3200+ Barton @ excaliberpc.com

[boyRacer]

Link

 

[BmXStuD]

too much!

 

[snidy1]

$467 at monarchcomputer. Still a little too much still

 

[0roo0roo]

grumble, me and my 2700 ram.

 

[human2k]

$161 more over the XP3000 for an extra 40MHZ and a 200MHZ fsb.

btw, I would like to see this in action against an overclocked tbred b at 200mzhx12.

 

[EeyoreX]

Of course it's too much. Exactly what I was waiting for. Assuming it actually helps drop the price of the current Bartons Otherwise, wait I must for my 3000+

\Dan

 

[JohnDeer]

what a joke the 3200 is. Why call it a new clock speed if the chip speed is the same amount of MHz? Why not just call it the 3000B or something? I know it is marketing

 

[tkdkid]

Originally posted by: JohnDeer
what a joke the 3200 is. Why call it a new clock speed if the chip speed is the same amount of MHz? Why not just call it the 3000B or something? I know it is marketing

Ugh..some people never get it.

MHz isn't the only thing that determines the performance level of a processor, despite what Intel has been cramming down your throat.

 

[bgeh]

i would want to see benchmarks before making any conclusions
i do hope AMD has learnt its lesson from the 3000+
and no, i would want to see official results, not X-Bit labs results
however, i do agree that X-Bit Labs' results can be used to gauge the performance of the 3200+

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: tkdkid

Originally posted by: JohnDeer
what a joke the 3200 is. Why call it a new clock speed if the chip speed is the same amount of MHz? Why not just call it the 3000B or something? I know it is marketing

Ugh..some people never get it.

MHz isn't the only thing that determines the performance level of a processor, despite what Intel has been cramming down your throat.

No moron you don't get it...this isn't about Intel and "Mhz Myth"....this has to do with amd changing the pr rating when the cpu frequency does not change and somehow try to convince us that 40mhz in cpu speed with a 400fsb is equivalent to a 200 in pr rating points....

Go back and take a look at the 3000+ barton and how it almost got handed its shorts from the 2800+xp tbred....The 2800+xp beat the 2800+ barton....The fact is that in not all apps will the cpu take advantage of the 400fsb. In fact many apps will be no difference to neglible range.

This chip needed to be 2.3ghz!!!



Update: from www.xbitlabs.com preview of 400fsb....synthetic crap test like pcmark2002, and sissoft excluded as they never seem to result in real world comparison....

AMD 2.2ghz (3200+) Barton
AMD 2.167ghz (3000+) Barton (333fsb)
AMD 2.1ghz (3000+) Barton (400fsb)

Pr rating is a 6.7% increase (3200 to 3000)
Actual mhz is 1.5% increase (2.2ghz to 2.167ghz)

Comparison mainly of 3200+ barton versus 3000+ Barton (333fsb) model

Business Apps:

Winstone-------------------------2.8%
MM Content Creation----------4.6%

Multimedia Apps:

Lame Mp3------------------------(0.04%)
MP4 Divx 5.02--------------------2.1%
Windows Media 9---------------4.0%

Cadd Apps:

3dMax 5--------------------------1.4%
Lightwave Raytrace------------2.1%
Lightwave Sunset--------------1.4%
Average SpecViewPerf---------5.8%

Gaming Apps:

RTCW------------------------------6.0%
UT 2003 DM-Antalus------------5.0%
UT 2003 FlyBy--------------------4.6%


conclusion.....

The Pr rating will deliver in Gaming and mixed bag in Bus apps wih content and cadd apps with specviewperf, but for the most part Cadd apps, and multimedia users will once again see no advantage to the sketchy pr rating which at one time really seemed to work....

As a divx encoder and mp3 encoder I see the only increase related to pure cpu power with fsb resulting in no advantage...In Cadd apps the increase was also more of a result of increase in cpu speed versus the fsb of 400....

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: tkdkid

Originally posted by: JohnDeer
what a joke the 3200 is. Why call it a new clock speed if the chip speed is the same amount of MHz? Why not just call it the 3000B or something? I know it is marketing

Ugh..some people never get it.

MHz isn't the only thing that determines the performance level of a processor, despite what Intel has been cramming down your throat.

The irony. Take a look at the Mobile Athlon 1700+. It gets smoked by a Mobile Centrino 1.3Ghz in every conceivable benchmark.

PR ratings were ok in the beginning, but the way AMD has been changing the PR rating with every little change in chip archetiture is just stupid. Instead of letting the consumer decide what processor is better for their needs, AMD decides to tell the consumer that this is 200 units faster (~7%), even though it maybe slower (Tbred-B's vs Bartons in roughly 1/2 the apps). The "Intel and the Mhz myth" is another PR myth by AMD. Intel procs are clearly labeled by their Mhz, and despite the fact, many consumers would choose a Pentium 4 2Ghz over a Celeron 2.2Ghz.

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Ugh..some people never get it.

MHz isn't the only thing that determines the performance level of a processor, despite what Intel has been cramming down your throat.

The irony. Take a look at the Mobile Athlon 1700+. It gets smoked by a Mobile Centrino 1.3Ghz in every conceivable benchmark.

Link please.

 

[bgeh]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: tkdkid

Originally posted by: JohnDeer
what a joke the 3200 is. Why call it a new clock speed if the chip speed is the same amount of MHz? Why not just call it the 3000B or something? I know it is marketing

Ugh..some people never get it.

MHz isn't the only thing that determines the performance level of a processor, despite what Intel has been cramming down your throat.

The irony. Take a look at the Mobile Athlon 1700+. It gets smoked by a Mobile Centrino 1.3Ghz in every conceivable benchmark.

PR ratings were ok in the beginning, but the way AMD has been changing the PR rating with every little change in chip archetiture is just stupid. Instead of letting the consumer decide what processor is better for their needs, AMD decides to tell the consumer that this is 200 units faster (~7%), even though it maybe slower (Tbred-B's vs Bartons in roughly 1/2 the apps). The "Intel and the Mhz myth" is another PR myth by AMD. Intel procs are clearly labeled by their Mhz, and despite the fact, many consumers would choose a Pentium 4 2Ghz over a Celeron 2.2Ghz.

i thought the Mobile Athlon 1700+ was to compete with the Mobile P4 1.7GHz and not the Pentium M.
btw, this is beginning to turn into a Intel vs. AMD thread