The thing about Belarc reporting the wrong CPU sounds like a BIOS problem. A BIOS released before Sempron existed usually mis-reports the CPU model and AMD 'performance rating'.
For example, my Athlon XP 2500+ runs at 1837 MHz. My Sempron 2200+ runs at 1499 MHz. The Sempron is actually equivalent to an Athlon 1800+ in terms of performance. CPU's "can't" be called by their actual speed for - yes! - marketing reasons.
It's not just an AMD thing; Intel are moving away from Mhz speeds for their newer Pentiums too (still called Pentiums for marketing reasons, even though they haven't been i586s for years).
The point has been missed. Belarc is reporting it correctly.
An Athlon XP 2000 is running at 1.6 so why is it labelled 2000. Why not 1600. That way someone who thinks he has an XP 2000 but finds out it is only 1.6 might think that the person who installed it (me) is conning him.
The Sempron 2200 is the case in point. He asked for a sempron 2200 which is really a Duron 950 and now he thinks I conned him. (he had other choices but chose that one as it was the cheapest.)
"An Athlon XP 2000 is running at 1.6 so why is it labelled 2000."
"Athlon XP 2000+" does not mean 2000 MHz, but AMD don't say it does. They do claim a 2000+ rating is equal in performance to a 2000 MHz P4, but that's a different story.
A Sempron 2200+ is _not_ a Duron 950. Durons are named "honestly", so Duron 950 means 950 MHz. The Sempron 2200+ runs at 1500 MHz and is roughly equal to an Athlon 1800+, or a Duron 1500 perhaps (I don't know if they ever made one of those).
The Sempron PR rating is not meant to be the same as the Athlon XP rating, so a Sempron 2200+ isn't as good as an Athlon XP 2200+. AMD say the Sempron 2200+ is equal to a Celeron 2200 MHz.
I think this is somewhat misleading, because most people wouldn't realise they can't compare the AMD 'performance ratings' of Semprons and Athlons, even though both chips use the same cores (thoroughbred or barton cores).