Slashdot Mirror
AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Released
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."
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*
and I already had bought a space heater.
Based on what I've read of the 3200+ at Tom's Hardware and Tech Report, the CPU performance is good, just slightly better than the 3000+, but still gets trumped by the P4 3.0 and 3.06 CPUs. Both call into question the validity of AMD's CPU rating system, and judging from their benchmarks, rightly so. The 3200+ is also supposed to be more expensive than the P4s, which combined with the dissapointing performance may limit it's popularity.
It will be interesting to see how the 3200+ performs when overclocked.
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
Here
Excellent, now I will finally be able to upgrade the chip on my homemade iLoo.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Gigabyte makes a nice 400 FSB board, the G7VAXP has on board 10/100 LAN and awesome audio with SPDIF support. Abit makes a similar board with gigabyte ethernet, I believe.
Personally, I never buy a new chip when it first comes out. I always stay behind a generation or too, that's the sweet spot in terms of bang/$.
My journal has hot
They use the marketing to show that their chips perform similar to Intel ones even though they're at a lower clock speed. Intel's P4 is designed to clock high and need to be clocked high as it can't do as much per cycle as the AMD.
Imagine the situation where car buyers only looked at the CC of the engine to determine how fast it would go, the AMD car would be a 2 litre but the Intel car would be 2.8 or something. So buyers would choose the Intel. Except the Intel engine has 4 cylinders and the AMD has 6 etc...
well if you want comparisons....
we just bought some Dell 2.2ghz P-4 laptops here to replace some aging and damaged laptops.. what they are replacing are P-III 800 laptops.
All of them run W2K and the users are NOT feeling a speed difference. Yes some of the processor intensive apps are fast. the winstone tests show it's faster.. but word processing and internet does not get a speed increase.
So in conclusion of my findings I also reccomend to EVERYONE to not upgrade their computer unless they absolutely have to. If you own a P-III that is 800mhz or higher, you will not see any difference unless you are a power user or a gamer.
It's just silly to spend money for the sake of spending it. as soon as we get a magnitude of speed change that will be very noticable (read that as SCSI like hard drive speeds... IDE is too damn slow) it is a waste of time and money to upgrade like we did 2 years ago and earlier. there are no real performance and quality changes (except for downgrade in quality)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The AMD Athlon(TM) XP processor with performance-enhancing cache memory features 64K instruction and 64K data caches for a total of 128K L1 cache and 512K of integrated, on-chip L2 cache for a total of 640K of full-speed, on-chip cache.
;D
So... will I be able to run MS-DOS programs directly from the processor cache?
\m/
"This CPU runs with a 400MHz Front Side Bus at 2.2GHz ..."
Now -that's- overclocking.
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.
I upgraded a 750mhz Duron to a XP 1700+ ; same everything, just a different jumper for the front side bus.
I could tell the difference, but mainly in things like how fast it does a seti work unit; with browsing and word processing, I agree, it's a little more difficult to tell. Big software applications open up a little faster, things compile faster, but web surfing and word processing, yes, it is hard to notice an obvious difference. It's nice to have a little extra power if you need it, though.