Slashdot Mirror
New AMD Athlon 2600 Processor Released
Ertai writes "Looks like the latest AMD processor is out today, and is taking it right to Intel! Running at 2.13 GHz, the Athlon XP 2600+ is reviewed at Amdmb.com. The benchmarks show that the new Athlon on a 'revision B' Thoroughbred core with the frequency increase is able to beat out the Pentium 4 2.53 GHz processor on almost every test. Not only that, but it is a good overclocker as well! Check it out." AMD's press release on the topic also notes a Athlon 2400 was released as well.
Old school hackers everywhere rejoice.
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
Now I just need to buy one of these badboys along with a new motherboard that will support it...
;)
Then switch to scsi so my hd can keep up. Change from PC133 to PC150 ram, might as well get a raid system, a new video card, and toss on a gigabit network while I'm at it
Anandtech has some alternative review links over here including the more in-depth (and perhaps more objective?) review, at Tom's.
Slow down!! All you young whipper snappers in such a hurry! Back in my day all we had was a Commodore 64, and we were *thankful* to have it!
My poor Pentium II 333 Mhz just can't keep up
*sigh*
"Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
But can the 2.1 Ghz Athlon run in SMP mode like the 2.5 Ghz Xeon?
One thing that the Pentium 4 still seems to hold over the Athlon is operating temperature..
My 1.5GHz Athlon(1800 XP) still churns out a fair whack more heat than my 2.2GHz Pentium 4.
And no, a liquid nitrogen cooling system is not the answer to my problem..
If you read the review of the new processor by Anandtech you will find that the processor hasn't hit mass production yet. This is more of a paper launch much like what Intel did with the 1ghz P3 back when the 1ghz Athlon was released. It still won't be another month or two until we see mass production and then commericial avalibility. But the numbers sure do look nice :) Good to see AMD can still get some higher speeds out of the .13 process!
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
Of course, Intel just announced it's 2.8GH due out next week.
Mr. Pabst has a review too.
Wait about 6 more days until the Pentium IV 2.8Ghz comes out....
2.8Ghz...my first computer didn't have that many MHz
Saw the same thing over at Toms Hardware Guide. And it was overclocked to 3100+
Remember: If you buy anything from spammers, you have a small penis.
Games? Video compression/editing? You say a Celeron doesn't affect your daily work, even if it could be nicer for gaming. What about the millions whose daily "work" is gaming?
There are still customers who have reasons to continue upgrading their computers.
Heck, if I had to, I'd upgrade my computer to play NWN on. I don't need to, but I *would* have to if I only had a Celeron 600.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Well, it's not too long until AMD starts using their new Clawhammer architecture with the introductory processor being similar to a 3400+. And then it's a whole new ball game when it comes to scaling.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Not to mention, that if you look at the comparison here you see that AMD is kicking out a chip which as 1/3 fewer transistors, and just over half the size of Intel's P4, yet is faster. I understand Intel is supposedly gearing up for higher clock speeds or multiprocessing or what have your, but still it is impressive that AMD is besting Intel with a chip which has 1/3 less transistors and is half as big. They must be doing something right.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
http://athlonxp.amd.com/overview/quantiSpeedArchi
Anyone who has taken an OS course (ugh, NachOS) knows the pains of TLB management -- I really would like to see the 'voodoo constants' they used. (Background: the clock-hand approximation of LRU is one of those "voodoo constants" -- most of physics is filled with "voodoo constants" -- likewise...programming an OS is filled with them. If you've ever looked at SPRITE and LFS, the i/o data burst rate suggests that the time-slice should be ~8 seconds -- etc etc. I'd _really_ like to know AMD's voodoo constants.) =)
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
'I will answer you from the mouth of my canon' - Le Marquis de Montecalm to General James Wolfe
Intel releases their 2.8ghz chip next week. The speed battle trundles on.
Of course, it's getting boring now; Intel has mostly reclaimed the performance crown from the usurper AMD, and the Athlon core is showing its age, and AMD is facing new problems with clockspeed. The previous Thoroughbred core had problems increasing clock speed due to signal propagation issues and AMD had to add another metal layer to optimise the wiring layout. Think about it, at 2 billion clock cycles every second, there isn't a lot of time for a signal to get from one side of the CPU to the other, and unlike NetBurst(the P4 core) the Athlon core really isn't designed to take signal propagation issues into account - hence why Intel is rapidly scaling up the clock speed while AMD is struggling (I calculate the P4 can probably hit at least 7-8ghz before signal propagation becomes a problem again). AMD has managed to stretch out the life of the Athlon core, but I'm not sure what they're going to do next; signal propagation speed isn't easy to solve without a complete redesign of the core. Although the TB can hit 2.4ghz, beyond that I can't see the processor continuing to increase in speed. For AMD's sake, I hope that lasts them until they can get Hammer based chips on the market.
Still, it doesn't keep me up at night. Intel is ramping up clock speed as regularly as clockwork, AMD is keeping up (for now). Wake me up when something interesting happens.
Actually, I am looking forward to the 3ghz since I've heard, well, rumours that Intel is enabling SMT on it. Finally, an innovation! Seriously though, SMT is pretty cool, it gives the processor the ability to run two threads at once. The main thread is slightly slower than it would be if the chip didn't do SMT (a couple of percentage points), but the CPU can use its unused resources to run a second thread at about 15-20% of full speed.
So look back in December/January. Intel's releasing SMT chip, and AMD might be releasing Hammers. Until then the Intel vs. AMD battle will continue to be boring!
Try OpenOffice.org as a replacement for MS Office. You'll find you need the 2+ GHz processor to get anything done.
I wonder if the Dresden fab where these are made is under water.
You might want to look at Serial ATA, then. And yes, Intel is one of the designers of the spec.
CPU performance will be a factor again within a couple of years. Software developers just have to get used to the headroom and realise the true implications of what they can do now. I'm working on some software right now (planning to release it under a BSD license now, but I have plans for a commercial release at some point in the future) which would heavily tax a modern CPU. And yes, it actually provides some *gasp* value. And no, it has nothing to do with video editing. :P
Be patient! We'll find something to do with your excess clock cycles soon enough.
AMD's 2.1ghz running better and faster then Intel's 2.5ghz. I wonder how Intel's marketing department is going to spin this?
Easy...
"2.5 GHz inside"
bp
'I will answer you from the mouth of my canon' - Le Marquis de Montecalm to General James Wolfe
I'm sorry, but the quote is from Frontenac to William Phips in 1690: "Je n'ai point de réponse à faire à votre général que par la bouche de mes canons et à coups de fusil".
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
This announcement is very important for one reason. Competition. Intel has had the CPU lead since the April release of the 2.4 GHz Pentium 4. The June release of the Athlon 2200 had to be a disappointment for AMD, since it not only was slower than the Pentium, but also had very little overclocking possibilities, which should have been possible due to the move from .18 to .13 micron production process. The only thing that the 2200 had going for it was price.
This was a serious problem for AMD and for competition in the CPU market. The Athlon line has always promised leading edge performance. It was key to legitimizing AMD as not just a low cost knock off of Intel, but competition where the margins are, at the top end.
Now AMD has regained if not a lead, then at least parity with Intel. And what is more important, several reviewers are saying there is a large overclocking potential with the 2400 and 2600 (The 2600 runs by default at 2.13GHz, and AnandTech overclocked to 2.4 and Tom's hardware overclocked to 2.6GHz, but only for a short time). What this means is that there is headroom in the design for much faster processors.
One thing to remember is that this is not only important for the desktop (where one could successfully argue that all this speed is overkill). This also effects the Linux server market, where this speed is needed.
Without serious competition at the top end, Intel produces slower, more expensive products. Competition is the key force driving the CPU market, and we have all benefited. Except maybe Intel's profits.
Ok, stupid rhetorical question, because some gamer with far too much time on his hands is just yearning for a few more fps, a few more Mhz, and that will make everything in his pathetic life okay. Until the next new processor.
But for the rest of us, who really needs it? I'm running dual-processor PIII-1Ghz in all of my machines. Why? Because they are dirt cheap and good enough. I can slap two PIII's on a dual m/b for around $300. And it screams (loud enough for just about anybody except Joe MegaGamer). I can do office work, CAD work, design work, run a server, etc, etc.
People talk about the "Mhz myth", but I think a lot of them miss the point. It isn't whether a 2.53Ghz P4 is faster than a 2.1Ghz Athlon. It's whether or not you even need that much processor speed in the first place. Does a web browser run any better on a 2.53Ghz P4 than on a 500Mhz PIII? I doubt it.
A friend of mine had his workstation (1.7Ghz P4) burn out on him, so I loaned him my laptop (700Mhz PIII) to use until he got a new board. A short while later, he asked me how I upgraded such an old laptop to a P4? I told him I didn't, it was a PIII. He was quite surprised because he didn't see much difference between it and his old workstation. If it hadn't been for the fact that he was heavily invested in DDR memory (which won't work in older PC133 SDRAM sockets), I think he would have opted for a dual PIII when he bought the replacement.
Look at the Lightwave and 3dsmax benchmarks, where code optimized for the P4 kicks AMD's butt.
.NET 2 or whatever is P4 optimized? How likely is it that Adobe and other big players start optimizing their code for the P4?
How likely is it that Visual Studio
Depending on how you feel about the above questions is how much it matters what AMD can do with less transistors.
Then again, cost is also a issue, and Intel just can't win there.
Hopefully they can undo the damage that Cyrix did, releasing a "PR400" part that was 400 only when compared to a theoretical Pentium with a FSB of 66MHz running Doom, but only had about the performance of a 266Mhz P2 running Quake, which would have made a much more reasonable comparison for the time period.
For a much better discussion of the subject, check out JC's.
Bryan
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I could see holding back on multiproc systems when the big manufacturers were preloading Win98/ME, but doesn't Win2kPro and WinXP support multiproc systems? I, for one, will likely make my next PC a multiproc machine.
2600, is that the temperature in Celsius, or Farenheit?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I just upgraded from a Pentium to a dual Athlon MP 2000+ system at home. It raised the temperature in the 11x11 foot room by 8 degrees.
Myth/rumor: The Athlon XP is a furnace of unimaginable heat! I'm getting a Pentium IV! Even though they are slower and more expensive, at least they won't dim the lights then melt them!
The fastest Athlon XP chips dissipate less than 5% more heat than the fastest Pentium IV chips. They can, however, handle more heat before cooking.
Myth/rumor: Tom's Hardware guide is "more objectvice" or even "Tom's Hardware guide is reliable"
I can't believe I read this, even in a Slashdot comment.
Tom's Hardware Guide is infamous among forums such as those at StorageReview.com and among people that actually know what they are talking about for being little more than a hardware review tabloid. Read the reviews! They come to illogical conclusions and sensationalize most of their reviews.
Read the Athlon review in question:
This is AMD's admission that the previous performance scale was set too high, especially when it came to the higher clock speeds.
Umm... Could it be that because the CPU is advancing where the other components such as memory and FSB are not, that it is possible that AMD added another 66MHz to make sure the rating system was still accurate? It isn't like system performance scales linearly with CPU speed when everything else sits still. Whoever thinks that Tom's Hardware is a good place to get hardware reviews doesn't have a clue about hardware!
Read Tom's glorious review of the KT266a vs the Nforce where despite there being less than a 5% difference between the chipsets and despite the Nforce outperforming every one of the many KT266a that outnumber it greatly in some tests, their "conclusion" was Conclusion: KT266A Trounces nForce 420D - Soltek is Front-runner
Tom's has had some good reviews, and most of the reviews BY TOM HIMSELF are pretty good, but most of the reviews are from his editors, and the proof is in the reviews--they are making Tom's Hardware more of a tabloid than a legit hardware review site, riding on the reputation that Tom made for the site years ago. I know, I was once an avid Tom's reader and am disgusted how the once clear and thoughtful reviews have turned into manic drivel.
If you want reviews that are actually well thought out, intelligent, and have sane conclusions based on mere facts, try Ace's Hardware, Ars Technica, and Anandtech.
Ace's Hardware reviews are clearly the best and most researched, but they are few and far between. Want an excellent review of current and future memory technologies written with the help of actual engineers? Read Ace's Hardware.
Ars rarely has hardware reviews, but when they do the reviews are good.
Anandtech is a good all-around major review site that as far as I can tell has never been biased, but is a little bit too PC for me. (that's Politically Correct, not the other one)
Is Tom's biased? Read the reviews! They aren't biased in a classic sense as far as I can tell, that is, they don't "always favor Intel" or "Always favor AMD"; rather they are often biased against one or the other. They will post stories that are clearly opinionated bullshit from ignorant tech writers that tend to have a bias against one or ther other. This is a mystery to me as they surely piss off both AMD and Intel all the time, and don't make any friends in the process. Overall, I wouldn't say that bias is a big problem at Tom's Hardware as much as stupid technical writers that don't know what they are talking about is a problem.
Want more examples? Point me to a review at Tom's and I'll tell you what's wrong with it (if there is anything wrong with that particular one)
At Tom's--read the reviews by Tom, but everyone else is not trustworthy.
Myth/rumor:
When you hold a seashell up to your ear, you can hear the sea.
Fact: You can hear the same sound reflections by holding a drinking cup up to your ear. It has nothing to do with the ocean. The question is, if you hold a Unix shell up to your ear, can you hear the C?
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
How about a hot-swapped hard drive? 100 gig drives are a hundred bucks - you could get one for each day of the week. Get two sets, so you have last week's stuff too.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden