Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Released

Posted by Hemos on from the tide-goes-in-tide-goes-out dept.

SpinnerBait writes "AMD took the wraps off their next speed bump with the Barton core, the Athlon XP 3200+. This CPU runs with a 400MHz Front Side Bus at 2.2GHz and is targeted at competing toe to toe with Intel's latest P4. The benchmarks and review over at HotHardware, look pretty good but Intel's 3GHz/800MHz FSB P4 variant seems to squeak past it here and there. Regardless, more of that "yin" to compete with Intel's "yang" was released today by AMD and consumers will benefit again from the competition."

5 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. It's also the last 32 bit Athlon. by Pop+n'+Fresh · · Score: 5, Informative
    "AMD took the wraps off their next speed bump with the Barton core, the Athlon XP 3200+."

    It's also going to be the LAST speed bump with the Barton core. AMD's next Athlon is going to be 64 bits:

    http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-1001106.html?tag =fd_lede1_hed

    --
    *This page intentionally left pointless*
    1. Re:It's also the last 32 bit Athlon. by ryszards · · Score: 4, Informative

      There will be other 32-bit Athlon's, 'Thorton' for one, a return to 256KB L2 when Athlon64 hits to turn the 32-bit range into the Athlon64's Duron equivalent.

      They might not get any faster, but there will be more.

      --
      - 'sup, G?
  2. Better benchmarks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here

  3. Re:Athlon rating system over-rated? by Psiren · · Score: 4, Informative

    Both call into question the validity of AMD's CPU rating system

    Unofficially perhaps, but officially the comparison isn't to Intel chips, but to AMD's older Thunderbird processors. A 3200+ is supposed to give about the same performance a tbird would, if it was clocked to 3.2GHz.

  4. Re:What if we really got 3.2GHz from AMD by fmaxwell · · Score: 4, Informative

    Anyone who knows much about cars, knows piston displacement really doesn't mean shit, put it on a dyno and see how an engine really performs.

    How many engines have you built? I've built a few and I know that greater displacement on normally aspirated engines usually leads to higher torque at low RPMs. Low displacement usually equates to lower torque and that the only way to make lots of horsepower from low-displacement is to design the engine for high RPMs -- because horsepower = (torque[lb.-ft.] * RPM)/5250. That's why a 1 liter motorcycle engine can produce upwards of 140 horsepower but would be completely unsuitable for powering a sedan that does fine with a 140 horsepower, large-displacement engine.