Thanks for a good article about the xp 1900. Will look forward to a similar one on the 2000; imagine you're excited about it too.

I would like to know what mother boards are the best choices for use witht the 1600-2000 xp cpus, if that is practical.

Thanks, George Goldsmith, vinetime_2000@yahoo.com

[q]"Then AMD does that weirdo high pitched thingy and President sees the plan to destroy AMD "[/q]

Damn typos, it's late and I'm tired here in Blighty :-(

They'll destroy Intel, not themselves hehe

Hold on, The XP 1900+ (133*12) overclocked to 290... thas 145 x 12

I thought that 145 was the limiting factor because of PCI cards running at >10% stock speed...

So, in theory, I would not be surprised to see 1.8GHz versions of the XP at least. But I would expect the Palomino core to go a little higher than that still... perhaps 2GHz or more... thas just 15 x 133

Nice knowing ya Intel mate, but you've smacked your customers around too much for their liking and now their smacking your market share, piece by piece

(Independance Day)
President: I'm sure we can come to a truce...
AMD: No truce...

President: What is it exactly that you want?
AMD: Die, Intel, just die...

Then AMD does that weirdo high pitched thingy and President sees the plan to destroy AMD

President: Brilliant, let me give you a hand in that :-)

Geez, this urge to constantly bash Intel is worrying isn't it?
IntelMole

AG #53 - Disable Automatic Image Resizing. Tools -> Internet Options -> Advanced tab, second item in the Multimedia group.

You just announced to the world that you're running IE6, BTW. Even at 1600x1200 here, it's quite readable in Mozilla.

Enjoy.

AG51, I can't even read that pic when squinting.

AG #51 - Nice. Best 3d2k1 score I've ever seen on a V3.

Wanna see 3400 3DMark2001 scores on a Voodoo3?

http://www.angelfire.com/ego/anthor/Voodoo3_scaling_in_3DMark2001_3...

AG#41

Lamborghini still makes tractors :)

http://www.lamborghini-tractors.com/eng/index.cfm

Originally Posted by jbirney
EasyRhino,

excellent point. I however would like to see some numbers first to show me a huge drop in the GF serries by using software TnL. I would wonder if some of the TnL call were not intercepted by the drivers are run on the hardware TnL. We know that in the last set of drivers (Det 4 vrs Det 3) for the nature test some of the TnL stuff ran in software vrs hardware in order to keep the scores higher weather or not hardware or software TnL was selected. It was part of the Det 4 optimizations. There was a nice thread about it over at Beyond3d.... again to be sure...use a card without :)

Originally Posted by jbirney
arrrggggg

Ok my communication skills must suck as I am just not getting my point accross :-( Sorry if I come of strong but this might help:

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A NON-TNL CARD BENCHED IN 3DMARK2001 FOR A [b]CPU[/b] REVIEW.

There :)

Now why? Simple. 3DMark2001 over taxes the TnL setup more so than any game out there. With a 3 gen TnL processor on the GF3 lots of work is being off loaded of the CPU and done by the GF3. My thoughts it would it not be a more of a stress case test for a CPU? For a CPU review don\'t you want to make it work more (not less)?

ExcessOrder ,

I have a K2. I have tried it in many different systems. One thing is that their is an almost linear increase to the CPU speed. I know it will be the limiting factor..but I dont care about final scores (besides 3dmarks score are meaningless IMHO). I just care about the delta from CPU A vrs CPU B. And to get a better idea of the raw CPU power..why off load more work from the CPU?

LocalYokel ,
sorry I did not mean to say use only a K2. Just on the 3dmark2001 where TnL is heavily used.

Forge,

thanks again for taking the time. Again I undertand your point. I have 4 systems all at different hardware speeds/power. But can you read my above comments and try to understand what if any interesting data would it show. Aslo I was only suggesting this for a CPU review. And you can have GF3 numbers...I just want to really make both CPUs work as hard as they can to show a differnce. And buy using a TnL card in 3dmark we are giving the CPUs a break so to speak....

Sorry for rambling on..and hope I was not too much out of line..just smack me if I was :P

Jb

If you really wanna bog down 3dmark on the CPU, all you gotta do is run it WITHOUT tnl enabled.

er right? I can't run 3DM2k1 because I have a voodoo3. :)

ER

Also note that TR is still using the 12.41's. The Det4s boosted 3dmark in particular.

I just ran on an untweaked GF3 Ti500 and AthlonMP 1.2 and got just over 7000. I then rebooted into my to-be-deleted WinXP install and got ~6300. Your answer may lie there.

BTW, I really strongly feel that no one should mess with the Nvidia settings or the 3dmark ones, if they plan on barking numbers. I was totally baffled by a friend's very low 3dmark score, till I figured out he'd somehow changed 3dmark's default res to 1600x1200, and he had aniso and 4X AA forced on. Default it all out, then talk numbers.

You may have it set to a different res/detail or the such. But you'd think it would reflect that in the score somehow. I don't really know, I'm just throwing out guesses here.

I want to know how he is getting such low 3DMark 2001 scores or how I got such a high score. I just ran 3DMark 2001 on my system just to see how mine stacked up. I have the following:

Athon 1.4Ghz/266
Epox 8K7A+
512MB PC2100 CAS 2.5
Hercules 3D Prophet III

My system received a score of 6543 in 3DMark 2001. How is it possible that my system just totally kicked every system they tested? On an AMD 761 motherboard no less.

Taddeusz

Amen to Excess Order.

I like the model number system--in that it gives customers a more accurate idea what type of performance they are buying.

What people have forgotten is that customers only look at MHz because they feel it reflects on performance. They don't care if a chip runs at 1 MHz or 1 GHz inherently--as long as they saw 1 GHz performance out of a 1 MHz processor, that'd be just fine.

Forge #4

I'm pretty sure Lamborghini stopped making tractors a long time ago (early 60's?). ;-)

Besides, it really is more like the ability to drive your Lamborghini (we've all got one right?) along two highways at once... with the associated problems of racking up speeding tickets at double the rate.

Dude. You sound like somebody on a street corner in NYC with a big "The ___ is a web of LIES" sign. Where do you work tech support that your customers have any clue about the difference between the PR rating and clockspeed?

Say it with me now! There are three types of untruth: Lies, damn lies, and Marketing.

I am really angry because AMDs new XP naming scheme (XP 1800, etc.) is causing a lot of confusion to people out their (not just end users) and then they call tech support and get mad at us. As far as I am concerned AMD is lying to the public about the real speed of their processors and trying to deceive the innocent and the ignorant in a web of lies. AMD should just label their processors like they used to (by clock speed) and if they are really better then people will buy them. Changing the name is only adding to the confusion of many people - not increasing it. And for those of you out there who value your FREEDOM so greatly remember that FREEDOM cannot exist without TRUTH! And before I get bashed I want to hear from those who agree with me - we must stand together.

I figure review one at 500MHz, one at 1GHz, one at 2GHz, and the rest can all go stuff it. Now which CPUs?

When oh when will sites quit subjecting us to these painful processors reviews. How fast is the Athlon XP 1900+? It's exactly 67 mhz faster than an 1800+ It doesn't exactly take a slew of banchmarks to figure that out.
----------
Heh..

No; see, if these reviews didn't come out, I'd be going:
"Where the hell is xxx review?"

I always find them a good read, and we all know 67MHz faster means very little as a term in itself, unless it's backed up and compared to the P4 in the real world-ish-like scenarios.

Nope. My pay and my rent cancel out. :)

Hey Forge,

Do they make you pay rent here?

OK, I doubt benching a high end CPU with a low end graphics card or vice versa would be worthwhile. There's a system builder's rule of thumb that comes into play here, which is specifically designed to show graphics card/CPU balance.

All simulated graphs run 640/1024/1600, color depth and other settings are irrelevant (seeing as 16/32 bit has less difference every generation, and all other graphics features [FSAA] tax only the graphics side)...

Poor CPU, good graphics:

++++++++++
+++++++++
++++++++

Shallow curve, CPU is incapable of filling graphics card's potential.

Poor graphics, good CPU:

++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++
++

Over-steep curve, graphics card runs out of steam before the CPU is taxed. Also 80-90% CPU (or less) in high res games can be a symptom.

Proper balance:

++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++
++++++++++

A good curve, with a steady, but not crippling loss of framerate.

I submit that changing out the GF3 for a Kyro2 will only switch us from a balanced curve to a Good CPU/Poor Graphics one. This isn't to say the Kyro2 is a bad card, it's just in a different performance category than the GF3, and coupling a high end flagship CPU with a value graphics card ould be foolish. Only the 640x480 scores, if that, would be useful information.

Originally Posted by LocalYokel
cRock -- if you don\'t like it, you don\'t have to look at it =)

EO -- I adopted this hardware spending philosophy a long time ago: don\'t wait for the price to drop. The object of your desire is a moving target. By the time you can afford it, something better will come along. Get what you can for the dollar amount you\'ve budgeted, or splurge and get exactly what you want.

Originally Posted by LocalYokel
I can\'t see any reason to bench with a K2 in this review. Every CPU review has a series of benchmarks showing the raw power, so that can\'t be a reason, and given that this is (largely) a test of high end hardware * , the K2 doesn\'t really belong, either. I will concede that it would be interesting to see what kind of benefit the Kyro gets out of faster CPU\'s, however. Perhaps this has been done and the answer is already known, but if not, I think it would be an interesting test.

* Then again, I wouldn\'t expect to see a 900MHz Celeron with a GF3. I don\'t think doing so would be any better than current methodology, but mating it with a lesser video card might produce some results that are interesting, although potentially confusing. You could choose the route of comparison between today\'s top of the line vis a vis high end systems from months past, or a new, cheaper \"value\" system.

cRock -- Damage only benched the 1900, all of the other results are old. So he didn't take too much time to do all that. The other reason for a review of a 66 mhz upgrade is that they got to put the athlon on a Via K266a, which gives overal performance a 5-10% boost. Enough to give the 1900 the lead over the P4 in Quake, which is what all of us AMD fans have been waiting for!

jbirney -- Any non-TNL card on 3dmark 2001 will be a limiting factor for framerate. They just can't handle it.
I got a Kyro II to tide me over until I can get a Gf3 vivo type card for less than $300. I hope that the Ti introduction will lower prices soon... Anyway, it's in my opinion the best budget card right now. It handles all the games I play (lots of Homeworld, Ground Control, occasional Q3). It does fine at 800*600 or 1024*768, but at high rez the low-bandwidth ram has a much more pronounced effect.

When oh when will sites quit subjecting us to these painful processors reviews. How fast is the Athlon XP 1900+? It's exactly 67 mhz faster than an 1800+ It doesn't exactly take a slew of banchmarks to figure that out. All the benchmarks tell us is that those 67 mhz are virtually inconsequential. They are especially irrelevant considering how easy it is to overclock these days.

Poor Dr. Damage has to waste a ton of his time every time a new speed grade gets released. I, for one, feel sorry for the lad. His time is better spent elsewhere.

Do the chip companies extort these reviews out of sites? "Review EVERY speed grade of the Athlon or no Hamer for you!!!!"

Originally Posted by jbirney
Forge,

sorry did not mean only the K2. Just use any non-TnL card. Again the point is would having any non-TnL card show us something in 3dmark2001? Right now 3dmark2001 dose have some weight on your CPU. But throw away the TnL card, and now you just have just add more load to the CPU and thats a good thing for a CPU test...

Maybe the V5 dose have a use (exept it wont work in P4..unless you go with PCI). Or the TNT2, or the Rage128, ect.....

An impressive processor. Would you consider using DivX as a bench? I know Tom's Hardware did that in the past (perhaps he has one up now) but I rarely go there anymore. Since you bench with MP3 encoding, I figure maybe you'll do Mpeg4 too!

So now AMD has a new king-of-the-hill. As one person pointed out, is this really what the market needs? Sure more power is always good for the minority power users. But does being marginally better give AMD any advantages at all? I remember when the Athlon first came out and the P3 was ailing as it tried to ramp up the clock, the word on the street was that AMD could release the next speed processor any time they wanted. Was this an opportunity missed? If AMD would have released these higher speed processors and therefore be significantly (say 200-300MHz) faster than the P3, do you feel it would have made a more significant impact and given them a bigger share in the market and public and perception? Trying to compete as a "ours can do that too" product seems to be what AMD has been doing all along. If they could have released faster products, wouldn't that have given them the edge in this false MHz perception along with already being faster per MHz? Or was it all passed up in favor of getting as much $ as you can for the current MHz rating to recoup your development costs?