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

They're flooding in

[thegrommit]

Another report can be found at tech-report.

Personally, I'll just wait for the price cuts to take effect, then buy an XP.

I declare the current CPU war meaningless.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Idiotic numbering scheme

[Tim C]

I'll bite.

The numbering scheme currently used by AMD for their Athlon chips reflects the speed of the equivalently-performing Intel chip. ie the Athlon XP 2200+ performs at the same level as the P4 2.2GHz, despite running at a lower frequency.

If AMD just quoted the raw GHz figures, everyone would assume that they are significantly slower than they actually are. They would also lose out on price comparisons - on dabs.com, the Athlon 1900+ is only about £8 cheaper than the P4 1.5GHz. The P4 1.9GHz, however, is almost £60 cheaper, a much larger difference (just over a third of the total price of the P4, in fact).

(Note that I am in no way affiliated with dabs.com - they're just the first website I think of when looking at PC component prices.)

Cheers,

Tim

AMD L1 cache is huge

[mrm677]

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

Re:Still wary of buying one though.

[Jucius Maximus]

"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??"

The 'throttling' solution has existed for some months now. In the BIOS (build 1007) of my Asus A7V133 motherboard I can select various actions for when the CPU temperature passes a (user-selectable) threshold: 1. Audio Alert on PC Speaker, 2. Do nothing, 3. Shut Down, 4. Throttle the CPU to a lower speed.

Intel is winning battles, but not yet the war

[EvilAlien]

This is like announcing yet another minor version release in the Linux kernel.

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.