Midrange CPU Roundup: It's Time to Buy
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 28, 2007 2:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Understanding the Cheap Chips: AMD's BE Line
One point of continued confusion is AMD's Athlon X2 BE line. The BE processors are regular Athlon 64 X2s but binned for lower power operation, more specifically they all have a 45W TDP compared to 65W for their regular counterparts. Instead of following the same Athlon 64 X2 nomenclature however, the BE chips use an updated model number and naming system, leading to a lot of confusion among customers. As a recap, here's how the BE lineup is named:
Note that AMD has told us that this naming system will probably be phased out in the future, so don't get too attached to the awkward nomenclature. Learn it for now, but know that you'll get to forget it later.
There are two Athlon X2 BE processors, the BE-2350 and BE-2300, running at 2.1GHz and 1.9GHz respectively. Since the architecture remains unchanged, the Athlon X2 BE-2350 performs identically to the Athlon 64 X2 4000+; the 2350 simply runs cooler and costs $18 more.
Because of the performance-parity with the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ we left the BE-2350 out of the performance charts, but we did include it in the power consumption graphs to show you what you're getting for that extra $18.
One point of continued confusion is AMD's Athlon X2 BE line. The BE processors are regular Athlon 64 X2s but binned for lower power operation, more specifically they all have a 45W TDP compared to 65W for their regular counterparts. Instead of following the same Athlon 64 X2 nomenclature however, the BE chips use an updated model number and naming system, leading to a lot of confusion among customers. As a recap, here's how the BE lineup is named:
Format:
The new AMD desktop processor models have an alpha numeric format ofAA-####.
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 and the latter three digits are used for minor differences (think speed bins).
Note that AMD has told us that this naming system will probably be phased out in the future, so don't get too attached to the awkward nomenclature. Learn it for now, but know that you'll get to forget it later.
There are two Athlon X2 BE processors, the BE-2350 and BE-2300, running at 2.1GHz and 1.9GHz respectively. Since the architecture remains unchanged, the Athlon X2 BE-2350 performs identically to the Athlon 64 X2 4000+; the 2350 simply runs cooler and costs $18 more.
Because of the performance-parity with the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ we left the BE-2350 out of the performance charts, but we did include it in the power consumption graphs to show you what you're getting for that extra $18.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
jonp - Sunday, September 30, 2007 - link
I too wonder about the Netburst admonition. There are probably millions of Netburst CPUs out there that are happily computing away with no thought of Anandtech at all; doing their thing; producing great results for their owners. The biggest concern I have seen is thermal and that, only in relation to overclocking. Assuming there are more than a few users that don't need to or want to overclock; then there are some great bargins in used Netburst Processors and accompanying motherboards.It doesn't appear to me that "...if you know what's best for you." is either technical, professional or helpful. Maybe it was meant as a joke...sorry it's not that funny.
HotdogIT - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Yes, you did. Given the combination of power usage savings, pure performance benefits, and overclocking ability (since you mentioned 3.6ghz on the Pentium D, I assume we can go with at least 2.4 out of an e2140, for comparisons sake), the C2D/Pentium E line is much better.
The problem with a lot of the "lol Pentium D overclocking" articles is they fail to overclock what they're comparing against. You take a Pentium D 805 and OC it to 4ghz, sure, the performance delta over an e2140 will be big. But apply the same cooling and thought into OCing the e2140, and that delta will swing the other way.
ThatLukeGuy - Saturday, September 29, 2007 - link
So what would make the most sense to change out the Pentium D805 to that would keep me at (or better yet raise the bar of) the performance I'm getting now? An OC'd e2140 or something higher up the ladder? I'm matching this to a 2gigs ram, an nice MSI SLI plat mobo, and an 8800gts320mb. I'd want something that wouldn't bottleneck the system which is what the P.D805 did when it was stock.
HotdogIT - Sunday, September 30, 2007 - link
It's going to depend on a lot of factors. If you're gaming, a change in the CPU may very well do very little in changing any performance; especially at a higher resolution, the CPU may make NO difference.
I'd look into the e2140/e2160/e4X00 line, if you wanted to stay lower cost. At the VERY least, you'll get a boost in energy efficency: The Pentium Ds were and are power hogs, especially compared to the newer line.
What performance did you see increase when you overclocked the Pentium D? Did gaming increase? If so, then a C2D based system would be much better, regardless of an overclock; Netburst just don't handle the games as well.
If, somehow, you're running something that is AMAZINGLY well tuned for Netburst, you may see less of an increase. But these applications are rare these days, so I doubt you'd see that in most cases.
Parhelion69 - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Anand did you do the power consumption tests on the overclocked cpus? I think it's important to know, if you haven't, can't you at least give us a rought estimation? It'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks.dm0r - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Thats a great article Anand, I missed this kind of roundup.Enjoyed a lot and the only thing is missing is the performance per watt, but anyway very good article.Thanks for sharing!eetnoyer - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Why not throw in the 4200+? I know it's 90nm, but I just got one for $74, and (for me)it looks like the sweet spot of price/performance for AMD. And, given how well tuned their 90nm process is at EOL, I wouldn't be surprised to see power consumption close to that of the 65nm chips. If you want, you could use the 65W version (it's only a buck more).Uter - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Anand, is the BE-2400 still coming out? Or, when you say that there are two Athlon X2 BE Processors, the BE-2350 and BE-2300, is that a subtle hint that we shouldn't expect to see it? I just want to make sure I pick one of these up while there are still available...bogda - Friday, September 28, 2007 - link
Oveclocking results are not fair. You chose horrible motherboards for AMD overclocking.For example, Biostar AMD motherboards cost 50-60 euros. They are much better overclockers than MSI or ASUS you chose. My Athlon BE-2300 easily overclocks from default 1,9GHz to over 2,8GHz with stock HSF.
wdb1966 - Sunday, September 30, 2007 - link
I completely agree, the boards chosen for the AMD chips are horrible.Gigabyte's MA69GM-S2H and Abit's NF-M2 nView would have been far superior choices in every way...poor motherboard choices, very poor.