• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

How can a 1.4 T-bird OC'd to 1.6Ghz be better than Athlon XP 1600+?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.


c(n*199780) Senior Member
Feb 18, 2002
All this time people have this perception that the PR rating used T-birds as benchmarks and if that was the case, even though XP 1600+ runs at a stock speed of 1.4Ghz, it could beat an OC'd T-bird at 1.6GHz, right or wrong? In other words which one wins:
a) AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1.4Ghz overclocked to 1.6GHz or
b) AMD Athlon XP 1600+ at default stock speed of 1.4GHz?
I would assume that it also depends on the FSB/Multiplier ratio of the CPU.

They should both be 10.5 X 133 to keep it even.

But why get a T-Bird 1.4 and OC it to 1.6 if you can Get an XP 1.4 and OC that to 1.6?

I would think the TBird would get whipped handily. The 1GHz Morgan Durons I had at 1.2GHz on 160MHz bus fell barely behind the 1.4GHz TBirds I had at the same bus speed overclocked to 1.6GHz.

I'd have to say it would be no contest.
The athlon xp rating applies to the p4 not other athlons. The tbird 1.4 and the 1600+ perform about on par the 1600+ probably slightly better.
One thing I know from reading Overclockers.com articles is that the official origin of AMD PR rating definitely applies as comparison to AMD Thunderbirds and NOT Intel Pentiums.

According to the link provided above, someone (forum member Silver) tested the CPU's and concluded that "at 115% of the T-Bird 1.4 (1.61GHz) the T-Bird would exceed the XP 1800+ at stock speed..."
They say that this is because "the performance of the T-Bird 1.4 was the base line used by AMD for all of the XP ratings and that all revisions were to go up by approximately 3%."

It's not the point that we can get AMD XP's at a reasonable price now, but that a premise many people believed in seemes to be false as a hypothetical AMD Thunderbird 1.6GHz, according to the qoutes above would beat AMD XP 1600+ running at stock speed of 1.4GHz.

Please contribute with arguments of proof if you think this is wrong.
No conclusions here. I went to amd to get the data. Straight up. The xp is an amd rating and the pr... well go spend some time like I did. As a matter of fact, start with sisoft and READ what they say their pr rating is. When you are done with that go do some research and when you are really feeling like knowing, stop by amd and do some reading.
Q: What do the 2000+, 1900+, 1800+, 1700+, and 1600+ numbers mean?

A: These are model numbers. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz, such as 2000+, 1900+, 1800+, 1700+, and 1600+ versions. Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors, as well as communicate the architectural superiority over existing AMD Athlon processors. The AMD Athlon XP processor 2000+ will outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 2.0GHz on a broad array of application categories.
AMD Athlon XP processor 2000+ operates at a frequency of 1.67GHz.
AMD Athlon XP processor 1900+ operates at a frequency of 1.60GHz.
AMD Athlon XP processor 1800+ operates at a frequency of 1.533GHz.
AMD Athlon XP processor 1700+ operates at a frequency of 1.47GHz.
AMD Athlon XP processor 1600+ operates at a frequency of 1.40GHz

Q: What’s the meaning of the “XP” in the AMD Athlon™ XP processor name?

A: The AMD Athlon™ XP processor is the name of the newest desktop processor from AMD. The “XP” modifier is designed to convey the extreme performance AMD Athlon XP processors deliver for the Microsoft® Windows® XP operating system.

ooohhhh big clue as to the software driven performance.
. Future Athlons will be specified by 'MODEL' numbers. For instance a Palomino-Athlon that runs at 1.4 GHz will be MODEL 1600, because AMD considers Palomino 1.4 GHz to be at least as fast as a Pentium 4 1.6 GHz.

Big clue here. Do you get out much or just voice your opinion?
Hmmm and to think, straight from AMD. Forgot to add AMD document dated October 5, 2001. Please do note that a fair portion of this is software dependant. Now we all know that AMD work very hard at getting Microsoft to assist in the integration. OK, let's go hunt down pr rating and then I'm off to bed.
With the K6, AMD abandoned the PR-Rating system and went back to the standard MHz rating. No longer was there a standard Intel Pentium to compare it too with the release of the standard Pentium, Pentium Pro, and the Pentium II. Besides, the PR rating system was simply confusing potential buyers of the K6.

So what was the Original PR-Rating system...Hmmm. More data needed. Be right back.

"If you're not familiar with the "PR" concept, here's how it works. "PR" stands for "Pentium Rated," a term that became necessary when the x86 market hit the 586 generation of CPUs and the simple MHz rating lost its status as a reliable measure of performance across x86 architectures. Intel introduced the Pentium processor, which featured some important architectural enhancements over the 486, while AMD and Cyrix were still making 486s. AMD had some particularly successful 486 CPUs that were clocked much higher than any other 486 CPU and gave near-586 performance. These were their 5x86 series CPUs, which AMD sold as the 5x86 133. They were actually 486 CPUs, but they performed on-par with Pentium 75's. As a result, they were PR rated to 5x86 PR75. While the actual clock speed was higher than 75 MHz, the PR of 75 gives people an idea of what kind of performance to expect from the chip. AMD continued this PR-Rating scheme up to their K5 series, at which point they finally caved into consumer demand (and good sense) and ditched it. Cyrix, however, stuck with the PR system, and now, with the Pentium III/Athlon being the high-end of CPUs, saying your CPU is Pentium Rated to be a 333 or even a 400 is a bit of an outdated concept."

You really do need to get out more. I do more than like your idea though as Sisoft shows my T-Bird 1.4 @ 1.729 running at a pr 2300 +/- and that is really cool as this would mean that my t-bird 1.4 overclocked to 1.729 is running like a t-bird at 2300. This is really good news for me.

Last edited:
Should you like more info on the amd xp processors then I highly recommend you visit the amd site, tom's hardware, and inumerable other sites. As for the pr rating, that was started back when I had a bbs running off of my ten meg hd on an 8088. And as far as pr testing goes, sisoft sandra contains within its bowels its definition and application of the term. Do Take Care and BTW, I am Silver.:)

Common sense should dictate to someone that the xp1600 did not so advance processor technology as to require a t-bird 1.4 to run at 2200, 2300, 2400 or whatever to catch it. Think about it. What processor might fit that definition.......ain't but one other I can think of right off hand.
BTW where does one come up with the info that a T-bird would have to run this fast to match a xp1600? Just curious as for the life of me (other than in forums) I just can not find any data to concur with this.
Setting things straight

Thank you for your time.
I could have sworn I saw places saying, obviously in error, that a XP 1600+ is rated that way because its performance would equal that of a hypothetical AMD Thunderbird at 1.6MHz. I can't remember anymore which non-forum articles were stating this but I think I also saw a pole once on what the PR ratings are based on, one of the options being Pentium processor MHz speed but the answer being Athlon Thunderbird MHz speed. This would be incorrect if you look at all the factual data provided. Thank you for you help.
Last edited:
And I am sorry to both you and all that read this for the arrogant way in which I brought this back to you. Please forgive me for not being very nice. Iwent through this awhile back with another and that is the thread that is being pointed to. At the time I had no idea and spent a day looking into it. I do have both a t-bird 1.4 and an xp1600 and like playing with the t-bird. The xp is an earlier one so it will only oc stable at around 1.7. It makes a good back up chip though (for those that have blown processors-like me) and might be fun to pelt cool. Make no bones about it, if one is buying a new processor then an xp is the way to go if they can afford it. A t-bird will do fine if you can not and will teach a newbie much about ocing. I am presently playing with this t-bird and gf3 ti200 which I have gotten to 9,120 3d points. What I would really like to do is play with a pelt cooled xp2000 but alas the money. Once again, please do accept my apologies. :(

For the record, amd is using a quizy (sp) pr rating now based on various tests. Any geuss who they are aimed at, though they will not admit it. One more thing to note, I think it was extrememely nice of Sisoft to leave out the t-bird 1.4 in the cpu test comparisons. Might have gotten a little ticklish for amd had they not.

Gotta stop adding stuff. Check out your pr rating on the xp chip if you have one. There you will see a difference between it and the Athlon. Just can't get past the software enhancements when compared to .......... This relates per amd to desktop "feel". Don't ask me.
Last edited:
slow down... one thousand one, one thousand two… take a deep breath... now exhale. Rest assured, you’re all right - you did a good job testing the stuff, you provided relevant data and you showed extensive knowledge of the subject - thank you.
Now what do you think about a 1u thin cooler with a say30 or 40 watt pelt on the vid card. Geuss that belongs in a different forum. Should work though. 40x.75= 30 watts plus about 20 or so from the vid is 60 watts. Hmmm, think it will work....:)
at the same clock speeds, XP's are marginally (less than 10%)faster than the Thunderbirds. 'nuff said.