AMD’s Athlon XP 1900+ processor

JUST FOUR SHORT weeks ago, AMD released its latest revision of the Athlon processor, the Athlon XP, alongside a controversial new “model number” performance rating scheme. We reviewed the Athlon XP 1800+ model, which runs at 1.53GHz. The 1800+ managed to outpace the 2GHz Pentium 4 in a majority of our tests, and the wins were convincing enough we declared the Athlon XP 1800+ “the fastest x86-compatible processor on the planet, and by more than just a hair.” The fact of the Athlon XP’s performance edge was lost on some folks, however. It is true that the Pentium 4 sometimes outruns the Athlon XP in multimedia and 3D gaming, so some confusion was probably inevitable.

Today, AMD is taking things up another notch with the introduction of the Athlon XP 1900+. At 1.6GHz, this chip runs only 66MHz faster than the 1800+ model. Otherwise, the two chips are basically identical. However, we’ve decided to make the Pentium 4 vs. Athlon XP race a little more interesting by testing the fastest Athlon XP on a different platform this time around: VIA’s new KT266A chipset, which offers significantly better performance than the AMD 760 chipset we’ve used in our Athlon test systems for ages now. The word on the street is that AMD is canceling production of the 760 now that superior alternatives are finally on the market, so most new Athlon XP systems aren’t very likely to be built with the 760 chipset.

Can the combination of the new Athlon XP 1900+ and the KT266A chipset remove all doubts about who owns the x86 processor performance crown? Read on to find out.

The chip
Like all new Athlon XP and MP processors, the 1900+ model comes in AMD’s new organic packaging.


The Athlon XP 1900+

And for those of you really into the markings and stepping numbers on a chip, here’s a close-up look at the core of our Athlon XP 1900+:


Up close and personal

The “AGKGA” markings on this chip are the same as those on our Athlon XP 1800+ chip.

Enough ogling. Let’s see how this puppy performs.

 

Our testing methods
I told you last time around that we would be moving right away to Windows XP for most of our benchmarking, but, uhm, not quite yet. Because of time constraints and a few new wrinkles thrown at us by Windows XP’s self-tuning services, we stuck with Windows 2000 once more.

As ever, we did our best to deliver clean benchmark numbers. Tests were run at least twice, and the results were averaged.

Our test systems were configured like so:

Processor AMD Athlon XP 1900+ 1.6GHz AMD Athlon 1.2GHz
AMD Athlon MP 1.2GHz
AMD Athlon 1.4GHz
AMD Athlon XP 1800+ 1.53GHz
AMD Athlon 1GHz
AMD Duron 1GHz
AMD Duron 1.1GHz
Intel Pentium 4 1.4GHz
Intel Pentium 4 1.6GHz
Intel Pentium 4 1.8GHz
Intel Pentium 4 2GHz Intel Celeron 900MHz
Intel Celeron 1.1GHz
 Intel Pentium III 1.2GHz
Front-side bus 133MHz (266MHz DDR) 133MHz (266MHz DDR) 100MHz (200MHz DDR) 100MHz (400MHz quad-pumped) 100MHz (400MHz quad-pumped) 100MHz (Celeron)
133MHz (PIII)
Motherboard Epox EP-8KHA+ Gigabyte GA-7DX rev. 4.0 Asus A7VI-VM Intel D850GB Intel D850MD Intel D815EEA2
Chipset VIA KT266A AMD 760/VIA hybrid VIA KM133 Intel 850 Intel 850 Intel 815EP
North bridge VT8366A  AMD 761 VT8365 82850 MCH 82850 MCH 82815 MCH
South bridge VT8233 VIA VT82C686B VT8231 82801BA ICH2 82801BA ICH2 82801BA ICH2
Memory size 256MB (1 DIMM) 256MB (1 DIMM) 256MB (1 DIMM) 256MB (2 RIMMs) 256MB (2 RIMMs) 256MB (1 DIMM)
Memory type Micron PC2100 DDR SDRAM CAS 2 Micron PC2100 DDR SDRAM CAS 2 Infineon PC133 SDRAM CAS 2 Samsung PC800 Rambus DRAM Samsung PC800 Rambus DRAM Infineon PC133 SDRAM CAS 2
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce3 64MB (12.41 video drivers)
Sound Creative SoundBlaster Live!
Storage IBM 75GXP 30.5GB 7200RPM ATA/100 hard drive
OS Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional
OS updates Windows 2000 Service Pack 2, Direct X 8.0a

You’ve probably noticed that we’ve only tested the Athlon XP 1900+ on the KT266A motherboard; the other Athlons were tested on older platforms, so the 1900+ should have a bit of an advantage over the other Athlons. Keep that fact in mind as you take in the test results.

The test systems’ Windows desktops were set at 1024×768 in 32-bit color at a 75Hz screen refresh rate. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled for all tests.

We used the following versions of our test applications:

All the tests and methods we employed are publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

 
Memory performance
These memory performance tests are a good way to start, because they’ll show us whether the KT266A chipset gives our Athlon XP 1900+ test system any advantage. However, memory performance alone does not make a fast computer, so keep in mind that these scores are primarily just for show. The results are useful mainly because they help explain what comes on the following pages.

First up is the memory test from SiSoft’s Sandra, which is a modified version of the Stream benchmark. Here’s how things stack up:

As it has been for the past year, the Pentium 4 is fastest here. However, Athlon XP 1900+ gets a nice boost from the KT266A chipset; its FPU and integer scores jump up by a fair amount—more than one would expect with a 66MHz clock speed jump alone.

Now let’s look at it another way with Linpack.

To understand what this wild-looking graph is telling us, consider the results at a couple of different places. First, compare the megaflops numbers at a matrix size of about 64K. Here, the CPUs are able to do the math entirely inside their L1 caches, and the Athlon XP is far and away the fastest.

Next, compare the numbers at about 192K, where the data to be processed fits entirely in the processors’ L2 caches (with the exception of the Celeron and Duron). The Pentium 4’s L2 cache is fastest here, though the Athlon XP 1900+ isn’t too far behind.

Finally, compare the numbers out at 1800K, where the processors must all access main memory constantly in order to retrieve data. Here, the processors compare about like they do in the Sandra memory test; the P4 is fastest, followed by the Athlon XP/KT266A combo, then by the other DDR systems. The Pentium III and the value processors use slower, plain ol’ SDRAM, so they’re quite a bit slower.

Until the Athlon XP’s front side bus gets faster than 266MHz, I wouldn’t expect to see it challenging the Pentium 4 in raw memory bandwidth. The Pentium 4 simply excels here, and its ample memory bandwidth is a big contributor to the P4’s solid gaming and multimedia performance. However, these numbers don’t mean nearly as much as the scores in the performance benchmarks that follow…

 

Business Winstone 2001
Business Winstone tests performance in general office applications, like word processors, spreadsheets, and web browsers. This test is also usually a good indicator of overall system performance, especially where “light use” patterns are concerned (in other words, not gaming, heavy computation, or multimedia).

For general business use, the AMD processors are easily fastest. The Athlon XP 1900+ only builds on this lead.

Content Creation Winstone 2001
Content Creation Winstone is arguably more important than Business Winstone, since it tests more performance-sensitive apps, like image and audio processing suites, desktop publishing, web layout programs, and the like. As with Business Winstone, the test runs scripts using code from real applications, not just generic simulations.

The Athlon XP opens up a formidable ten-point gap between itself and the 2GHz Pentium 4. It’s just no contest here.

 

POV-Ray 3D rendering
POV-Ray is a freeware software ray-tracing program that creates high-quality 3D scenes. It’s also a very useful measure of a processor’s performance, particularly on floating-point math. Our POV-Ray tests use the original release of POV-Ray 3.1, plus Steve Schmitt’s recompiled versions, just to see what difference the various compilers and compiler settings can make.

The recompiled POV-Ray comes in two flavors: “PIII” and “P4”. Both were produced with Intel C v. 5.0. The “PIII” version doesn’t use any instructions proprietary to Intel processors or to the PIII; it runs just fine on the Athlon and the P4. The “P4” version uses a small bit of SSE2 code, but it doesn’t take advantage of the P4’s SIMD capabilities. I’ve indicated which version of POV-Ray was used in the graphs below next to the processor/speed labels, so it should be easy to track.

I’ve omitted results for the value processors here.

The Athlon XP is hard to beat in POV-Ray, even with newly compiled binaries, because the Athlon’s floating-point unit is a monster. The next scene, chess2.pov, is even more complex than the first.

Now we’re talking real differences. The Athlon XP 1900+ finishes rendering this scene over 100 seconds before the Pentium 4 2GHz, even when the P4 is running a specially optimized executable.

LAME MP3 encoding
LAME is the encoder of choice around Damage Labs for high-quality output, so this test holds some interest for me. More speed for MP3 encoding is always good.

Once again, the Athlon XP 1900+ is just a little bit faster than the 1800+ model.

 

Quake III Arena
Now comes the moment of truth. The Pentium 4 has reigned in Quake III Arena performance since its introduction. Say what you will about the Pentium 4’s performance, but in Q3A, it’s been king of the hill since day one. Can the Athlon XP 1900+ together with the KT266A’s additional memory bandwidth finally catch the Pentium 4 in Quake III?

Indeed it can; the Athlon XP wins in style, breaching the 200fps mark for the first time. (For the record, we test with visual quality and geometry detail settings turned to the max in Q3, and we leave the sound on. These are real-world gameplay performance numbers.) Even on the Pentium 4’s home turf, the Athlon XP 1900+ runs fastest.

Serious Sam
Now we’ll try another OpenGL-based first-person shooter, Serious Sam. This game engine—which produces the best looking visuals of anything on the market, as far as I’m concerned—offers us a little bit different perspective than Quake III.

Ow. That’s just brutal. Serious Sam likes the Athlon XP almost as much as Quake III has favored the Pentium 4.

3DMark 2001
There’s been a see-saw battle in the past six months over the performance lead in 3DMark 2001, but recently, the Pentium 4 has been leading. Can the Athlon XP 1900+ push the Pentium 4 2GHz off the top of the heap?

Not quite. The P4 still holds the lead in this BapCo/MadOnion benchmark.

 

SPECviewperf workstation graphics
Viewperf measures a different brand of graphics performance: professional OpenGL applications like CAD and 3D modeling. These workstation-class apps often stress a system in different ways than the gaming tests.

Normally, we’d throw all the viewperf results into one large graph, but this time around, we had too many different processors and clock speeds to do so comfortably. Individual graphs are the order of the day. I’ve omitted results for the ProCDRS test, because every single CPU scored between 16.03 and 16.07 on ProCDRS. I’ve also left out the Awadvs for similar reasons; Awadvs is obviously limited by the performance of the video card, not the processor.

The Athlon XP 1900+ with the KT266A chipset sets a new standard for workstation-class 3D performance.

 

Speech recognition
The Sphinx speech recognition tests came to us via Ricky Houghton, who works in a speech recognition effort at Carnegie Mellon University. They’re based on Sphinx 3.3, which is an advanced system that promises greater accuracy in speech recognition. However, Sphinx 3.3 still can’t quite run fast enough on a standard PC to handle tasks in real time; it’s limited primarily by memory bandwidth.

The Pentium 4 2GHz retains the top spot by a narrow margin. The Athlon XP 1900+ turns in the second fastest score overall, even though our graph is sorted in such a way that the P4 1.8GHz looks like it took the second spot. The P4 is faster with the Microsoft compiler, while the Athlon is faster—oddly enough—with the Intel compiler.

ScienceMark
On to Tim Wilkens’ computational benchmark, ScienceMark. This suite of tests measures number-crunching ability by running some computationally intensive scientific equations. Like 3DMark, ScienceMark then spits out a composite number denoting a system’s overall score in the suite.

Here’s how our contenders fared:

It’s another convincing victory for the Athlon XP 1900+. Let’s break it down into some of ScienceMark’s more interesting individual tests.

The Pentium 4 is fastest in Primordia, but the Athlon XP comes out way ahead on the QMC and Liquid Argon calculations.

 

Overclocking
For the record, our Athlon XP 1900+ was able to overclock to 1.74GHz on a 290MHz bus without any extreme measures. However, the Athlon XP’s new organic package makes overclocking via the CPU multiplier a little more difficult. The cuts that sever the connections on the Athlon XP’s L1 bridges are deeper and wider than on a T-bird. The ol’ pencil trick didn’t work for us. That’s not the end of the world, since it’s probably still possible to connect the L1 bridges and unlock the CPU multiplier. It’s just going to take more work with the Athlon XP.

Also, in light of what we’ve seen, I wouldn’t be shocked if the current 0.18-micron Athlon XP were selling at 1.7 or even 1.8GHz before AMD makes the transition to its 0.13-micron fab process.

Conclusions
The Athlon XP 1900+ utterly dominated our suite of performance tests, winning every test save two: 3DMark 2001 and Sphinx speech recognition. In both of those tests, the Athlon XP 1900+ came in a close second place behind the 2GHz Pentium 4. The P4 is a formidable competitor, particularly in the most performance-sensitive applications, where bus and memory bandwidth are at a premium. But the Athlon XP delivers strong performance across the board, with no apparent weakness. When coupled with VIA’s KT266A chipset, the Athlon XP removes all doubt about which x86 processor is fastest.

Makes you wonder if the “1900+” rating isn’t a little counterproductive, actually.

Regardless, AMD enjoys a sizeable performance lead right now. That’s a good thing for AMD, too, because Intel’s upcoming “Northwood” variant of the Pentium 4 looms large on the horizon. I can’t wait to see how the Athlon XP and the new Pentium 4 will match up.

Until then, the Athlon XP is the undisputed king of the hill. 

Comments closed
    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    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

    • IntelMole
    • 19 years ago

    [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 ๐Ÿ™

    They’ll destroy Intel, not themselves hehe

    • IntelMole
    • 19 years ago

    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 ๐Ÿ™‚

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

    • Forge
    • 19 years ago

    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 1600×1200 here, it’s quite readable in Mozilla.

    Enjoy.

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

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

    • Forge
    • 19 years ago

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

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    Wanna see 3400 3DMark2001 scores on a Voodoo3?

    ยง[<http://www.angelfire.com/ego/anthor/Voodoo3_scaling_in_3DMark2001_3405.png<]ยง

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    AG#41

    Lamborghini still makes tractors ๐Ÿ™‚

    ยง[<http://www.lamborghini-tractors.com/eng/index.cfm<]ยง

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    *[

    • EasyRhino
    • 19 years ago

    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. ๐Ÿ™‚

    ER

    • Forge
    • 19 years ago

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

    • Forge
    • 19 years ago

    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 1600×1200, and he had aniso and 4X AA forced on. Default it all out, then talk numbers.

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    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.

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    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

    • Joel H.
    • 19 years ago

    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.

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    Forge #4

    I’m pretty sure Lamborghini stopped making tractors a long time ago (early 60’s?). ๐Ÿ˜‰

    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.

    • ExcessOrder
    • 19 years ago

    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.

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    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.

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

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

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    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.

    • Forge
    • 19 years ago

    Nope. My pay and my rent cancel out. ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    Hey Forge,

    Do they make you pay rent here?

    • Forge
    • 19 years ago

    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 640×480 scores, if that, would be useful information.

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    *[

    • ExcessOrder
    • 19 years ago

    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.

    • cRock
    • 19 years ago

    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!!!!”

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    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?

    • Joel H.
    • 19 years ago

    I tested the Kyro II and it frankly doesn’t do wonderfully well in 3DMark 2000 or 2001–but it DOES offer great D3D performance for the price.

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    when is the xp2000+ coming out?

    • Forge
    • 19 years ago

    jbirney – Problem is, everything I’ve seen shows the Kyro2 being much happier on a P3 than on an Athlon, and far happier on Athlon than on P4.

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    *[

    • ExcessOrder
    • 19 years ago

    Boy, you better have a steady hand to be using fingernail polish to paint laser cuts. If you paint over the L1 bridge contacts, you won’t be able to get good electrical contact. I think the trace tape stuff various places sell is a safer plan, though it’s damned expensive.

    BTW, how about a Motherboard review? We haven’t had one of those for a long time! Damage & Co used the EP-8kha+, which I have and am extremely happy with…

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    I think Forge was referring to how to unlock the clock multiplier.

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    Anyone notice the link to this review from theregister.co.uk that says “Tech Report has some extensive benchmarking, putting the 1900+ slightly ahead of Intel’s P4 2.0GHz in most of them”? I didn’t notice “slightly” very often on the graphs…

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    Whatever u do, dont tell him about the nailpolish thing. ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    [q]Anyone noticed how the people call the Palomino “Athlon XP” while everybody said Thunderbird?[/q]
    Probably mostly down to the fact that this revision of the Athlon has its own marketing name.

    Without calling the previous one a “Thunderbird”, the term “Athlon” might’ve referred to a “Classic” Athlon, or a “Thunderbird” one … though admittedly the socket-A format kind of guaranteed it being a TB. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Though “Thunderbird” sounds cooler and is quicker to say than “Socket-A Athlon”…

    • Forge
    • 19 years ago

    Does it have SSE as well? Wonder if it can use both.

    • Forge
    • 19 years ago

    UT has 3Dnow! code?

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    sure, but UT is optimized with 3dnow.

    • sativa
    • 19 years ago

    it seems like UT would be a good CPU benchmark since it is more cpu limited than graphics card limited.

    • sativa
    • 19 years ago

    doh i was thinking of finger nail polish REMOVER. but i dont even know if that evaporates either hehe. of course fingernail polish doesn’t evaporate =)).

    the only problem i’d have is deciding on a color lol

    • Forge
    • 19 years ago

    Sativa – fingernail polish does not evaporate. It dries. After drying, it’s like lacquer, almost.

    • Forge
    • 19 years ago

    I’ll snag up two fast AMPs as soon as I have cash.

    /me passes the hat around.

    What should I bench on it? Dual 1.6Ghz Palominos and an OCed GF3 Ti500…. Quake3? Tribes2 (wish they’d add a timedemo!!)? UT? Max Payne (see Tribes2!!)?

    Specviewperf, of course (though it liked my GF2 Ultra -> Quadro2 Pro better than a GF3 or a Quadro3)..

    We need new benchmarks!!

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    Yawn.. Athlon XP faster than P4, tell me something new. A faster CPU isn’t what the computing public needs. How about some Serial ATA?

    Anyone noticed how the people call the Palomino “Athlon XP” while everybody said Thunderbird?

    • sativa
    • 19 years ago

    seems like fingernail polish would evaporate over time.

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    I was very close to buying an AXP system, but then I won a P4…

    Oh well, Maybe next time (as low as AMD chip prices are, they can’t beat free) ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Kevin
    • 19 years ago

    To unlock an XP chip you first need to fill in the holes with non-conductive stuff like figernail polish or epoxy. And then you can connect the bridges. I got this info from ยง[<http://www.forumoc.com<]ยง and I think there are a few other sites that have started posting stuff as well. Nice review Damage. How many CPU reviews has this been lately? Three? Four? That's quite a bit of benchmarking. My hat's off to you. Just don't work too hard. :-)

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    Yeah, it’s an exercise in excess. =P

    My dual P3 rig is cowering in fear . . .

    • Forge
    • 19 years ago

    Why not just get two? It’s not much more expensive, and it’s like having a Lamborghini that can haul a tractor trailer….

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    Jesus christ… when I saw the Q3A benchmark my jaw just dropped open… I’d really like to ditch my Cel566 @ 850 and get myself one of those babies…

    • Forge
    • 19 years ago

    I’d take two, but the letter before P is wrong.

    Hurry up Athlon MP 1900+!

    • Anonymous
    • 19 years ago

    Yeah baby!
    </austin powers>

    I will buy this chip 12 months from now, as per usual. It should be close enough to entry-level then ๐Ÿ™‚

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This