athlon 3000+

[volton]

double cache HMMM !!! classic pic

[0R1()N]

all I got to say is Groovy baby yeah!good bye intel

[The__tweaker]

Well unfortunately AMD doesn't seem to be there just yet:

Toms hardware conclusion:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/barton-23.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

X-bit labs conclusion:

Well, the conclusions, which we tend to make, are quite ambiguous. It is true, AMD Company managed to improve its Athlon XP processors architecture by adding another 256KB of L2 cache memory. However, the manufacturing technology for these processors remained the same. As a result, the clock frequencies of Athlon XP based on the new Barton core cannot be increased over the clock frequencies of the Athlon XP processors with 256KB L2 cache. This way, we cannot state that the new core will be faster in all applications. Despite the fact that AMD assigned its new CPUs higher processor ratings.

Unfortunately, Athlon XP 3000+ on Barton core doesn't support higher clock frequency than Athlon XP 2700+ on Thoroughbred core. As a result, Athlon XP 3000+ very often appears just a little faster than Athlon XP 2700+. Moreover, in quite a bit of tests Athlon XP 2700+ performs better than Athlon XP 2800+ on Barton core. We suppose that this reshuffle may discredit the rating system used by AMD to mark its processors.

As for the rivalry between the top Athlon XP and top Pentium 4 models, the situation is not that favorable for AMD here as well. Bigger L2 cache doesn't allow Athlon XP to improve its performance significantly. This leads to even fewer applications where Athlon XP manages to defeat Intel Pentium 4 processors. At present Athlon XP can boast its superiority only in 3D games, CAD and scientific tasks. Hyper-Threading technology implemented in Pentium 4 processors proved highly efficient and improved the performance of Pentium 4 CPUs quite a lot. The announcement of the new Barton core can hardly be called an adequate response to Hyper-Threading.

However, the harder times for AMD are still ahead. In the end of April Intel Company will announce Pentium 4 3.2GHz with 800MHz processor bus and Hyper-Threading technology. The only thing AMD can actually respond with will be the launching of their new Athlon XP 3200+ based on Barton core. But, we really doubt that it will manage to withstand the new powerful rival.

So, we have to admit that it looks as if the situation in the high-end desktop processor market promises to be not in AMD's favor until their so long-awaited Athlon 64 is out."

:cry:

[0R1()N]

Another misled Intel fan Ohhhhhh the humanity! Blast you, you mind warping Itel corporation!:flames:

[The__tweaker]

hehe there's nothing wrong with amd, hell i have thought about getting one for da missus..

I just want what can give me the highest fps..
Just pointed out what i found.

:cheers:

[0R1()N]

Well considering I have never owned an amd processor in my life One could speculate that I am talking out the top of my head, but I just don't like intel. One reason being that I was really disappointed that my pentium1-s processor had more cache on it than my p4 1.5. My p1 had 256k cahce where as my p4 only had 128kb of cache. plus ever since I became a fan of amd, all of the tests that were done on the amd vs intel showdown were always unfair and that really pissed me off. It was always 2 different systems with unfair specs like the amd rig would have 128 mb of sdram and the intel rig would have 128 of rdram. In additon to that, one had an asus mother board and the other had a generic p.o.s., dissimmiliar hard drives and other things that would give the intel an unfair advantage. So ever since then I really diden't like the intel people or the people who tested the amd processors. Even the people who have written emails to the magazines testing the two processors have not really given a crediable response except one who said that the manufactures woulde'nt let them test the intels with sdram. heh, if I had it my way they would be tested with the same specs on two identicle machines by an ubiased person.

With all that said Grab your bawls and run like hell intel: party ha ::cheers:

Can't wait till they start testing the athlon64 claw hammers and sledge hammers:cool:

[Wiggo]

P4's ain't bad but they just don't have that feelin' of..... grunt that a good Athlon system does. ;)

Sorry ppl but remember I have both now. :p
<center>:cheers:</center>

[0R1()N]

P4's ain't bad but they just don't have that feelin' of..... grunt that a good Athlon system does. ;)

Sorry ppl but remember I have both now. :p
<center>:cheers:</center>

actualy what you should have said is you've lost that lovin feeling ooohhh that lovin feeling

[The__tweaker]

"It was always 2 different systems with unfair specs like the amd rig would have 128 mb of sdram and the intel rig would have 128 of rdram."

lol were do you find those tests as this haven't been done in quite some time now..?

Well of course the test are run with 100% of fsb use!
Pretty damn stupid to slow down a processor and claim that would be a fare test..

Todays test are ALWAYS ALWAYS done with 100% bus usage on the amd side, (ddr 266 mhz or ddr 333 mhz)

On the Intel side they use either 62% or 100% of the total bus bandwith, get it? (ddr 333 mhz=62% or dualddr/rdram=100%)

I dunno bout you but in my opinion it is pretty damn stupid and not very logical to slow down a cpu to let a competitor keep up just to get what you call a "fair fight"..

These tests are made to show us customers what we get and what we can expect from these processors, do i as a Intel customer want their processors to be shown and tested under some misleading and not very real circumstance??

WELL OF COURSE NOT!

And more imortant, would YOU as a Amd customer want your possible future cpu's to be shown and tested under some misleading and not very real circumstance so that they can perform equaly..? Would that make your choise for amd easier?

WELL OF COURSE NOT!

You have to understand that people WANT the products to be tested at their max capacity so that they by the result could decide what to by.

Damn man, it's like i would say that it's unfair to test P4/Athlon against eatch other because P4's only carry out 6 instructions per cycle while an Athlon can do 9. Not very logical now is it..??

Hey wait, maybe we can find a way to disable the Athlons 3 extra instructions per cyckle so that we have a fair fight...

When it comes to your cpu's cache memory please don't judge todays modern P4 cpu's as they use 512 kb of full speed L2 cache, wich is up until lately double the amount that Amd's high end cpu's got..

Get yourself a decent cpu before talking about this as the 1,5 ghz P4 is one of intels absolute worst performers..
At least that i know of... Even the P3 cpu's probably outperforms them..

Oh, Claw hammer? You said it there man, "wait" is the word..:cry:

Wiggo: I know what you mean, i get the same feelin'
whenever i sit my ass down in front of a amd system, it's just ain't the same as a fast P4.

Many of my friends rigs up to XP2400+ is suposed to beat mine, but have failed yet.. At least it gives me something to tease them with when they'r on to me about me ugly car.. lol

And yes, it is a fact that i will build a amd system someday..

:cheers:

[GamingSniper]

at school our comps run p4 2.8's with rdram and 1060, and i feel that my xp2100 plus even with pc2100 ram, keeps up with it!, granted the video card difference if you do any graphical things, 3d animation is the class, they have 9700pro's while i'm stuck with the good ol' gf4 mx 440

[0R1()N]

lol tweaker, you poor misled intel fan j/k j/k. I know that the tests I am talking about were done 2 years or more ago,but it still felt like the tests were unfair. Oh well I will always and forever will be an Amd freak Die intel Die:shoot3:

And I too will someday soon build by dream system:

Amd sledge hammer with all 8 chips

2 gb of ddr 3200 ram

2/200 gig serial ata with raid 0

500 watt speaker system

30 in lcd screen

phase changing cooling system

ati radeon 9700 pro aiw with 256 mb of ram(if they have it)

modded case with battle tech theme painted on it.

[Wiggo]

I look at it this way, my 2200+ @ 1900MHz does a SETI w/u in an average of 2hr 45min and my 1800+ @ 1600MHz does 3hr 5mins but the P4 2.4 @ 2.7GHz takes an average of 2hr 55mins. Now while SETI is runnin' this (P4) lags badly in it's use where as the Athlons just keep runnin' sweatly. : peace2:
<center>:cheers:</center>

[The__tweaker]

Yeah it's all about what we do, i look at fps within games and at video/audio encoding. In that tasks Intel gives me the best possibly performance atm and don't think to many amd machines can outrun it.

Well GamingSniper, i dunno but my machine performs exactly in line with a XP2400+ running the fastest memory avaible and same graphics chip, that is kind of strange cause a 2 ghz amd is supose to beat a 2,26 ghz Intel..

:cheers:

[Wiggo]

Just as I always say "certain horses for certain courses" and what ya use ya system for should dictate ya choice and not just base it on one brand over the other. When I get into playin' with video then I'll use the P4 to do it on (or anything else that relies heavily on SSE2 instructions. ;)
<center>:cheers:</center>

[The__tweaker]

You are a wise computer man Wiggo.

:cheers: