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
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
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
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!
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!
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.
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
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.
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!
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!
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.
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!
Check out Ars Technica Budget Box. Aside from video editing (which most users don't do) and lastest generation first-person shooters, what could more CPU get you? There simply isn't a killer app for these bigger processors. IMHO, their best hope is that they can become big and fast enough that on board video will be as feasible as on board audio and ethernet
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
Hm.. Looks more like a paper written by an Intel fanatic by me. :)
:) Why does he think they stopped at 1.53 instead of proceeding well into the 2 GHz domain when the P3's are sooo good?
After skimming through it, I immediately noticed a few weird things:
"...developers won't write 64-bit code if customers aren't buying and if 64-bit OSes aren't out there..."
Huh? What about Windows XP 64-bit Edition?
And what does he mean with "developers won't write 64-bit code"? Uhmm.. Well, they don't usually write direct 32-bit code either, unless they program on assembly level. Isn't all this the pretty much transparent job of the compiler? I guess new compilers adapted for 64-bit platforms will start having stuff like 64-bit int:s and such things...
"My advice to AMD: drop the 64-bit hype, add the Pentium 4 SSE2 support,"
If AMD will follow their roadmap, they will have SSE2 support later this year. And, again, what's wrong with 64-bit? Intel is doing it too, should AMD just stay away from it and hope there will never be good 64-bit compilers? Where's the logic in that? Apparently, the author sees something great about this idea since it's repeated throughout the article, but I don't get it.
"Since an Athlon XP 1900 loses to a 1.53 GHz Pentium III, shouldn't AMD now give the Athlon XP a lower part number in order to reflect this development? Fair is fair!"
AMD's performance ratings may be stupid, but they was always meant to compare against Pentium 4's. And I seriously doubt that part about a 1.5 P3 being better than an XP 1900+. That would imply Intel is doing a bad job with their Pentium 4's, since an 1900+ is comparable to a P4 1.9 GHz, something the author of course doesn't mention.
"It is just a shame that Intel's marketing people keep trying to kill off the Pentium III in order to promote Pentium 4 sales."
Did he ever even take into consideration that P3's doesn't scale that well anymore? Heat, my friend.
This is just another proof of the author's lack of insight in processor architecture.
"My last 4 Athlon systems have now all either died or failed to work properly"
My first Athlon I've installed worked instantly. The first Athlon a friend installed worked instantly. And it was even one of those super hot Thunderbirds. Cool huh? I'm successfully running an (non-replaced!) Athlon at work. Are we super lucky then?
Nah, this is just a bad attempt on creating some sort of Athlon vs Intel debate...
I'm sure you'll find more weirdness in that article - he even shows of his big ego with this excellent line:
"Intel caught up as expected"
Actually, you only need to read the first paragraph to see where the entire article is heading (and he get to show off his bias too):
"AMD freaks cheered and went back to playing their video games."
Rating: -1 Troll
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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.
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.
go watch star wars again and them come back and complain about the mpaa.
-
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
Let me guess...there's no such thing as a shitty P4 motherboard, while the shitty Athlon boards are jumping out at you left and right? Riiight. Careful selection of components is crucial when configuring any computer.
IHNBT. YHL. HAND.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Let me guess...there's no such thing as a shitty P4 motherboard, while the shitty Athlon boards are jumping out at you left and right? Riiight. Careful selection of components is crucial when configuring any computer.
Exactly! Buy the good shit and you won't be disappointed. Buying a MB with an AMD chipset is always a good start.
I'm a 2000 man.
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).
I wonder if Intel realizes that line of advertising isn't going to work much longer. As each generation grows up, they are more tech savy than their parents. As some point, that line of marketing looks really stupid. Some people will buy into it because they're hardcore ghz freaks.
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]
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.
"but then I have to worry about getting an AMD approved board so my chip doesn't fry."
Slashdot is supposed to be read by those with a clue. What are you doing here?
Entirely too big a deal is made of this. If your heatsink falls off, it was not installed properly to begin with, unless you routinely drop your server from two stories high (and then I bet the CPU won't be the only thing to die)
How, exactly, is a heatsink going to simply "fall off" of the CPU? Even if this were a common occurance, simply get a heatsink that uses the four holes on the motherboard rather than clips and the CPU absolutely, positively, will not fall off.
All that said, Athlons do not fry when just the fan dies. They just get really, really hot. I've installed Windows 2000 on an XP1700+ system whose CPU fan was not plugged in (accidentally, of course) and it worked perfectly. I've accidentally unplugged the fan on one of the CPUs in my system and played a game for half an hour before the system locked up. I then turned it back on, assuming that it was just Windows 2000 again, loaded the game, and it crashed again. When I opened up the case, the heatsink was really, really damn hot but the CPU was fine.
I wish everyone would stop jumping to conclusions and look at probabilities instead of possibilities. Possibilities can extent clear into your imagination and have no real meaning. How many of you that stay away from Athlons for fear of the HS falling off never go outside for fear of a meteorite hitting you in the left eye?
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
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...
BTW, I apologize for my rudeness, but it is getting fairly irritating hearing about that over and over.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra