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?"

Comments

Re:great news for Linux!

[broohd]

so that must mean that windows xp evokes unix as well, right?

um, sarcasm here kids.

Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

how retarded can you be

Re:Idiotic numbering scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

Aye Aye????? Arrrrr!

1 Ghz chips from moto FASTER in benchmarks

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this AMD XP 2200+ is no longer defective at RC5 timing tests compared to recent Macs.

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 !!!!
And the mac is using only 1 Ghz chips. The Ghz myth is a real one. Intel keeps making things hotter and externally faster, meanwhile RC5 on macs is faster than any AMD or Intel ever sold.

Here's RC5 Processor Comparison :
Processor _ _ MHz _ _ CPU's _ _ Key Rate
PowerPC G4 _ _ 1000 _ _ 2 _ _ 21,129,654
DEC 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

So your premise that a 1 Ghz chip is fasest is a correct one. At least in Motorolas case with the RC5 source code benchmark, and accoriding to the benchmarks at Top500.org

TEXT BLOCK IGNORE SECTION' : Ignore this Slachcode override block to above chart to pass lame filter
TEXT BLOCK IGNORE SECTION' : Ignore this Slachcode override block to above chart to pass lame filter
TEXT BLOCK IGNORE SECTION' : Ignore this Slachcode override block to above chart to pass lame filter
TEXT BLOCK IGNORE SECTION' : Ignore this Slachcode override block to above chart to pass lame filter
TEXT BLOCK IGNORE SECTION' : Ignore this Slachcode override block to above chart to pass lame filter
TEXT BLOCK IGNORE SECTION' : Ignore this Slachcode override block to above chart to pass lame filter
TEXT BLOCK IGNORE SECTION' : Ignore this Slachcode override block to above chart to pass lame filter
TEXT BLOCK IGNORE SECTION' : Ignore this Slachcode override block to above chart to pass lame filter
TEXT BLOCK IGNORE SECTION' : Ignore this Slachcode override block to above chart to pass lame filter
TEXT BLOCK IGNORE SECTION' : Ignore this Slachcode override block to above chart to pass lame filter

Re:Funny but True

[Jucius Maximus]

"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"."

Instant -1, Troll to the first person to suggest that this guy's wife loads Mozilla :-) If you don't know why, then please move along...

IANAT (I am not a troll)

Re:I declare the current CPU war meaningless.

[ncc74656]

Good for you....but my experience is somewhat different. I have a 1.5Ghz p4, and I wish I had a faster one because processing large quantities of video is a lot of burden on the CPU.

Even transfering video using IEEE1394 to the computer is such a delicate exercise, that I tend to avoid doing more than 30 minutes at a time. Of course I carefully close down all my programs before doing so, and even then it is a very unstable process. Last night I tried twice, and got dropped frames both times after 30 minutes or so.

What kind of storage are you using? I have a 1.0-GHz Athlon with an All-In-Wonder Radeon. I use a pair of IBM Deskstar 120GXPs in software RAID-0 for capture and editing. I can capture Huffyuv-compressed video at maximum resolution & framerate for at least an hour without dropping frames (one hour is currently the longest I've needed to capture). That involves capture and on-the-fly lossless compression...the video that you're bringing in through FireWire is already compressed (DV, I assume), so it ought to be a simpler matter of moving video from the camcorder to the hard drive.

(It could be the software that you're using. The stuff ATI bundles with AIW cards works OK for capturing MPEG-2, but it sucks at lossless compression. VirtualDub didn't cut it, either...when it worked, the audio and video drifted out of sync. If you have an AIW, look for a program called AVI_IO.)