I'm finding it difficult to explain

  pj123 12:30 17 Apr 2005

to a friend why his Sempron 2200 is being reported by Belarc as a Duron 950. Why can't CPUs be called by their actual speed?

My own Athlon XP 2000 is really a 1.6 etc...

  powerless 12:59 17 Apr 2005

They were at once.

  spargo 14:21 17 Apr 2005

Try Everest, looking at mine,

Belarc says
2100megahertz AMD Pentium III

Everest says

AMD Athlone XP-A 2100MHz (12.5)x168)2800+

  spuds 14:46 17 Apr 2005

I have a AMD 2600 but my computer still insists that it is a AMD 1800!.

  pj123 14:57 17 Apr 2005

The supplier says that the Sempron 2200 is in fact a Duron 950, so Belarc is correct.

So someone who thinks he is getting a 2200 processor is only getting a 950.

spuds, exactly. My partners computer with an Athlon 1800 says 1250.

  Dennis Goycoolea 14:59 17 Apr 2005

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).


  bremner 16:15 17 Apr 2005

It seems to me that in both instances you have highlighted the FSB in the BIOS is incorrectly set.

In both cases it looks like the FSB is 100MHz when it should be 133Mhz. Change this and you will find them reproted correctly.

Spuds - ditto for you

  TomJerry 10:23 18 Apr 2005

click here

upgrade bios for the motherboard

  pj123 10:44 18 Apr 2005

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.)

  Dennis Goycoolea 11:11 18 Apr 2005

"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).


  pj123 10:31 19 Apr 2005

I've managed to placate him. He's a fairly happy bunny now. Considering his previous PC was an AT running at 166mhz.


This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Sea of Thieves Review

Dell Canvas review: the cheap Wacom Cintiq alternative

How to use iMovie for Mac, tips and more

Comment filmer l’écran d’un iPhone ?