AMD’s Athlon XP 2100+ processor

AMD IS RELEASING its latest speed grade of the Athlon XP processor today, so it’s time once again to run the latest Athlons and Pentium 4s through the benchmark wringer in order to see who’s fastest. Last time around, we found the Athlon XP 2000+ and the Pentium 4 “Northwood” 2.2GHz in a virtual tie. Intel’s beefed-up P4 made great strides in the performance race, and the Athlon XP 2000+ was just barely able to keep pace.

So the Athlon XP 2100+ is set to climb to the top of the heap for x86 performance, right? Well, perhaps, but it has a few strikes against it. For one, the Athlon XP remains on the same 266MHz front-side bus as ever, and it’s made using AMD’s now-familiar 180-nanometer fabrication process. There are questions about how well the Athlon XP will scale as AMD ratchets up the clock speed independent of other improvements.

Plus, I really need to find a way to make this review interesting, so why not bring it up? Anyhow, we’ll benchmark this puppy and find out.

Introducing the Athlon XP 2100+
The first thing you need to know about the Athlon XP 2100+ is that it runs at 1.73GHz. Thanks to AMD’s handy-dandy naming scheme, the clock speed is different from the model number for a host of reasons we’ve already discussed at length.

You’ll probably forget about the first thing you need to know, though, once you see how the Athlon XP 2100+ looks:


Left: The Athlon XP 2000+ clad in brown. Right: The Athlon XP 2100+ in a stylish green.

Yep, it’s minty green. AMD says it’s changing its processors to match its company color. However, we all know AMD always has Intel on its mind, and I’m sure it didn’t hurt that the new color makes this CPU look an awful lot like some Intel products. Whatever the case, AMD is transitioning all of its chips with organic packaging (currently only the Athon XP and Athlon MP) to this new paint job. The change is purely cosmetic, so don’t expect big performance gains—unless you think “extra minty goodness” is worth a few more points in 3DMark.

For the photo fetishists out there, here’s a bigger picture of the chip.


A closer look at the 2100+

As you can probably make out, the L1 bridges on the XP 2100+ are indeed severed, with gigantic miniature pits between the two sides. It’s possible to bridge the gap and unlock the multiplier on the Athlon XP to allow free range in overclocking, but it ain’t easy.

Beyond that, this is the same old Athlon XP as ever. Based on AMD’s Palomino core, it’ll ride atop a whole host of different Socket A motherboards out there. Please see our recent KT333 review and Socket A chipset roundup to get a sense of the many good options available.

 

Our testing methods
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:

  Athlon XP Pentium 4 DDR Pentium 4 RDRAM
Processor AMD Athlon XP 1800+ 1.53GHz
AMD Athlon XP 2000+ 1.67GHz
AMD Athlon XP 2100+ 1.73GHz
Intel Pentium 4 2.0GHz
Intel Pentium 4 2.0″A”GHz
Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz
Intel Pentium 4 2.0GHz
Intel Pentium 4 2.0″A”GHz
Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz
Front-side bus 266MHz (133MHz double-pumped) 400MHz (100MHz quad-pumped) 400MHz (100MHz quad-pumped)
Motherboard Epox EP-8KHA+ Abit BD7-RAID Intel D850MD
Chipset VIA KT266A Intel 845 Intel 850
North bridge VT8366A 82845 MCH 82850 MCH
South bridge VT8233 82801BA ICH2 82801BA ICH2
Memory size 256MB (1 DIMM) 256MB (1 DIMM) 256MB (2 RIMMs)
Memory type Micron PC2100 DDR SDRAM Micron PC2100 DDR SDRAM Samsung PC800 Rambus DRAM
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 500 64MB (Detonator XP 21.83 video drivers)
Sound Creative SoundBlaster Live!
Storage IBM 75GXP 30.5GB 7200RPM ATA/100 hard drive
OS Microsoft Windows XP Professional
OS updates None

We’re testing with familiar motherboards and memory types here, because they represent what’s most widely available right now for the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP. Both processors would probably get a bit of a performance boost with DDR333 memory, and we’ll test that next time around, we promise.

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
We start out with memory performance to keep it logically separate from the rest of the benchmarks, because the memory tests are a little more theoretical, and a little less about real application performance, than the rest of the benchmarks.

There are clearly three classes of systems here: Pentium 4s based on RDRAM offer the most memory throughput, followed by Pentium 4s with DDR memory. Athlon XPs take the bottom three slots, as we’ve come to expect in this test. Let’s get a different kind of visual on it with Linpack:

If you’re new to Linpack graphs, look carefully. The left half of the graph is about floating-point performance using the L1 and L2 caches, and the right half is about FP performance when operating on data in main memory. You can see how the Pentium 4 “Willamette” has half the L2 cache of the Pentium 4 “Northwood,” and you can see how the Athlon XP’s 128K L1 cache is markedly faster than its L2 cache. You can also see that the Athlon XP’s total on-chip cache size is effectively 384K, because the L2 cache doesn’t replicate the contents of the L1 as in the Pentium 4.

The Athlon XP 2100+ peaks out higher than anything else, but the Northwood’s very fast 512K L2 cache allows it to run quite a bit faster at matrix sizes above 128K. Once we reach main memory, the DDR systems tend to bunch up, as do the RDRAM systems. The one exception is the Northwood 2.2GHz, which makes better use of DDR memory than the rest of the field.

 

Business Winstone 2001
Now we’ll get to the real meat of the tests. Business Winstone tests office applications like, well, MS Office, to see how fast these beasts will handle the daunting challenge of word processing.

The Athlon XP 2100+ takes a commanding lead in the office benchmark sweeps. But can it handle…

Content Creation Winstone 2001
By “content creation,” we mean mostly the kind of content we don’t have here at TR: real multimedia, streaming video and audio, snazzy graphics, and spinning logos. We’re lucky to coax a drop shadow out of Paint Shop Pro. Nevertheless, we power user types tend to spend a lot of time with “content creation” applications, so these tests are particularly noteworthy.

Also noteworthy is the fact that Content Creation Winstone now has a 2002 version, which we’ll be using soon. For today, though, we’ll stick with 2001.

The Athlon XP definitely has an edge in CC Winstone 2001, and the 2100+ model only extends that lead.

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.

We’re now using an updated version of Steve Schmitt’s recompiled POV-Ray. Although there two flavors of recompiled POV-Ray, including one specifically optimized for the Pentium 4, we’re only using the generic “PIII” version, which runs fine on both the Athlon and the Pentium 4. Unfortunately, some folks have reported getting buggy output from the P4-specific binary, so we’ll have to skip it.

This is a test the Athlon has always owned, so these results ought to come as no surprise. The Athlon’s impressive floating-point unit does especially well here, although advances in Intel’s compiler have helped the P4 close the gap somewhat.

LAME MP3 encoding
Isn’t it amazing how we can now encode MP3s much faster than real time? Let’s see which CPU is the best at keeping the RIAA up at night.

The pack is tight, but the Athlon XPs are bunched up at the top. We’re encoding a 50MB file here by the dude who does the “Like a Rock” theme for Chevy. Fork over the extra cash for an XP 2100+ instead of a 2000+, and you’ll save yourself a second encoding this song. Hmm.

 

Quake III Arena
Q3A has been a back-and-forth affair. For a long time, the P4 ruled in Quake III, and then the Athlon XP just caught up. Then the P4 passed it again. Can the Athlon XP retake the lead?

Not this time. The 2.2GHz Northwood is still king of all things Quake.

Serious Sam
Compared to Q3A, Serious Sam has more polygons, bigger textures, and more scrumptious eye candy. Here’s how they shake out…

Serious Sam is undoubtedly Athlon XP territory. The XP 2100+ outruns the P4 Willamette by over 40 frames per second.

3DMark 2001
3DMark is even more hotly contested than our other 3D gaming tests. Have a look:

The Athlon XP 2100+ outruns the Pentium 4 2.2GHz when the two processors are both paired with DDR memory, but RDRAM gives the P4 a slight edge overall.

 

SPECviewperf workstation graphics
SPEC’s benchmark of workstation graphics performance is increasingly about video card performance over CPU performance, as the fastest processors max out our test box’s GeForce3 Ti 500 card with ease in many of these tests. However, that’s not always the case.

The DX, DRV, and MedMCAD tests show some performance differences, and the Pentium 4 takes two out of those three.

Speech recognition
Speech recognition applications are especially hungry for memory bandwidth, but they require a fast CPU, as well. The version of Sphinx we’re testing needs to run faster than real time for its fairly intensive speech recognition algorithm to be useful.

Once again, none of our systems break the real-time barrier without overclocking. The Athlon XP 2100+ is actually a little faster than the P4 Willamette when compiled with Intel’s compiler. Go figure.

 

ScienceMark
Tim Wilkens’ computational benchmark, ScienceMark, is a suite of tests that 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.

The Athlon XPs are fastest here, and—surprise—the Athlon XP 2100+ is fastest of all. On some of the more interesting individual tests, the results came out like so:

We just write this stuff after the graphs for fun. Does anyone read it?

Overclocking
The Palomino core in the Athlon XP 2100+ isn’t supposed to have much headroom left for overclocking, what with the 0.13-micron Thoroughbred coming soon and all. We wanted to find out how much extra is left in the Pally, so we turned up the clock a bit. We got the system to POST at 1950MHz on a 150MHz (300MHz DDR) bus, and it was surprisingly stable navigating BIOS menus and the like. However, the thing just wouldn’t boot into Windows, even with DMA disk access modes like ATA/100 disabled.

We were able to boot into WinXP at 1885MHz on a 145MHz front-side bus, though, and take a screenshot:

The processor seemed pretty happy at 1885MHz, but we had to back off on memory timings in order to keep the system stable, even with KingMax DDR333 DIMMs installed. We’d love to show you some exciting benchmarks at 1885MHz, but once we cranked back the RAM timings, the benchmarks didn’t show much appreciable gain. We’ll have to mess with unlocking the processor via its L1 bridges to know for sure how far this thing will really go.

In any case, the overclocking crowd will definitely want to consider a 1.6A or 1.8A Pentium 4 Northwood. The Pentium 4’s speedster design and Intel’s 0.13-micron copper fab process will ensure some massive overclocks, and the P4 platform’s 100MHz/400MHz front-side bus offers more headroom for both clock speed and performance than the Athlon XP. Of course, Intel CPUs can’t be unlocked like Athlon XPs, so keep that in mind.

 

An even closer look at the 2100+

Conclusions
There’s still life left in the Palomino, no doubt about it. At 1.73GHz, the Athlon XP 2100+ outruns the Pentium 4 2.2GHz in many of our tests—especially when the P4 is stripped of the slight advantage it gets from RDRAM.

That said, which processor will be fastest for you depends on your needs. For general use in business applications and content creation tasks, the Athlon XP 2100+ rules the roost. AMD’s latest is also best at real computational grunt work, like 3D rendering and scientific computing, provided that memory bandwidth isn’t the primary limitation in your application.

In our gaming tests, the Athlon XP and Pentium 4 were very evenly matched. But for strictly memory-limited applications, there’s no denying the P4’s prowess. In our test suite, the Sphinx and ScienceMark Primordia tests are the best examples of memory bandwidth-limited apps. The P4 cleaned up in those tests, regardless of RAM type. Perhaps it’s the 400MHz bus or perhaps it’s the P4’s memory prefetch and SSE streaming abilities. Whatever it is, the Pentium 4 makes much better use of the memory bandwidth available to it, and it shows.

So picking the fastest CPU solely on its merits here isn’t easy. If you’re unsure which brand of performance—Athlon XP or Pentium 4—will suit you best, rest assured that both CPUs are extremely fast. The places where one excels over the other are areas of strength, not weakness.

However, once you get down to the price-performance equation, AMD still leads. Here’s how AMD’s pricing will look now that the XP 2100+ has hit the scene.

Athlon XP 2100+ (1.73GHz) – $420
Athlon XP 2000+ (1.67GHz) – $339
Athlon XP 1900+ (1.60GHz) – $231
Athlon XP 1800+ (1.53GHz) – $188
Athlon XP 1700+ (1.47GHz) – $157
Athlon XP 1600+ (1.4GHz) – $130

The list price on the Athlon XP 2100+ is about 50 bucks lower than the street price on a Pentium 4 2.2GHz. Sounds good, but AMD is kinda-sorta raising prices here, in the sense that the Athlon XP 2000+ was $339 upon its debut in early January. Now, the list price for the fastest Athlon XP is 80 bucks higher, and the Athlon XP 2000+’s price remains unchanged. That’s not a raw deal, but it is uncharacteristic for AMD. Apparently, the success of the model numbering scheme has inspired enough confidence for AMD to keep prices higher. (That, or they’re storing up price cuts for a potential price war with Intel. I wouldn’t be shocked to see one in the next few months.)

Regardless, the Athlon XP 2100+ is a helluva thing. It is—maybe, probably, depending on your application—the fastest x86 processor anywhere. For now. 

Comments closed
    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    It ‘s definitely a shame for Intel! AMD is still using 0.18 fabrication while Intel is using 0.13. When AMD deploys the 0.13 fabrication (Hammer), Intel will be kicked AXX.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    Tom has a DIVX 5 review. Looks great! – note his remark about the Via northbridge crapping out on 2-pass encoding (sounds like Via to me).

    Amazingly the XP beats the Northwood by around 15-percent! Finally we’re seeing optimized x87 code for the old Athlon.

    Intel will have to show that “memory bandwidth” is more important than a decent fpu. So far I’ve not seen it (marketing aside).

    Go AMD!

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    #41

    I’d rather they were AMD chipsets if I had to do that many!

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    #14 – I have no proof – just a hunch (pure guess). I think after the .13 micron XP comes out that in 3-4 months they will release and MP version with 512-cache.

    JHO in the matter.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    I’ve been under the impression that the Northwood was now the fastest chip. But looks to me that is not so. That AMP chip is around 5-percent faster!

    great. onward to .13 micron!!

    I don’t think AMD has much to fear if their .18 product can keep up with Intel’s .13 chip (yes I now they overclock great – but joe ave. won’t be overclocking).

    • Alanzilla
    • 18 years ago

    [quote]commen[/quote]

    Sonofabitch. It’s been a long day.

    • Alanzilla
    • 18 years ago

    #51, i[

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    Spune and Gerbil #2, “Love Hurts” was written by Gram Parsons and performed first by him, backed by his band (the Fallen Angels, which included Emmylou Harris)… That’s still the best version, IMHO. But that was back in 1970, IIRC, so you might have missed it. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • Forge
    • 18 years ago

    R2P2 – It switched back to MHz at about 2266MHz. A little quick math gets XP@2.4GHz = XP model 3100+, though, so yes.

    Tbred@2.4 == Williamette@~3.0-3.5 == Northwood@~2.8-3.0

    That’s assuming 133 FSB for the P4s, of course.

    • Forge
    • 18 years ago

    Damage – If you want a new multiplier on that 2100+, let me take a shot at it. You won’t be able to do much by just crossing the L1’s, as that’ll limit you to 5.5-12.5 multipliers. the 13-20.5 ones require bridge diddling.

    Actually, nevermind. I just tested here and found that the base multipliers remap to the new range. You won’t be able to knock the mult below 13, though, without changing the L10 bridge.

    • Steel
    • 18 years ago

    Intel motherboards are hardly second rate.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    How about running an unbiased benchmark comparison for once? Maybe one where the P4 RDRAM system isn’t crippled with a second-rate motherboard?

    • Forge
    • 18 years ago

    As for benches: Umm, nope. I’m in the deep water for running my mouth such as I already have. Sorry, guys.

    • Mr Bill
    • 18 years ago

    “We just write this stuff after the graphs for fun. Does anyone read it?”

    Little comment best part, like message in fortune cookie.
    Nice Review.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    35, in answer to your question—–Thoroughbred will be out this month. Dunno the speed grade or cost, tho.
    Don’t bother to ask for more info at this site, judging by the posts no one seems interested in the subject.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    *[

    • Joel H.
    • 18 years ago

    Considering the fact that SiS, nForce, and ALI boards are all available for the Athlon, I just don’t see the problem.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    #37, that’s two computers.

    Try two hundred. Or two thousand. Or more. Say you were in charge of maintaining that many computers; can you honestly say you wouldn’t mind having ’em all be Via based?

    I don’t hate Via; in fact, I use a Via based duallie at home, and I like it. It’s just that reading about everyone else’s problems gives me a nagging doubt about the quality their stuff.

    • Coldfirex
    • 18 years ago

    It comes tommorow

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    I think I had a Tbred last night for dinner.

    • danny e.
    • 18 years ago

    woohoo.

    – danny e.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    #36: My Two ECS K7S5A are rock solid, one is my Linux server, one is my XP workstation.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    Well, let’s hope that one day someone comes out with reliable and compatible chipsets for Athlons. Then we will talk.

    In some environments cheap (Via) just doesn’t cut it

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    When is T-Bred coming out?
    Any rumors, facts, lies—-anything at all—-on how long I gotta wait?
    C’mon, some answers, please !!!!!

    • IntelMole
    • 18 years ago

    Just one niggle:

    [q] The Athlon XP 2100+ outruns the Pentium 4 2.2GHz when the two processors are both paired with DDR memory, but RDRAM gives the P4 a slight edge overall. [/q]

    I hardly call 9 points (8219 vs. 8210) a slight edge, more of a negligible advantage…

    Apart from that, good review, and bring on the ‘breds,
    IntelMole

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    [i]We just write this stuff after the graphs for fun. Does anyone read it?[/i]

    Oh yeah. The graphs all start to look the same after a while.

    I assume that you’re sticking with the older video card so that you don’t have to go back and re-run all of the benchmarks with the previously-reviewed systems?

    I am also waiting for T-bred to upgrade my Duron (750 at 7×133=933). Once AMD gets their 0.13

    • R2P2
    • 18 years ago

    Forge — So, that Tbred you oc’d to 2.4 would be what? A 3100+? Could you maybe do some benchies on that and compare them to Tom’s 3.0GHz Woody? if talking about the results won’t get you killed, that is. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • Aphasia
    • 18 years ago

    And why wouldnt barton come to light…
    Just bacause many rumours label it as a testing or warming up round for the soi tech until hammer comes out doesnt mean anything. And why should AMD change their roadmap so severely when they actually have been following it..

    Damn, Forge… will they go on forever with those XP’s
    Its really amazing how far that design has gone already
    if you think about it. Well done AMD and former Alpha guys.

    cheers

    • indeego
    • 18 years ago

    [quote]”Check the Anand review. SysMark 2002 is now ‘highly bandwidth dependent’ vs. 2001. The Northwood owns the XP in this benchmark. And people actually wonder if BapCo is not an Intel marketing front? “[/quote]

    That’s pretty accurate. And for the few apps where bandwidth is important, like Q3A, it handily whips ‘thlons butts.

    However, in most real-world apps the Athlon still gives a far better price/performance ratio, againg{.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    You can run quake3 in software under Linux. Why not use this to bench q3. Then the Athlon can whip the P4 in that as well.

    • Joel H.
    • 18 years ago

    I can tell you what happens to the P4 on a non-T&L card.

    It bombs.

    I’ve tested it on a GF3, a Kyro II, and a V5 5500 PCI (AGP cards won’t fit).

    In all three cases, P4 scores approximately halve when T&L is disabled.

    In the case of the Athlon, scores stay much closer–about 90% of their hardware T&L max.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 18 years ago

    Check the Anand review. SysMark 2002 is now ‘highly bandwidth dependent’ vs. 2001. The Northwood owns the XP in this benchmark. And people actually wonder if BapCo is not an Intel marketing front?

    • Forge
    • 18 years ago

    Just checked for you. XP @ 2.2GHz is an ‘Athlon XP 2800+’

    • Forge
    • 18 years ago

    nihilistcanada – Excellent. Glad to hear it’s working out for you. Make sure to check out the great dualhead, as I miss the independant resolution support, the Ti4600 won’t do it.

    Re: Tbred – Hot holy b00m scat. Just got my first sit down with a Tbred box. XP 2300+. Just cranked the focher, and got 2.4GHz with 1.85v and a Thermalright SK6. If there were two in the building, there’d be murders so I could take them home. I have to go whine some more and see how much I can say.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 18 years ago

    23, true enough, but if all you want to read is the summary page, why not just go to one of the many other websites that has an index?

    Maybe I don’t care b/c I am on DSL and the pages load instantly for me…

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    22,

    2) Yeah but it’s still not as convenient as an index. Certainly painfully obvious to anyone with a clue… But you might skip too far ahead and go past the last page.

    7,

    At least it is there to begin with.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 18 years ago

    1) [q]nrobinson said:

    Intel is going to have some serious scrambling to do a month from now[/q]

    They are. It is called 533MHz FSB (quad-pumped 133) These CPUs are ‘conveniently’ scheduled for release mid-April. Imagine that. Once these come out ‘officially’ (though chipsets such as the SiS645 already support it with proper dividers) then I believe the race will be on again. When the Hammers come out though, Intel may have some real trouble.
    But, dear Lord Almighty, PLEEZ don’t let VIA come out with their own ‘lower cost’ chipset for the Hammers. The bugs that will surely be present in a budget chipset that all the cheap-asses will get could ruin the hammer rep before it is even started.

    2) For all the fools who complain about ‘no idex’ from their gerbil accounts: that is the way the articles are written, take it or leave it; AND there is a painfully simple way to get around this, regardless of browser, OS, time of day, or lunar cycle. But I will not reveal it because this is the way Damage wants it. All I know is if I want to see page xx, I can get it right away.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    headline:

    AMD’s Athlon XP 2100+ processor
    ==========================

    ……yawn

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    [q]Intel’s beefed-up P4 made great strides in the performance race, and the Athlon XP 2000+ was just barely able to keep pace.[/q]

    Keep pace? If I correct P4 Northwood is 2.2 ghz on 0.13 micron while the Xp2000+ is 1.67 ghz on 0.18 mircons. Just makes you wonder what the Xp? at 2.2 ghz on 0.13 microns can do.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    Darn it, I just cant find the index on this article!

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    I read the comments because when you’re on a ship at sea, well, internet just isn’t very fast, and well, those pictures take forever to load up =)

    redpriest

    • R2P2
    • 18 years ago

    Damage — Are you as tired of testing every little speed bump as most of us are of reading the reviews? I mean, running all those benchmarks on a CPU that’s just clocked 4% higher than the last one must be pretty boring. Is the ad revenue worth the trouble?

    • EasyRhino
    • 18 years ago

    Damage, I think you need to start testing CPU’s with a faster video card (GF4, of course). Looks like BOTH the 3DMark AND the nerdymark are being video card constrained by a Ti500. And that’s no good when you’re benching CPU’s.

    And I kinda like jbirney’s idea of benching with TnL disabled. I remember the old days of TnL, when you could get a really fast CPU, disable the TnL, and it would be faster without it than with it in certain circumstances ๐Ÿ™‚

    ER

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    [q]AMD, give us heatspreaders.[/q]

    AMD has heatspreaders on upcoming processors.

    I still think AMD needs to throw more L2 cache on their chips. doesnt look like they will any time soon. doh.

    – danny e.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    [q]Another thing. Where did that $420 price tag come from?
    They run $319 on pricewatch and its retail[/q]

    $420 is likely the AMD official pricing in 1,000 unit bundles. They typically sell under their “official” price.

    g{

    • nrobison
    • 18 years ago

    Bloody marvelous processor though – if the release lag indicates that AMD is taking Thoroughbred’s maturity seriously, Intel is going to have some serious scrambling to do a month from now (unless they can convince the masses to buy 100 MB L2 Xeons or slash prices on the Itanium by 99.5% – anything to get a new processor name in the desktop biz – I can’t see how they’ll keep up)

    • nrobison
    • 18 years ago

    I read the footnotes, too. As intelligent reviewers like Damage and Dan (of ever so long-winded and witty Dans Data fame) mature as writers, there remains a reason to read 6 pages every week or so and find out, woo-hoo, the 5% PR or clock increase resulted in…(wait for it)… a 5% improvement in CPU-dependant tasks and some data fuzz in benchmarks constrained by memory or hdd.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    I read that on the Quake 3 benchmark AMD is better when resolution is raised to 1024X768X32bit which is where my gaming is at. Who plays with 640X480 graphics anyway? Maybe If I had a K6 or Pentium 2 but with machines offered at these speeds why not enjoy some graphics along with a more than satisfactory speed maintnance.

    Another thing. Where did that $420 price tag come from?
    They run $319 on pricewatch and its retail.
    ยง[<http://www.pricewatch.com<]ยง (for those who dont know) I do agree that, for most users, It would be best to wait for the thouroughbred release. With .13 cores expect lower temps. I would have thought with P4 at .13 they would have a 3Ghz processor by now. WTH? I love my AthlonXP and have always been AMD fan but never would I wish Intel out of busness. It is competition that drives them. Without it I question if we would have broken the 1Ghz barrier yet.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    > But then their is nothing like the stability of an Intel chipset

    Getting pissed away by overclocking.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    Read over at AMDMB.com that AMD plans to start shipment of Thoroughbred at the end of this month. Woohoo!

    • nihilistcanada
    • 18 years ago

    A very impressive processor, but alas I just set up a new system, Northwood 1.6a that is humming along at 2.2GHZ with retail cooling.

    At $240 Canadian, this is still the best value I have found. I have only just begun to overclock my little toy. Christ she will run at stock voltage at this speed.

    When AMD goes .13 micron then maybe the overclockers choice will be the Athlon again.

    But then their is nothing like the stability of an Intel chipset.

    OBTW Forge I ended up getting a Radeon 8500 retail instead of a Geforce3, at $270 Canadian they are by far the best deal. Thanks for your advice.

    • Spune
    • 18 years ago

    For the record Damage I read the stuff under the graphs even if no one else does.

    Ag#2 By my recollection “Love Hurts” was a Nazareth tune

    As for the 2100 its basically more of the same just faster. If I was looking for a faster CPU I think I would wait for T-bred. But as it is I think I’ll just wait for Hammer, because by then I’ll hopefully be able to afford something good!

    • indeego
    • 18 years ago

    no price war. damn. Waiting for the 1800+ to get below $100g{.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    Did he do Love Hurts, too? Good gatorade commercial for that one as I recollect.

    • Anonymous
    • 18 years ago

    For the record, the dude who sang “Like A Rock” was Bob Seger. I used to like that song before he sold it to Chevy and they played it to death and beyond.

    -Howard

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This