There's a lot of people who think dual core is better or a lot of people who like to think dual core is "future" proof. Besides, Intel can do just the same with a single core...they all ready did.
Bascially it's new ..hot of the presses.. and AMD want's to sell it and people like new.
Lets face it, AMD is not going to regain the performance crown anytime soon. So they're going to sell whatever they can.
TA152H - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
It's unclear to me how this is new, and I'm not talking about AMD taking the performance crown.Your supposition that this will sell because it's new isn't altogether clear to me. It's really not even as good as the 3800 and not very different really. A single core at 20 watts would have been something new, and interesting. Or a 1.4 GHz model that takes 8 watts, or 10 or whatever it would take. I could actually get rid of my beloved Tualatins if they came out with something like that. But no, they come out with a 45 watt part that doesn't really impress anyone in any way. At least do something well, if not performance, then power.
I agree with you on one thing though, perception is more important than reality, and dual core is perceived as broadly better, even though for many things it is useless, and almost completely unnecessary for 95% of the people. But, perception matters, so you make a good point. The P7 was born from this as well, so I guess this isn't that bad.
cornfedone - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
...Anandtech jumps right to the top of the FUD spewers.The Anandtech statement below is good for a laugh by anyone in the PC industry with a clue:
"Those hoping for nail biting, teeth clenching battles should apply elsewhere - the CPU war these days is a one horse race. If reports out of Taiwan are to be believed, initial performance results from AMD's Barcelona fail to impress and we've got at least a quarter before the race can even potentially get competitive. But as we've seen lately, you don't need chart topping performance to bring excitement to the game."
Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
I suggest reading the paragraph immediately following that one:"By aggressively cutting prices, AMD actually made most of its product lineup below $300 competitive with equivalently priced Intel offerings. Granted that AMD won't be making a tremendous amount of money by doing this, but the end user stands to benefit, especially those with Socket-AM2 motherboards looking for faster CPUs."
It is true that Intel does currently hold the title for fastest desktop CPUs, but with the recent price cuts AMD is competitive (if you don't overclock) below $300. That's all I was trying to say.
Take care,
Anand
TA152H - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
I agree it's a little overstated, because AMD processors are terrific for the vast majority of people, and their prices are terrific too.I think he meant to say (and I apologize to Anand if I'm putting words in his mouth, because I hate when people do that to me) is the PERFORMANCE DESKTOP CPU war, etc... I think most people will understand that is his meaning, and he's right. Obviously, again, most people can get by extremely well with AMD's processors, and the servers by virtue of their superior system architecture still do quite well in four socket systems vis-a-vis Intel products. But, right now, the Core 2 is generally a much better processor than the Athlon 64. In a few, rare instances it is not, and in most instances it doesn't matter. But, it still is in most.
SilthDraeth - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
I can't remember a single post you have made that was anything but trolling.lopri - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
It's really puzzling to see all these articles published @AT today. Are you guys trying to catch up with the delayed articles? (Then again the UVD issue is fairly recent, I think?)First of all, we have E2140 and E2160 to compete with the AMD's new offerings. They have been available for more than a couple weeks now so I am not sure why this article is dealing with new AMD CPUs (which are not yet availble) and different class Intel CPUs. If anything, I would think these new offerings from AMD are meant to compete with E2xxx series.
Also I would like to see NF680i along with P965/NF590 in the power consumption chart. For all purposes and intents, that'd give a better idea where things are standing. P965 and NF590 are completely different in its function/capability as well as target audience. Another consideration is that people who purchase these low-power CPU will probably look for more power efficiency when they make decisions on motherboards.
(scratching head..)
Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
I'm not sure what's puzzling about today's articles? Gary is in Taiwan reporting on Computex and the NDA lifted today on the X2 BE-2350, which is why you see these articles on the front page.The E2160/E2140 will be good competitors to the new BE chips, but we simply don't have any in-house to test, and as I mentioned above the E2160s appear to be selling for close to the same as the E4300. I'd actually say that today, the BE-2350 is more a competitor for remnant Pentium Ds in the marketplace than anything from the Core 2 lineup.
I don't think it makes sense to go higher end in the chipset comparisons, one thing I'm working on now is comparing integrated platforms to look at power consumption (and performance) for those systems that won't be used for high end gaming.
Take care,
Anand
TA152H - Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - link
Anand,I completely agree, you should be testing IGPs with these low power processors, because that's what will almost certainly be paired with it. Or, in the worst case, fanless discrete video cards. In fact, I don't think it would be completely out of place to build a whole system to be as quiet and low power as possible. You might even want to take a look at the VIA/Centaur chips. I bought one of these mules about a year and half ago, but it's just so slow even in power/performance I went back to a K6-III+. They are probably better now.
I know you guys are allergic to fanless power supplies, but they work really well (I love them), and if you pair it with a low power system (which is only natural), they are terrific. You pair these low power processors with an IGP, or low power discrete card, stock voltage memory, and a notebook hard disk (I did this with my VIA, and it saves a ton of heat and isn't horribly slow) and you have a really low power system that is quiet. If you listen to music on your PC, or TV, or movies, this is an ideal setup. Even the alien zappers must do this sometimes, so I think it would make for an interesting review, especially during the summer when these machines can make rooms really hot.