AMD Releases Barton: Athlon 3000+

Harle writes "Today AMD has introduced a new version of the Athlon, codenamed "Barton," that features twice as much L2 cache as previous chips. Along with the increase in L2 cache comes an increase in the Athlon's performance rating -- specifically the new 2.17 GHz chip is rated at 3000+. The clockrate is actually slighly lower than the Athlon XP 2800+'s 2.25 GHz speed, so the question becomes "Does the cache improve performance enough to counter the loss in clockspeed?" For the most part, the answer seems to be "yes," however, it doesn't unilaterally stand up to the 3.06 GHz Pentium 4. With the recent delay of the Athlon 64 to September, this is AMD's top desktop chip for some time to come. The reviews are starting to pop up at Ace's Hardware and Extremetech." There's also reviews on The Tech Report, SimHQ, HotHardware, EarthV, in Norwegian on Hardware.no, and last but not least AMD's press release. I'm sure there's many many more links, but I'm tired of pasting them all in here, so post 'em below. *grin*

Comments

Fakery

[unterderbrucke]

This type of fakery only serves to deceive the consumer, instead of informing then. Instead of lying to the very people who pay their salary, the AMD marketing department should place a call over to Intel and ask to coordinate a marketing campaign explaining the irrelavency of clock speed and deciding a more appropriate way to base the performance of their chips.

Re:Fakery

[cc_pirate]

Entirely fair? This chip gets BITCHSLAPPED by the Pentium 4 3.06 GHz chip.

When AMD started off this stupid arse made up numbers, they were slightly better than a similar P4, but now they are way worse, so they are starting to look stupid.

Here's to hoping AMD drops this false advertising and goes back to clock speed. At least then they aren't pretending the chip is something it's not.

Linux?

[Amsterdam Vallon]

Why are the real life bench-mark specs always just about very theoreticial things rather than real life software? The software, if they *do* decide to test it, is usally either a MCSFT or Novell application or some other Windows-only piece of code in which the interests of us Linux folks is surely unsatisifed.

Therefore I really encourage these producers like AMD to start benchmarking Linux applications for their new procs. For example, run a %top instance and then run a few different programs: for example 1) a C++ app... 2) a JAVA app... 3) and perhaps a compile of the Linux kernel (2.2x series though, not 3.x).

That would indicate a great deal of things including thruput and FSB calculations as well as hard disk access times in conjunction with a fast CPU.

We want to no what we're getting here so don't give us QUAKE III marks, give us Linux benchmarks that reflect real life computer code!

Gates?

[Amsterdam Vallon]

Bill fucks Intel and then sneaks out in the morning before they wake up. He has yet to make love to AMD though.

AMD's performance rating

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, this is a common misunderstanding. The PR rating of the Athlon XP is in relation to the Athlon Thunderbird core CPUs: an Athlon XP PR 2100+ runs as fast as an Athlon Thunderbird would at 2100mhz, not as fast as a Pentium 4 would at 2100mhz. An Athlon XP 2100+ is about as fast as a Pentium 4 at 2380mhz.

AMD's performance ratings has been a disaster, as everyone even computer geeks mistakenly thinks they're in relation to Pentiums, which is not so. Athlons are faster than people think.

Re:Hurry Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

gong.

you are outta here.

you sound like a fucking nat buzzing around my head...

high pitched nasally voice....

here's the deal. if you need 3.06 gigahertz

GOOD!

go buy it and shut up.

anything, just please shut your pie hole.

if you need that extra 15% fine....just stop your whining.

sheesh.

good riddance.

Re:Hurry Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey cuntfuckle--If you have nothing useful to say, then go jump off a freeway interchange in front of a large transport you waste of organic matter. DECOMPOSE!