Slashdot Mirror
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*
so post 'em below..
OK Then... Anandtech link
"This exclusive 512 KB L2-cache works together with the 128 KB L1-cache (64 KB data, 64 KB instruction) to form one impressive 640 KB on-die cache."
Am I the only one who can see Bill Gates drooling over this?
AMD better get there act together and get the Athlon 64 out in september or sooner. Intel is just kicking there ars right now and AMD has nothing to compete with that 3.06 ghz with multi-threading and whatnot. Dont get me wrong i dislike intel but unless AMD's next big thing is BIG, then they could be in for some trouble
Yay, a processor code-named after our first Prime Minister :)
I'm never buying a 'Keating' or 'Howard' though...
-- Shaun "Blessed are the geeks, for they shall Internet the earth"
We've now got Palomino, Thoroughbread A, Thoroughbread B and Barton under the Athlon XP name. To make things worse, some of the chips are using a 133 MHz FSB (Front Side Bus), and some 166.
:)
Due to this and AMD's PR ratings you have to be real careful of what you buy, if you're aming for a specific core. Expecially since AMD doesn't plan to replace all Athlon XPs with the new core.
Just remember to do your research, and you'll be fine
.: Max Romantschuk
The people who care about the difference between AMDese and real megahertz, already know. Joe Public doesn't honestly care; an Athlon 2000 is a match for a Pentium IV 2000, and that's all that really matters. AMD aren't on the fiddle; they've been entirely fair with the ratings at which they market their chips (and the temptation to inflate a little would be considerable...)
As for asking Intel nicely to help out AMD's marketing department, what colour is the sky where you live? The Pentium IV is designed to get big megahertz at the expense of actual performance; why would Intel throw away their chip's advantage like that?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
however, it doesn't unilaterally stand up to the 3.06 GHz Pentium 4.
;)
Well, of course not... if it did, they'd be calling it the Athlon XP 3060, wouldn't they?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
From the article on Ace Harware
This exclusive 512 KB L2-cache works together with the 128 KB L1-cache (64 KB data, 64 KB instruction) to form one impressive 640 KB on-die cache. According to AMD, the extra 256 KB cache boosts, an 2170 MHz Athlon XP from a 2700+ level to a 3000+ one.
If this is the case why do AMD, and Intel for that matter not put ever larger amounts of cache on their existing chips to achieve better performance ? Does the cost implications completely prohibit this or do the performance benefits tail off too quickly. SUN seem to able to achieve impressive performance with lower far lower Mhz (I know its different architecture) but I get the impression the large amounts of cache (2-4 MB) they use contributes significantly to performance.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Well it is quite clear that the Athlon
architecture is at the end of its useful life.
However,the performance difference is somewhat
"exaggerated" in favour of the P4. Most of the
"content creation" applications and games
are SSE2 enhanced while, on the other hand
3dnow is propably less popular. The hard fact,
of course, is that P4 needs less time in these
applications so it is faster (whatever the
reason).
However, for general purpose usage, I firmly
believe that the Athlon is faster, mostly
because everyday applications do not need
huge memory bandwidth and cannot be made to
run with SSE.
I'm thinking that someone should start doing
some "Open Source" benchmarks where the source
is available. A good idea would be to run
a set of:
a) Kernel compile (or gcc compile or something
like that) and perhaps even "make check"
gdb or gcc or some other application (libc!).
b) MP3 compression with lame
c) Video compression with xvid or ffmpeg
d) Linpack/POVray for fpu
e) Ecasound/LADSPA for sound processing
f) Maybe a perl/high-level bechmark for some
standard system tasks.
g) Cachegrind some of the above (have a look
at valgrind/cachegrind!!)
Anyway, if someone has anything above XP 2600+
let's gather some results.
P.
Hers's the [H]'s take on it, , and here's Sudhian's.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I think right now the Athlon XP 3000+ based on the Barton CPU core is the right first step, but I think the CPU that will REALLY worry Intel will likely come later this spring when we see Barton core Athlon XP's that take full advantage of DDR400 DDR-SDRAM.
Remember, under pure-CPU tests the Athlon XP 3000+ has almost the same performance as the Intel Pentium 4 3.06 GHz CPU with HyperThreading; what will happen when the Athlon XP gets the Front Side Bus speed bump necessary to support DDR400 memory?
Wow, a great idea, I can see it now...
Intel has a faster processor than us, and we can catch up or even beat us, but that would only be an small percentage increase.... I say we just sit on our asses until we can double our speed. We'll be bankrupt by then, but users don't care about the releases.
If you are saying they should be doubling the speed at the same intervals as current incremental changes, you are being ridiculous. They are moving as fast as they can. This is what a competitive market does. They try to move any slower than they possibly can and competition leaves them behind. This is why the x86 platform is becoming much faster much more quickly than other platforms, the fierce competition.
If you don't like the small speed increase releases, just ignore them and pretend they never happen. For example, if you have an Athlon XP1500+, pretend that every successive release until now never happend. Then you'll be happy.
These are not meaningless speed increases. If you have the 2700+ processor, the 3000+ is faster, but not worth an upgrade (not yet anyway). If you have a 1500+ processor, this release is bound to make the 2700+ more reasonable, or even 3000+. Manufacturers do not expect a consumer to buy into every release cycle, but they expect different consumers to be ready to buy into different cycles at different intervals.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Here's the Link http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/index.htm l
It's seems like they say that AMD'S 3000+ rating is extremely aggressive and they do not seem to think it should have had that rating. They also have a good point in there about price gouging essentially eliminating the comeptitive price difference. Since the chip is so hard to get the price skyrockets. It's kind of disturbing that AMD recommends testing this chip with DirectX 7 that definitely does not speak well of AMD's confidence in competing with Intel's stengths.
"Freedom of speech has always been the abstract red-headed stepchild of the Constitution"
-Suck
Oh come on... haven't you figured out by now that all new chips start expensive, and in a year are the bottom of the barrel, bargain basement, can't buy anything slower deals? And that all top-of-the-line chips are a marginal improvement for way too much money?
Do you know what bottom-of-the-barrel is right now? It's like an Athlon 1800+ depending on where you shop. (Gee, I was just in there last week and they were still selling 1.2GHz Durons...) Do you know how much an Athlon 1800+ cost when it came out? Do you really think this price is permenent?
What's the alternative? Never introduct a chip until it's cheap? Doesn't work that way, for a whole lotta reasons.
Processors that can move at such speeds - and, incidentally, keep requiring larger and larger heatsinks - only have practical applications on high-performance server (clusters). The average desktop user simply doesn't need all that, even for gaming; if you go to the store it's rare that you'll find a game that also requires you to have a computer with over a Ghz of computing power. Unless you're toying with some seriously heavy graphic or music manipulation software, it's next to useless.
So why is the hype aimed at so many desktop users? Simple: it's the largest market. Do we, the endusers, need it? No. Are we going to buy it, with the economy in the tight spot it's in? Nope. We're going to upgrade their memory sticks and leave it at that. I've got a trusty P3 600 which works fine with my GeForce 4 to run NWN at awe-inspiring resolutions and graphics, it's got 512mb so it's smoother than a narwhal, and I for one see no need to buy a new one anytime soon. The net result is that the intel/amd power struggle has been so intense that there's no point to it anymore. My system is still configured for gaming, but a lot of people - in companies as well as at home - only use their computers to email and write letters and maybe listen to some music. Like as not they'd much rather save for a 19" TFT than another tower. I own my own little IT company and generally advise my clients to stick to their 450mhz machines and upgrade a few choice parts.
The only thing I'm wondering is how big is the group that seriously uses such powerful machines? I can understand major websites or software companies will have clusters, but that can't be much more than a few percent can it? Anyone have an idea?
- Jynx
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
depends on which review you read and with whose devils eye you read it with.
you do realise that p4 3.06 is supposed to be better/faster than p4 2.8 would be at 3.06 speeds too? does that make calling p4 2.8 a p4 2.8 wrong, or calling 3.06 a 3.06 wrong? you can't compare even intel products just by the number they're sold with.
it certainly doesnt get 'bitchslapped'.
intel is far worse. they sell celerons and p4's with essentially same 'horsepower' numbers(to the consumer). not to mention their ht tech they're trying to make look far more better than it is. if you think the common joe can identify the differences then you're really wrong and haven't do enough mandatory helpdesking for your relatives.
intel is like a car dealer selling cars by just telling consumers how high they can rev, amd is telling a performance number(though, mostly just comparable to other amd cpu's, and thats alright, why should they change their rating system according to what their competitors do.)
i'd prefer to know the actual kw rating of the engine rather than just it's displacement and how high it can rev.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.