Slashdot Mirror
AMD's Athlon XP 2700+
kraven_73 writes "According to some Taiwanese sources, AMD will officially reveal its Athlon XP 2700+ processor on the 7th of October. Most interesting is that this CPU will have a 333 MHz FSB. The first implementation of this increased FSB on Athlon platform. It is expected that the novelty will be based on the latest Thoroughbred core stepping 1, just like the current Athlon XP 2400+ and 2600+, and will work at 2.17GHz."
To bring down the price of slower chips to reasonable levels, that's what the point is.
Expensive bleeding edge crap.
I have been pwned because my
TH has this info and advice:
8 26/p4_2 800-16.html
Once again, Intel wages war on AMD, fighting to attain the fastest desktop CPU. AMD is sure to launch the Athlon XP 2800+ soon (in October at the latest), so that it will be able to keep close on the heels of its arch-rival. Intel has also made preparations of its own, with the P4/3066 up its sleeve.
At any rate, the real winner is the ambitious end user, who will be able to choose between the P4/3066 and the Athlon XP 3000+ by the time Christmas rolls around. Both the successor to the P4 and the AMD Hammer won't be available until next year.
As always, price-conscious buyers who are interested in getting the best price/ performance ratio are a bit better off with an AMD Athlon XP than with a P4..
Link here:
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020
Most hardware review sites I've read commented that upping the FSB speed was the best way AMD could reclaim the speed crown...Intel regularly uses much higher FSB clocks with their chips (in the neighborhood of 533 MHz). I may be missing some crucial aspect of AMD's strategy but that seems to be what is holding them back right now, from a high-level standpoint.
"I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
Might as well wait for the Hammer.
The built in memory controller should to wonders for latency. Of course the 64 bit stuff will be a nice future feature to have.
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
A 333MHz FSB is all well and good, but until AMD actually delivers the XP 2400+ and XP 2600+ that they supposedly released a week ago, I'm going to take this sort of announcement with a grain of salt.
I'm still not exactly sure what I need all this speed for.
;) If you have an Athlon 2000+ you should be all set for some time... Even games do not require a processor like that, as the graphics card plays a much more important role in game-performance. I have an Athlon 1200 and a Geforce2GTS, and I have yet to play a game that does not run beautifully.
You probably dont
Processor speeds are most important if you do a lot of heavy number crunching, such as video encoding, etc... or if you just want to kick a$$ on Seti-at-home
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Remember also that today's 'normal user' chips are yesterday's fastest - if chip makers thought the way you did, then we might have stopped with only a few hundred MHz (and of course 740K RAM).
The other benefit is in coding - today's languages are designed with bloat in mind. That's why C++ is better than C (war! war!) - C is more efficient, faster, and therefore better... but C++ on a faster processor is just as fast (or faster), who cares about efficiency, and easier to program and maintain (the whole purpose of OO programming) - the point is, let the RAM and processor take care of the dirty work, and give us the apps to play with. The bloat simply doesn't matter any more. Obviously this is oversimplifying somewhat (peace! peace!) but the principles hold true... just think, if processors were fast enough, and computers were powerful enough, then programming languages could be so powerful (read - idiot friendly) that all you would need to do is fire up your 'Microsoft NaturalLanguage++(h4X0r 3d¦7¦0n)' and type in "/\/\4k3 4 l33t g4/\/\3 4 8¦7 l¦k3 'quake 8'" (make a l33t game a bit like Quake 8 - I'm not very fluent in h4x0r I'm afraid) and it would do all the dirty work for you.
In the short term it's nice when things do start a little bit faster, but for most intents and purposes it doesn't matter. In the long term, when your house central server is automagically ordering your groceries, booking the car in to get a service, paying your bills, playing you two different DVDs in different rooms and some elevator music in the hall, running SETI and PersonalGenomeDecoder (OK, I made that one up) in the background, and the kids are deathmatching with a video-link up to their friends (who live in big plastic bubbles on the moon), and sending all this info and more back to microsoft; only then will you appreciate what these slight incremental power-ups might do in the long term.
This idea was invented by Shampoo.
Ever get addicted to looking for little green
men? Try Seti@Home. Once you are hooked,
you will want to process a workunit as fast
as you can!
Or, if you want to aid humanity another way,
try Folding@Home, where they 'fold' proteins.
There are a couple of zillion ways to fold a
protein, and figuring them out sooner than
later will definately aid people.
Faster CPU's can only help the cause.