AMD introduces the Athlon XP 3200+...adds a whopping 33.3 MHz!

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Okay, this is just getting to be completely retarded.



They already rescaled the Quantispeed curve when Barton was released, and now they're doing it again for their 333-->400 MHz FSB bump.



As it stands...



Thoroughbred Athlon XP 2800+ = 2250 MHz (333 MHz)

Barton Athlon XP 3000+ = 2167 MHz (333 MHz)

Barton Athlon XP 3200+ = 2200 MHz (400 MHz)



What's next, completely arbitrary Quantispeed Ratings? Those nonsense Opteron model numbers? (242, 244, etc?)

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Maybe there are other things going on as well, no? That FSB bump is already sure to speed things up a lot. At the risk of sounding uninformed, it sounds like someone being disphoric while hearing the 970 introduced at 1.4 GHz. "But we have a proc running that fast already...". Isn't there more to this chip that meets the eye, and that makes it a good deal faster?
  • Reply 2 of 15
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by der Kopf

    Maybe there are other things going on as well, no? That FSB bump is already sure to speed things up a lot. At the risk of sounding uninformed, it sounds like someone being disphoric while hearing the 970 introduced at 1.4 GHz. "But we have a proc running that fast already...". Isn't there more to this chip that meets the eye, and that makes it a good deal faster?



    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030513/index.html

    http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1081507,00.asp

    http://www.tech-report.com/onearticle.x/5126
  • Reply 3 of 15
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,268member




    Bad AMD. What an embarrasment.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Intel's already scaled back its roadmap to compensate for AMD's lack of progress. No 4 GHz this year...only 3.4 GHz!



    http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1826
  • Reply 5 of 15
    tigerwoods99tigerwoods99 Posts: 2,633member
    At least it smokes anything currently in a Mac.
  • Reply 6 of 15
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    33.3Mhz?



    Oh, no! We're DOOMED!

    DOOMED



  • Reply 7 of 15
    klinuxklinux Posts: 453member
    IMO, Pentium-M is where the future is - faster than P4 at the same clockspeed yet uses less power (quieter PC). However, the new hyperthreading 800FSB (4x200) processor would be the choice for the power users (gamers and a handful of people out there).
  • Reply 8 of 15
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    The athlon has finish his evolution and reached his limit. He perform like a P4 2,8, wich is not so bad, but he is not anymore in the competition.

    AMD has to develop faster athlon 64 if he want to stay in the competition.

    2003 will be an hard year for them.
  • Reply 9 of 15
    gizzmonicgizzmonic Posts: 511member
    Hyperthreading is HYPE. It causes maybe 1% speed increase. people forget that the first hyperthreading capable P4s also had biggest caches and higher clockspeeds.
  • Reply 10 of 15
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gizzmonic

    Hyperthreading is HYPE. It causes maybe 1% speed increase. people forget that the first hyperthreading capable P4s also had biggest caches and higher clockspeeds.



    HT can be disactived, benchmarks with HT disactived or actived where published in many newspapers. In some case HT bring an extra 20 % bonus, in other case it slow down the computer.

    But your 1 % number is wrong, generally it's near 15 % .

    If HT was a failure, IBM will not include one in the power 5.
  • Reply 11 of 15
    klinuxklinux Posts: 453member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gizzmonic

    Hyperthreading is HYPE. It causes maybe 1% speed increase. people forget that the first hyperthreading capable P4s also had biggest caches and higher clockspeeds.



    Your ignorance speaks for itself. No further comment needed from me.
  • Reply 12 of 15
    While the clockspeed increase is only 1.5%, the bus speed is 16.5% faster, so I guess that could justify a 6.25% rating increase. AMD's ratings are, afterall, based on overall performance.



    Personally, I think AMD does a decent job with keeping their ratings close to the P4's MHz ratings (ie. a XP 2000 is about the equivalent of a 2GHz P4, a XP 2200 about equivalent to a 2.2GHz P4, etc.). At least, it seems that way according to these Tom's Hardware benchmarks.
  • Reply 13 of 15
    deltadendeltaden Posts: 10member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    What's next, completely arbitrary Quantispeed Ratings? Those nonsense Opteron model numbers? (242, 244, etc?)



    It's true than the 3200+ rating is a too optimistic, but it is really becoming difficult to compare these different architectures. Intel and AMD have chosen two so much different approach for there chips. It is even becoming worse with the K8. The choice is now so much based on the application: content creation -> P4, complex FPU computing -> AXP, games -> it depens which one,...



    How can they define a QS ? And if they don't define a QS, wich Joe buyer will buy AMD-based compputer ? This is clearly a big problem for AMD. But Intel is now facing the same problem with their P-M, what will they do ? Don't know \



    About the Opteron model numbers, in wich way are they nonsense for you ? The whole idea or that they are begining at x40 ?
  • Reply 14 of 15
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Deltaden, you simply don't. You don't make up a nonsense number and pretend it's something else. Intel's not about to introduce a MHz equivalency scheme for the P-M. It was absurd when AMD and Cyrix did it in the early 90s. It's absurd today.
  • Reply 15 of 15
    deltadendeltaden Posts: 10member
    Yes, I agree heavily that it is a nonsense.

    But the problem for AMD is that they need to sell chips.

    The average consumer is buying by chosing the biggest number, if he see P4 3GHz or AXP 2.2GHz, he will never chose the AXP.

    The even biggest problem is that he know the word "Pentium", but has probably never heard "Athlon" or AMD.



    The other solution is to launch a huge campain to promote the Athlon brand name and to educate the average buyer. But AMD has no money for that.
Sign In or Register to comment.