Slashdot Mirror
AMD Introduces the Athlon XP 2200+
NevDull writes "AMD introduces the Thoroughbred core in the Athlon XP 2200+. Tom's Hardware Guide has a review of the new CPU based on the 0.13 micron core, and subsequently declares the current CPU war to have been won by Intel." Update: 06/10 12:48 GMT by T : DavoHH writes "To add to the list of reviews and benchmarks around the net for the new Athlon XP 2200+,
HotHardware.com has one and also
and also Anand's
and AMDMB." Update: 06/10 13:45 GMT by T : One more: Johan contributes a link to an Ace's Hardware review which tries to answer the question "Does the 0.13 Athlon XP run well an on older motherboard, and does it provide good value as an upgrade?"
Another report can be found at tech-report.
Personally, I'll just wait for the price cuts to take effect, then buy an XP.
This is a winning war for both Intel and AMD. The only ones who lose are us, standing in line forking over 180 bucks for the XP 2000+ and still ready to roll out whatsoever needed to get the new Thoroughbred because it can squeeze out couple of more 3DMark points.
:)
I would have posted more, but I need to run to the local computer shop to check whether they have arrived yet.
Rapid Nirvana
so that must mean that windows xp evokes unix as well, right?
um, sarcasm here kids.
Please don't feed the trolls.
Really? When I think of "XP" it reminds me of the newest version of Windows. Or the last one. Or whatever one Windows XP is.
When I first heard about Athlon XP, the first thought in my head was "don't tell me they're trying to weasel a deal with MS to profit on the stupid Windows XP name".
review at Ace's hardware
Much info about upgrading older boards to the new AMD.
At least here the reviewer make sure that both CPU work with the same memory.
Tom's gives the P4 PC1066, while 95% of the P4 systems are sold with DDR.
Review at Anandtech
Intel may have the higher MHz, and they may be leaving x86 behind soon, but I think that the Hammer series will really hurt Intel if they can't pull people away from x86.
AMD seems to be betting on the difficulty that leaving x86 would cause for many companies, and I can't blame them.
If we all go with Intel's new architecture, we'll soon be needing emulators to run programs from all the under-funded software companies.
And if we lose x86, they'll have to just start calling it XFree. ;)
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
HotHardware.com has there take on the new Thoroughbred AMD Athlons, here as
well.
What I'M waiting for is the Athlon XP 2800+, which will probably be the first AMD chip to run at 2200 MHz.
My 1.1ghz processor is plenty fast enough for me, and will remain so for quite some time.
In terms of tech nuts, AMD has a strong, strong following and lots of brand loyalty - as much, if not more, than Intel.
In terms of people who shop at Staples/Best Buy/etc... They buy what's in the box and tend not to care what's inside. Last time I was at either of those stores, there were more AMD-based boxes on the shelves than ever before.
If we're talking technology alone, it depends what facet you're looking at. Intel processors do better in some areas, AMD in others. With AMD, you always get more bang for your buck, so to speak, as well.
declares the current CPU war to have been won by Intel.
(-1, Ad-impression Seeking Flamebait)
--saint
No, but IIRC, MS has agreed to ship AMD optimized versions of their OS's, as well as the tried-and-true Intel-optimized OS.
Now if I could only find the link...
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
From Tom's Hardware
Simultaneous to the launch of the new Athlon with the T-bred core, AMD has given the following guideline to the motherboard makers: starting June 10, all motherboards must have integrated thermal protection in order to receive certification from AMD. The costs per board for this thermal protection logic runs at approximately less than $1.
Even though it's just $1 per board, that can really add up. I wonder how companies feel about being more or less pushed into this...
-Tolerate my intolerance
to see that Intel has viable competition.
In spite of AMD "losing" the so-called CPU wars, they're still a winner in my eyes.
Geek life would be much different if we had only one viable CPU vendor (shades of Micro$oft, Batman!!!).
I've been using AMD chips in my x86 boxes since early days of the K6-2 and I've been very satisfied. The only reason that CPU prices are anywhere CLOSE to reasonable is that Intel has real competition.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
You see, in the middle of the article there is a list of comparative prices ($ per chip when buying 1000). The prices for a xx00 P4 are almost exactly the same as for a xx00+ Athlon, except for the highest end chips ($600 for the P4 2500).
So it seems as if Intel is finally challenged enough by AMD that they actually have to have the same prices for the same 'PR' in the mid-range. In my view that is a win for the consumer.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1635
Their conclusion in short:
Thoroughbred is more of an evolution to the Palomino core than a revolution. In other words, nothing new except minor speed increases to the end user. No special architecture changes, except decreased transistor amounts to allow higher clock frequencies and perhaps a bit lower prices as well.
After attempting to overclock their Thoroughbred @ 1.8 GHz, they observed there was almost no overclocking potential at all, leading to some doubts to whether AMD will keep up with Intel that well until their Hammer processors is ready.
So the Thoroughbred core seem to extend the Athlon XP lifetime with perhaps a few more 66 MHz jumps from the current 1.8 GHz, but will probably never get more than a 10-20% performance increase above the Athlon XP "Palomino" 2100+. From Anandtech's analysis, I'd think the best Thoroughbreds will end around a "2600+" performance rating.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Wow, you mean I'm not the only person in the world who isn't a jaded AMD fanatic?
Compackqard advertises with: " Compaq Pressario 6095EA met Intel ® Pentium ® 4 processor 2.2 GHz. Echte GHz voor echte snelheid "
In english: " Compaq Pressario 6095EA with Intel ® Pentium ® 4 processor 2.2 GHz. Real GHz for real performance "
See the Flashy pop up yourself
Guess they don't know about Tom's ?
Ceci n'est pas un sig
Now, maybe this is just me, but is this really the right solution?? I personally don't think so. I mean, sure, it's much better than the processor catching on fire and melting onto your motherboard, but I still think the processor should instead slow down until it reaches a safe temperature. Hell, the Pentium IV does this, why don't the new AMD chips??
If my heatsink fell off on a server, I would not want the system turning off, I would want it staying on. I mean, it won't do too much good being on in that state, but at least there is no data loss in that situation.
Honestly, I think lack of core speed slowdown in the case of an overheat is the only thing keeping me from buying an AMD. I was really hoping their new chips would have that ability; I guess I'll have to keep waiting. If anyone knows if AMD is planning on implementing this, please let me know!
no, but it does use (read cut-n-paste) the FreeBSD networking stack
I'd just like to point out you've been owned by AC, thanks
Whats the fastest offering by Intel and AMD that is:
- Easily available
- Happily copes with *most* processor intensive applications
- Doesn't cost the earth
Yes I know a lot of this is subjective, but I have a P2-400 at the moment and I'm thinking of boosting the speed a tad, but don't really know what my *realistic* options are. A processor running at 700 gigahertz is going to be nice but probably out of my range price-wise and more than likely won't be used to it's fullest.Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
My current system that I run at home is between a 450 and a 233. Though this does not include the two system that I have both running dual 533. Considering where I was before, upgrading from an overdriven 486/pentium 83mhz to the current 450, that is a 542 percent increase in the clock rate. Ironically though, I aleady had 128MB in my old 83mhz and even my 450 only has 128mb... quite sad.
:-)
The only justification that I will see in getting a new computer anytime soon is when I see some 3GHZ machines. (That is again about a 550 percent increase in clock rate).
At the rate new chip designs are coming out, I think I will have more chips to choose from than underwear. I can keep waiting.
NO! You don't say?!? The P4 2.53 GHz is able to outperform the Athlon 2100+? You must be kidding! Now had this been an Athlon 2500+ versus a P4 2.53, I might care.
Smaller memories are always faster (when comparing similar technologies). Registers, being the smallest memory, are the fastest. Followed by the L1, then L2, then main memory, and then disk.
AMD's huge L1 cache probably contributes to the difficulty in ramping up the clock rate. An L1 cache must be able to respond to a data access within usually 1-2 clock cycles. Many computer architectects believe that the size of the L1 cache should be less than 10% the size of the on-chip L2 cache. AMD's chips have L1 caches on the order of 25% the size of the L2. Such a large L1 probably cannot keep up with increasing clock frequencies.
Intel chips have very small L1 caches as compared with AMD. T
What you say!!
np
Isn't the numbering scheme supposed to denote the approximate P4 clock rate the chip is equal to? If that's true then I'll skip the 2200 and go for the 2.53 ghz P4 on the 533mhz frontside bus. That is of course, if i had the $500 to drop for it. Now alls I want is for all those neat technologies we've been hearing about in regard to the P4 architecture to really take off. Hyperthreading and such.
.cig - what you do after winning a good flame war
Hector de J. Ruiz called up Craig Barrett and congratulated him on his hard won victory, vowing "To never compete against the might of Intel again.". Elsewhere Slashdot decides to stop posting sensational "fox" style news.
But seriously is Chris D pushing an Intel slant, was the submission and intel plant, or were both suffering from prepubescent undulation and subsequent let downs for getting "the latest(tm)" new toy. What were you expecting, the same chip got a face lift, die change, and was rearranged a bit, in preparation for it's next chip move. I hope the opening paragraph was a tongue in cheek, otherwise it's no better than the lamers that screamed Intel sucks when they finally admitted that slot1 was a bad idea, and that maybe they shouldn't have had sexual relations with the Rambus debacle.
I hope this AMD XP 2200+ is no longer defective at RC5 timing tests compared to recent Macs.
A dual Motorola G4 mac totally blows away every 2002 workstation at up to four times the price of other workstations!
A 2,680 thousand dollar laoded Apple Mac (with DVD-R burner, etc) gets a sustained RC5 benchmark keyrate of 21,129,654.
A dual 1800+ AMD MP on a great board usually gets only HALF! 10,807,034 rc5 keys !!!!
Single chip AMD motherboards get less than 10,807,034 rc5 keys, including this new one discussed above.
I Have no idea if people have run a benchmark to see if the AMD defects have been remedied.
The source code to the core of RC5 is downloadable, as is the source for the Altivec portions used on Macs.
The dual G4 1Ghz macs also have a L3 cache that might help with RC5 key cracking, while AMD mobos typically have no L3 cache.
Amazing still.... even touching cold memory AMD is slower than mac for writing coupled with some
simultaneous pending reading according to memperf
Here's RC5 Processor Comparison
Processor MHz CPU's Key Rate
PowerPC G4 1000 2 21,129,654
EC Alpha 21264 725 8 11,536,680
AMD Athlon Tbird 1533 2 10,807,034
Intel Pentium 3 1333 2 7,559,280
Intel Xeon 1000 2 5,835,597
Intel Pentium 4 1800 2 4,870,420
Sun UltraSparc III 750 2 2,977,968
Sun UltraSparc II 450 2 1,458,333
For binary only available code though, most binaries are more optimally hand optimized for intel world obviously
, rather than apples new supercomputers but if you can get control of source code to compile yourself macs dominate.
There is a well respected list called Top500.org (top 500 fastest computer clusters) Intel and AMD are rarely on the
list compared to PowerPC, and more amusing Apple's rackmounts and Apples Dual G4 1Ghz boxes are far cheaper per gigaflop.
There is a scientifically sound suite of 10 C benchmarks called ByteMark that performs 10 discrete types of tasks.
Some complained that it fits in L3 cache that macs macs much faster than Intel or AMD... that may be a fair complaint,
but RC5 fits in L2 and L1 caches that all sub 3000 dollar dollar computers share.
Imagine 21,129,654 Keys sec on the latest Dual PowerPC chips for sale now!
Also, imagine the shamefully LOWER rate that I guarantee this Athlon XP 2200+ gets.
All source is equally lovingly optimized by hand for both platforms. Amusingly, Altivec optimizing on Macs is done by C compilers usually with no assumbly skills needed at all.
Please post best score if anyone has it. Or post a ByteMark benchmark test suite score.
Intel P4 2.53Ghz: $535
AMD Athlon XP 2200+: ~$250
Intel price is from Pricewatch, AMD is a guess based on two sightings here and here, and past release prices.
Still, it's going to be exciting, because the arrival of the Barton, with its larger L2 cache, is imminent. And VIA is working on the KT400 chipset, which is supposed to bring DDR 400 with 200 MHz to the Socket 462 platform. Thus, the race has not yet come to an end - the means are ultimately the goal!
Intel may have won a battle, but the war is far from over.
We often laugh about the upgrade craze, but I think we all feel the upgrade urge, especially when running games at high resolutions and also simply using several of the latest and greatest desktop apps and diversions. The slowest machine still in use in our home is my wife's ancient 1 GHz PIII overclocked to 1.33 GHz. A hellofa machine in it's day, but even with 512 MB of PC133, Internet Explorer will chug pretty hard when loading a page using one or more newer plugins. A fresh reinstall of XP and installation of the latest revs of her apps and plugins speeds things up a good deal, but still nowhere near as fast as our faster machines... and it just goes downhill from there with the 5 month cycle of "Windows Rot".
And me... well, as I keep upgrading, I get spoiled and used to things happening faster and faster with each new machine. I'm sure someday I'll look back and laugh about the days when a kernel compile took more than a few seconds!
AMD just has a speed/heat problem. Given the benchmarks, don't you agree that if the Athlon could run at the same MHz than a P4 (and have about the same FSB...), then it will topple Intel way too easily? I don't think the technical implementation is any problem...
HardOCP got theirs up to 2025MHz (which they say would be a 2500+ part)
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Both AMD and Intel regularly release new silicon rated at higher clock cycles. This isn't really that big of a deal. Tom's Hardware likes to make a statement rather than pull their punches, so it doesn't surprise me to see something meaningless like "Intel has won the CPU war". Many gamers now swear by AMD, and the damage to Intel's reputation will need to be repaired over time. Intel's deaper pockets may be churning out CPUs which are beating AMD's recent releases in Tom's comparisons, but the trust issue with consumers will lag behind the realities of comparitive performance, just as it used to in Intel's favor. AMD is winning the popular war even with their losses in specific battles.
It may not matter if Intel can deal with heat more effectively than AMD. The AMD CPUs are much cheaper and those with big concerns over heat will drop over $100 on a heatsink/fan.
The CPU war isn't nearly over. Even if Intel continues to win these individual skirmishes, they will still have to demoralize AMD's faithful. Intel may have bigger "weapons", but AMD has something that Intel doesn't to the same extent: trust, loyalty, and support as an underdog.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
I spend more of my time trying to make my computers quiet than worrying about performance. To be able to upgrade from my 1GHz thunderbird to a 1700+ thoroughbred and see a 9% decrease in heat dissipation is good news.
The only time I am soley conserned with performance is when upgrading my server, and for that I will be waiting for the hammers. A recent hammer review at THG showed an 800MHz hammer out-perform a 1600Mhz pentium 4, and that was just for 32 bit tasks.
As soon as the hammer is available at a decent frequency (AMD might start with a ~1500 model) the race for performance will be on again, so for now I am not too surprised that AMD arn't doing that much to keep the XP on the bleeding edge (more cache will help, but it is hardly revolutionary).
Right now VIA are winning more of my CPU money for their excellent C3, but that is purely a heat thing. Unfortunately they aren't suitable for my server or games box.
Still, with all these companies comming to market with different viewpoints the choices have never been so good, I think these are interesting times for CPUs and as much as I like AMD, I am glad that neither they nor any other company is at the top for too long because complacency always puts a damper on things.
In my PC, I tend to upgrade at least one significant component every two or three months. What's interesting about the computer industry today is that often times, by the time I've done some research and talked with users of some new component, there's already a cheaper/better/faster replacement!
Not that I'm complaing... it's just so different from the original Pentium days. Heck, that Pentium 60 lasted me for almost two years! My gosh how times have changed... my 1 GHz PIII was quite outdated just eight months after it was built... and ancient a few months after that. Today, overclocked, it's my wife's MSIE/Office box.
What a crazy industry... I wonder where it's headed next?!
You don't have to be a moron to get burned (heh heh). I have actually seen the Socket A heatsink clips break - it happened on a motherboard of mine and left me with a dead 1GHz T-bird. The weird thing was, it happened while I was at work. The computer wasn't being moved or jarred or anything like that, and it had been installed for a couple months already.
That said, it's not AMD's fault that no heatsink manufacturer is making a reasonably priced heatsink that screws into the mounting holes found on virtually every Socket A board. The only ones I've seen are nearly as expensive as a new CPU, and since you're going to replace the CPU in 6 months anyway, why spend that much for the heatsink?
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
so, amd did shrink the core to 0,13, but .. nothing else ? so, we get roughly a 2% speed increase :(
..
lets hope that amd manages to bump up speed on this core
...but cute snail!
I have been upgrading off and on over the last four years on a regular basis so it seems. Now, i tend to have more spare parts and junk laying more than ever. My main CPU is a three-month old 1.6 GHz machine running XP Pro and a secondary machine (A really old 1.2 GHz Athlon) running Linux with GNOME. I have two others that are a P3-800 and an P3-600. One is doing IRC logging while the other collects dust. I will, once again, probably upgrade by January 2003. I have a feeling that things will smooth out unless the next generation of Apps get more memory/space hungry. Rightfuly so, I have chucked IDE for SCSI U-160 drives. The IDE was just choking up the system as far as I am concerened... the U-160 and high-speed drives do fine when process huge databases that I work with... I'm out...
As much as I hate to say it, it looks like AMD is in trouble in the performance race with Intel. Even with the die shrink of the Thoroughbred, the 2200 is disipating 68 watts. This does not leave much room for increasing the MHz, and adding cache in the Barton core will only make it worse. I really hope they have an ace up their sleeve...
Once CPU's passed 300mhz, I stopped looking at the number and more at the price. That's the only really important number to consumers now. Not counting hardcore gamers or people who need the fastest machines on earth. Now if only both of them would focus on lower heat, and quieter designs.
Of course if I ever get back into gaming, I might change my story and lust for the fastest system. Then again, by that time, I won't need anything faster than a 2ghz anyways. Especially with the way the video card are improving these days, CPU ceases to be a major factor in gaming. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing improvements in bus and bandwidth will do more for realism in 3D than CPU clock speed.
Athlon(TM) inside -
Global warming outside
Gee, tell that to the simulation folks I work with! We've got a good half-dozen recent-vintage Linux servers also in use as desktops. At least once a week someone comes by to ask why my machine is running so slow. The answer is that I have a genuine Intel 2GHz processor. The "1.7+" and even "1.6+" AMD machines kick my Intel's butt. These AMDs have clock speeds at least 25% slower than my Intel's, but their throughput is 20-40% better. I never really believed in "clock equivalence" bullshit before, but I do now!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I've always been a man who believes that you get what you pay for. Sure I can save money by purchasing this new 2200+ (which acts like a P4 2.4 by tom's tests) but then I have to worry about getting an AMD approved board so my chip doesn't fry. And then I have to make sure my heat sink has a copper connect. And then I have to worry about crushing the core of the CPU when applying this new heatsink. Seems like a risky endevor all together!
SO to avoid all these headaches and pitfalls I'm just going to spend a few bucks more and get me a P4 with a solid heat spreader, built in CPU heat protection, and dozens of motherboard to choose from. I don't upgrade in less than 500MHZ bumps, so I don't do it all that often. Its worth the money for the peace of mind.
--Should work--
Read here and the author tells you how The Pentium 4 finally takes the speed crown as AMD falls asleep at the wheel
These are really great read.
Why couldn't this article have been written by Tom? He doesn't write any articles anymore. He just has his stupid lackeys write the most brain-dead articles ever while his name is being dragged through the mud. Not only that but this is one less worthwhile tech site. As it is I can count the worthwhile tech sites on one hand.
If people think Intel has won the CPU war, they've kind of deluding themselves.
Remember, the AthlonXP 2200+ is essentially a shrunk-down CPU core based on the current Palimino core design. That means it still has the same 256 KB of L2 cache. What happens when AMD's new Barton CPU core with the 512 KB L2 cache arrives later this year? I think AMD CPU performance will take a major jump once that happens, and will become competitive with the Intel Northwood-core Pentium 4's with their 512 KB L2 cache.
Is it small wonder why Intel is spending large amounts of money to develop the Prescott core Pentium 4 on the 0.09-micron process and 1024 KB L2 cache? At 1024 KB L2 cache, that's reaching Xeon-class server CPU territory.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
I would say that frequency headroom shouldn't be judged by these early shipments. AMD has a history of "slow" starts - historicaly due to lesser (financial) commitment to process switches.
Over at Van's Hardware there seam to be some suggestions, that these early Thouroughbreds are optimized for low power dissipation (ie for mobile).
Why do you think so many gamers stuck with Win98 over 2000? because it could run their old stuff. Nobody but a select few will want to abandon their old gaming library for a handful of new games when they can just get an AMD chip and maybe miss a few clock cycles they could have had with an Intel (if this speed difference exists once this bruhaha hits the fan), which at current CPU speeds is negligible anyway, considering that they're already running at unprecedented high speeds that unless game studios make bad programming decisions that will bump up system requirements to ridiculous levels, nobody should even notice at that point.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
And they have their roots in the 8008/8080: when introducing the 8088, Intel gave a list of corresponding instructions between 8080 and 8086, to help in automatically converting 8080 assembly programs to 8086.
The main purpose of instructions like LAHF/SAHF for example is to allow to emulate the 8080 push/pop accumulator+flags (lahf+push ax=push af in Z80 assembly). Sorry for using Z80 menmonics, but I can never remember original 8080 mnemonics, they were so incredibly inferior to the Z80 :-)
Another example: why do you believe that x86 shift and rotates instructions only affect the carry and overflow flags: you guess, because they only affected the carry in the 8080, which had no overflow flags (hint: overflow is not in the lower byte of the flags on x86 processors, so they did not care about it, but for not affecting zero and sign bit was necessary to simplify conversion of assembly programs).
Need I continue...
It's another chip. Whoop-de-doo.
What's the point of having categories at all if you put stuff like this in "News" rather than "AMD"?
i can infer that it's the quantity of workable units that come off a wafer, but is that correct? why not just use the word yield, then?
didn't find anything informative with a quick googling.
stored on computers from birth to the grave
Anyone else think it's fishy to say Intel has won the war when they are comparing essentially a 1.8 GHz AMD chip to a 2.8 GHz Intel?!
The AMD 1.8 KNOCKS THE SOCKS off of the Intel 1.8 and i'm sure that when the AMD 2.8 GHz processors arrive, they will dominate anything Intel has availible.
This is the main reason I REFUSE to believe anything that comes off of Tomshardware.com. It may look like the Intels won benchmark-wise, but just remember, this comparison is like racing a new Jetta against a new RX-8.
AMD RUELS!!!
Linux is dead.
LU
Athlon XP 1900+: $114 Pentium 4 2000mhz: $235 Athlon XP 1400+: $80 Pentium 4 1600mhz: $146 Ok, effectively equal processors (in the Benchmarks Tom's provides) but the Athlons cost nearly half as much! Maybe the fastest pentium is slightly faster than the fastest athlon (an exponentially more expensive), but I think you'd be nuts to pay twice the price just for the name. Tom's is mixing statistics in saying that since SOME pentiums are better than athlons that ALL pentiums are better than athlons. It's a harmful message that could cause consumers to overspend a great deal of money.
You seem to be following the idea that the average user never learns
to expand their use of the computer beyond basic application and
single user functions (one main program at a time).
But, the vast majority of users of modern systems do not run in single app
space. What degrades systems for most users is not the single "killer app"
that is meant to take advantage of the fullest potential of the computer;
it is all the low level, background apps and services that are put in to
improve the usabilty of the system for the end-user.
The average user probably runs more of these "gee whiz" utilities than
the "power user", and that has a cumulative impact on performance.
For the average user, the benefit it in making the computer a more
user-friendly device; for the power user it is about making the
system more efficient for the few apps that the "need" to get the
most potential out of.
You point out the Ars Technica recommendations; as a baseline, perhaps,
for what market segments various users may fall into.
Yet, at the same time those recommedations themselves have been recently
updated, showing that the needs of the users do change over time as
new technology comes along for them to make use of.
What more CPU gets you varys with the user, from the true geek to the
absolute newbie, that perception is different for each one. But the
value remains the same: to improve the ability of the system to respond
to the users needs.
just finished reading Toms review. ok, so he benchmarking the new XP 2200+ with what, a P4 2500 something??? ok, granted, the AMD is comparable to a 2200GHz P4, but not quite the 2500 something or other they ranit against...of course the P4 is gonna win(and charge 2x the cash as well).
whatever happened to comparing "LIKE" items???
the history of the world
Clearly, the Thoroughbred would be a more compelling upgrade with a bigger L2 cache and a faster FSB, but the die shrink is worth something: it's down about 10 W.
Still, for a quiet system, I'd consider the 1 GHz C3, which runs at a miserly 12 W.
Tom's rhetoric is based on the impressive benchmarks of the Northwood (0.13u, 512 KB) Pentium 4 with a 533 MHz FSB and dual-channel Rambus 1066. I suspect that you have a Willamette (0.18u, 256 KB) Pentium 4 with a 400 MHz FSB and Rambus 800 or DDR.
I agree that the rhetoric is exaggerated, but the Pentium 4's high-MHz design is starting to pay off. If AMD is to stay competitive, they'll have to look at a larger L2 cache and a faster FSB to match the DDR 166 and 200.
THG may have declared Intel's P4 the winner, but I have a different criteria. I am looking at performance I can AFFORD. And this is exactly where the Athlon comes in. I also realize, that I do not need the fastest CPU in order to have a good performing system. My machines run Duron/900, Athlon/1.2GHz, Dual P2/266, PentiumPro200 and K6-233's. I play games on the faster machines and get real work done on the slower ones. And, with the right hard drive subsystem (SCSI), you can tell the difference between the faster and the slower machines, but it is not unbearable.
As for value, I just built a system for a friend of mine and he did not want to spend too much. So we settled on an AMD 1800+ and that machine just rocks. Anything is almost instantenous. Another friend bought a Sony 1.8GHz P4 box and when I helped him set it up for networking, I was staring at the hour glass quite a lot. I am sure it WAS fast, but it FELT slow.
Anyway, the bottom line is, I like Athlons, I like their performance and I like especially their price. If it was not for AMD, we'd still be using P3's at 700MHz at $600 per CPU. Think about it.
getting the latest and greatest requires 1 ghz for office.
ridiculous
maybe hes pointing out the ridiculous, but I guess you are correct he is stupid since he did not take into account that were going to need 2 GHZz to run winblows and office XP2!
He said "simulation folks." That means intensive floating point. All P4s have terrible performance in their scalar floating point unit (the Northwood isn't fundamentally any better at all in this regard) and a 2.0, even a Northwood, would indeed gets its butt handed to it by an Athlon 1600+ or 1700+ in terms of FPU performance. Very unlikely such code has been adapted to the P4's array FPU (SSE2) yet. If/when that happens, the comparison could easily tip the other way.
AMDZone.com
Technoa.co.kr
Hardinfo.dk
Active Hardware
Ace's Hardware
Lost Circuits
Anandtech
Hexus
VIAHardware
Racksaver also announced a blade server using 132 2200+s in a 7 foot cabinet!
ignorance is bliss. googlefiberatx.com
go watch star wars again and them come back and complain about the mpaa.
-
We've finally reached the point where it matters more if your processor is stable rather then fast. Software is usually to blame when something dies, but the hard ware plays an important role too. Bad ram == unstable system as well, or an unstable ( overclocked?) processor.
will require a monster video card, not a monster processor, I bet that it will run fine on a 1400 mhz or better intel system, as long as you've got a top of the line video card to support it.
Your video card is probably just as powerful as your processor in todays pc world.
a) Stability: My Duron 800 has been just fine since I bought it in December 2000 (wishes for a freaking heat spreader notwithstanding)
b) Speed: For me, the Duron works fine. No "gaming," no "multimedia." It runs MAME and xmms dandy, as well as encodes my CDs to mp3 in a reasonable timeframe
c) Value: Haven't had to play hand-me-down since I got the Duron, so what's wrong with me?
d) Noise: Not very much -- my older K6 fans make more noise
In responce to 2), if you want a "real" computer, you might want to abandon the x86 arch outright, and go with something SPARC or MIPS based. Depends on what you want to do and how you qualify a given box as a "real" computer, however.
For me, my Duron, being the biggest box I own (and I have like 7 computers), qualifies as "real" for me.
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
Applications, especially bloated Microsoft applications, eat up the CPU, but for most people constant upgrading isn't needed.
The real winners are game players. Besides the ability for game makers to push the limits, it enables us to get the (near?) top of the line system we need (and a bit cheaper) in order to "keep us in the game."
is look at the X-Box... it's got what, a 733mhz CPU?
The graphics on the X-Box are easily as good or better then any pc game. Maybe next year when D3 comes out and if they can't get it tooo look as goon on the X-box then you'll be able to say it sucks, but until then...
On top of it all, the xbox uses celeron model (modified). So basically, they are saying that we need 3 times the mhz to play games that the x-box would have no problem with?
Im just comparing pc games to the x-box because they really have the same architechure.
5% less heat when changing the production process from 0,18 to 0,13 is IMHO a big disappointment.
When AMD announced the new Mobile Athlons the new core seemed to be very promising. Core voltage down significantly, power consumption down significantly. Now the core voltage is just decreased by a mere 0,1 volt and power consumption down by less than 10%.
Very frustrating! Especially when you know, that AMD ships 1,5 Volt-Athlons to NEC for Low-Noise-Office-PCs for Japan.
AMD, LISTEN UP:
Deliver those Low-Voltage-Athlons to all of us. If I could chose between an Athlon 1.8 Gig 1,75 Volt (60 watt) and an Athlon 1,7 Gig and 1,5 Volt (40 watt), I would definetly buy the the 1,5 Volt version. And I am sure, that I'm not the only one who would prefer a quiter PC for 5 % more performance.
Bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
Why aren't processors measured in gigaflops? Why doesn't AMD use that metric?
But rewriting all those apps for 64 bit will not happen overnight. That's why when I look at the options:
A: Buying intel's 64bit chip and suffering until my apps are ported over to 64bit.
-or
B: Buying AMD's 64bit chip and running all my existing apps at roughly double(*) the performance
(and when 64bit apps come out, they will SCREAM.)
I tend to like AMD's plan. I think Intel is in serious trouble unless they either hurt their sales significantly before they can release the Hammer, or if AMD has major problems.
*(current 800Mhz preview seemed to provide around 2x performance, final is expected to be 1.2Ghz).
well this would be because, for instance... an AMD Athlon 1700+ blows the crap out of an intel 1.7GHz chip.
Hell AMD could do what intel does and pump of the MHz and give @#$# performance, would that make you happy?
And who make Tom's the judge of the contest? Who gives a fuck who they "declare" the winner. I'll be the one to decide because in the end I decide with my Wallet. And my wallet likes AMD's chips cause they run nearly as fast with everything and cost 1/2 the price of Intel (at the highest speed). Duh... it's a no-brainer.
<pun> Obey your wallet. Choose AMD =) </pun>
That's exactly what makes declaring Intel the winner so stupid. Sure, they've got the better performing processor, but you'll pay for it if you want that slight advantage. AMD, IMHO, has won the value battle, and that's what matters. Its like declaring Ferrari the horsepower winner over Honda. Well duh, but how many Ferrari's do you see on the road vs. Hondas?
--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]
Holy shit that is fast. Sign me up!
This is a specifically charged issue for me, becuase I just shelled out 108 bucks for a new 1700+ becuase my old one died a hideous smoking death. I also bought a Swiftech heatsink(the one with that inch thick chunk of copper and the 3 inch high 80mm fan).
It is a little annoying that I have to pay more than a 2 thirds the price of the processor itself, just to keep it cool enough. My old one kept overheating and locking up with the stock heatsink, so I replaced it with an aluminum CoolerMaster, which didnt fix the problem; so I went to underclock it to cool her down, but it hacked it's last laugh and sent up a putrifying white plume of opaque electrical depression.
I suggest that everyone who owns a tbird over 900mhz or a palimino over 1200+ buy a $60+ heatsink...with a nice copper base. And the fan isn't loud enough until you cant get to sleep in the next room.
________________
"A man prepared who hesitates, is lost." -Dante The Divine Comedy: Inferno Canto XXVIII, 99
What most non-programmers (and even some "hand-coders" like yourself) don't realize is that most software runs in loops. All you have to do is make your L1 cache big enough to hold a typical inner loop (less than 100 instructions) and you have yourself a 60-80% hit rate. Increase the size of the cache more, and you can enclose the typical outer loop and maybe a few often-called libraries, event handlers, or system calls. From then on, you run into severely diminishing returns. Increasing your cache beyond a hit rate of 95% to 100% (theoretically impossible of course) to compensate for a mere 2-cycle access L2 only buys you an additional ~5% of performance.
Doesn't sound like much of a "tremendous problem" anymore, does it?
From Intel's point of view, approximately 0% of the buyers out there care about the cache size. I'm sure Intel performs due diligence when modeling and selecting an appropriate cache size. When the diminishing returns set in, they know when to draw the line. I don't know about you, but I would prefer Intel spend an appropriate amount of resources on L1 cache and an appropriate amount on L2 cache, then spend the rest of their resources increasing the clock speed and validating the chip to make sure what I buy is bug-free. Surely Intel can better spend those resources on removing speed paths and reducing their cycle time. This has the potential to increase the performance well over the 5% needed to compensate for the additional L1 cache misses.
Comparing one company's top of the line processor with another company's top of the line processor sounds like comparing apples to apples to me.
I still like AMD, I still have two running AMD's at home with one Pentium in wraps on the shelf. An XP 2200+ may very well be comparable to or beat a Pentium IV at 2.2Ghz, but the question is "what is the best available right now?"
I certainly wouldn't run out and spend that kind of cash on one, but there are some "power" users (multimedia editing, rendering, simulation) that are out there buying computers, and want the fastest one they can get.
Right now, Intel is winning.
I don't see where he says anything about Intel giving more bang for the buck, or Intel being a better deal, just that Intel's fastest chip currently beats AMD's fastest chip.
What's the big deal?
People are reacting almost as bad as when NT beat Linux in those tests. If that's all that mattered, it would be a crushing defeat, but it's not all that matters.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Actually, he's right and you're wrong. The new Tualatin core Pentium IIIs have extremely impressive thermal characteristics. You're probably thinking of the old Coppermine core Pentium IIIs, which had serious heat problems at 1.13GHz that led to the infamous Pentium III recall.
For example, these guys say:
The low heat output of the Tualatin Pentium IIIs is the major reason why the Pentium IIIs still remain the preferred CPUs for rackmount server installations where space and heat dissipation are at a premium. I own one of these myself, and the core temperature of the CPU has never risen above my body temperature in the six months or so that I've had it.Hmmm, I was thinking more along the lines of 1x2 GHz AMD, 1GB, RAID 0 Barracuda drives. Any good?
Anyone know if Premiere makes use of SSE2, or other Intel-only tweaks?
TVM
After a few seconds on that thing. I imagine the snail would be come a nice, crispy escargot. Just add a tiny bit of butter and some garlic. Mmmmmm...
With that said, I will say that 1) it is presumptious to declare any winner in the CPU war and 2) it is presumptious to think that he was not being a bit sarcastic himself. Take it as more of a wakeup call to AMD and mobo manufacturers. Personally I have nothing against Intel, but simply could not afford their procs. Since Intel has finally learned their lesson then things are going to be different for awhile.
Intel chips have very small L1 caches as compared with AMD.
Intel chips also generally take more clock cycles to process an equivalent set of instructions. So even though their clocks may switch at a higher frequency, the faster clock does not necessarily translate to faster program completion.
The real problem is that text document you forgot you had open in notepad stops the shutdown process while waiting for your input. The OS couldn't possibly raise the priority of the shutdown to NOW_DAMN_IT level and not wait for the user.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
Welcome to hardware, when you buy something you always know a better one will come out in 6 months. There is no end.
Am I the only one who thinks that the real war isn't based on architecture, but rather marchitecture? I would venture to guess that the average consumer isn't familiar with the latest benchmarks or speed comparisons. Every non-computer-geek person I know hasn't a clue about differences in architecture or what the clock speed really means. They go for the names they know... and that boils down to "Intel" and "Pentium".
I'm behind AMD all the way, but I think they have a long road ahead of them. People are fickle... when windows crashes, they often blame the unfamiliar CPU or even the computer vendor (given that joe consumer is likely to buy from them). And that's if they even stray from the intel name... many are too scared to even consider it...
Im putting buliding myself a brand new PC and i was going to build it with the AMD Athlon XP 2100+ but since the new one just came out natuarlly i have to have it. can anyone tellme where i cna get me one? i mean buy one thats not in premaid machine....
thanx
***ERROR***
Due to lack of Sig Other no Sig shall be used.
***ERROR***