AMD Introduces World?s Highest Performing Desktop PC Processor, the AMD Athlon? XP Processor 3200+

[Macro2]

AMD Introduces World?s Highest Performing Desktop PC Processor, the AMD Athlon? XP Processor 3200+
SUNNYVALE, CA -- May 13, 2003 --AMD (NYSE: AMD) today introduced the AMD Athlon? XP processor 3200+, the world?s highest performing desktop PC processor. Featuring enhancements such as a faster 400 front-side bus (FSB), AMD continues to build on the award-winning AMD Athlon XP processor architecture.

The AMD Athlon XP processor 3200+ outperforms its closest competitor by an average of 6 percent on a variety of industry-standard software benchmarks. By focusing on innovations that truly benefit PC users, AMD?s newest desktop processor enables the highest level of performance on content creation, office productivity and gaming applications, proving again that performance is more than megahertz.

?AMD is focused on meeting computer manufacturers? requests for technology advancements that deliver the best performance possible to business and home PC users,? said Rich Heye, vice president and general manager of AMD?s Microprocessor Business Unit. ?The AMD Athlon XP processor 3200+ with a 400 FSB is yet another example of AMD delivering technology innovations that create a better computing experience for all levels of PC users.?

?Many PC purchasers today are realizing that what they ultimately want is quicker software application response, and that often isn?t provided by simply increasing processor speed,? said Toni Duboise, desktop PC industry analyst, ARS. ?With improved architectural enhancements such as faster bus speeds, customers can get better performance from their software applications and that means a more enjoyable computer experience.?

?Over the past three years, AMD Athlon XP processors have powered several hundred desktop systems for us that have delivered a strong combination of reliability and price-performance," said Randy Ryan, director of MIS, Del Valle Independent School District, Texas. "AMD's powerful processors combined with other industry-leading hardware and software helps our employees and students increase their computing productivity, and that's an excellent result for any organization.?

Availability
The AMD Athlon XP processor 3200+ is available immediately worldwide. Systems powered by the AMD Athlon XP processor 3200+ are available immediately from computer manufacturers in North America and Europe.

Pricing
The AMD Athlon XP processor 3200+ is priced at $464 in 1,000-unit quantities. For additional information on pricing, please visit www.amd.com/pricing.

About the AMD Athlon? XP Processor
The AMD Athlon XP processor features QuantiSpeed? architecture and support for AMD's 3DNow!? Professional instructions for enhanced multimedia capabilities. Depending on the core, AMD Athlon XP processors feature either 384KB or 640KB of on-chip, full-speed cache. The AMD Athlon XP processor is compatible with AMD's Socket A infrastructure, and supports the 400, 333 or 266 FSB. AMD Athlon XP processors are manufactured using AMD's 0.13 micron copper process technology in Fab 30 in Dresden, Germany.

About AMD
Founded in 1969 and based in Sunnyvale, California, AMD (NYSE: AMD) is a global supplier of integrated circuits for the personal and networked computer and communications markets with manufacturing facilities in the United States, Europe, Japan, and Asia. AMD, a Standard & Poor?s 500 company, produces microprocessors, Flash memory devices, and silicon-based solutions for communications and networking applications.

AMD on the Web
For more information about today?s announcement, please visit our virtual pressroom at http://www.amd.com/news/spotlight.

AMD performance benchmark information is available at http://www.amd.com/athlonxpbenchmarks.Additional press releases are available at www.amd.com/news/news.html.

For more information about AMD?s business products, please visit www.amd.com/business.

AMD, the AMD Arrow logo, AMD Athlon, and combinations thereof, 3DNow! and QuantiSpeed are trademarks of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Other product and company names are for informational purposes only and may be trademarks of their respective companies.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_10...

Text

 

[Duvie]

Same old marketing BS they spewed with the 3000+ barton....We all know where that finished up against the 3.06ghz p4 and now even further behind the 3.0ghz p4c 800fsb chip....

I guess we will wait and see if the 3200+ chip which is a 6.5% gain in pr points yet less then 2% gain in clock speed will somehow climb back into the lead with most of the deficits it has in anandtechs p4c 800fsb 3.0ghz review....gaming they may take a partial crown but I don't see them recapturing lead in Cadd and Multimedia...Just too far behind....

 

[Chobits]

Is it against the 845PE chipset this time ? I'm a diehard AMD fan but I think that they should've started at 3400+ and releaesd 3400+, 3600+ and 3800+ to tide use to the end of the year because

I really see no reason to purchase a 3200+ over a 3000+ unles that 3200+ has some kind of insane stepping like the 2500+ Barton or the 2100+ TbredB

 

[Macro2]

It's all a bunch of BS but AMD appears to be in the lead if you filter out the Intel "optomized benchmark" chucks.
Tom seems to like to eat those though.

Of course I would have liked to have seen a 3400+ and a 3600+ but that will come soon enough.

 

[draggoon01]

shouldn't reviews be out or do press releases normally come earlier? and when's intel's next release?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Macro2
It's all a bunch of BS but AMD appears to be in the lead if you filter out the Intel "optomized benchmark" chucks.
Tom seems to like to eat those though.

Of course I would have liked to have seen a 3400+ and a 3600+ but that will come soon enough.

With a ~7% PR rating advantage, you damn well EXPECT it to perform at LEAST 7% better than a P4 3.0C

Intel optimized? Quake3 Arena, UT2003, Comanche4, Splinter Cell, in fact after skimming through Tom's review. The 3200+ paired with an nForce2 doesnt win 1 single benchmark against the 3.0C paired with a 875 Canterwood board.

And FYI, even if it SSE2 optimized, Opteron will have SSE2 capabilities. In the future, most all apps should have some kind of SSE2 enhancements, which would further the gap between the AXP series and the P4's.

 

[FuManStan]

Firingsquad has a brief review up now. It beats the P4 3.0 in quite a few gaming tests, sans Quake 3.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Macro2
AMD performance benchmark information is available at http://www.amd.com/athlonxpbenchmarks.

Fixed link

Oh, and if you want a good laugh, read the fine print where it states what applications they use to come up with their PR rating...

What reputable hardware site uses AquaMark, Dronez, Evolva, Expendable, Half-Life, MDK2, UT (not 2003), and 3dMark 2001??? Welcome to two years ago, AMD.

So, it's unfair to use current SSE2 benchmarks, but it's fair to use benchmarks up to 3 years old.

Oh yeah... and take note that they use a nForce2 board for the Athlon, and an i845G board for the P4. The best chipset for the Athlon, and the i845G which is about the 7th or 8th best chipset for the P4.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: FuManStan
Firingsquad has a brief review up now. It beats the P4 3.0 in quite a few gaming tests, sans Quake 3.

One reason is because they chose to use an Asus for the Athlon and an Intel board for the P4. Intel's boards generally are not as fast as the high performance Asus boards. (Why they chose to not use the Asus... I have no idea.)

For instance, when Firingsquad reviewed the Asus P4C800 (using a P4-3.0ghz), it scored 248/84 fps (flyby/botmatch) in UT2003. The Athlon scores 234/77 fps.

The same carries true throughout the benchmarks.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: FuManStan
Firingsquad has a brief review up now. It beats the P4 3.0 in quite a few gaming tests, sans Quake 3.

One reason is because they chose to use an Asus for the Athlon and an Intel board for the P4. Intel's boards generally are not as fast as the high performance Asus boards. (Why they chose to not use the Asus... I have no idea.)

For instance, when Firingsquad reviewed the Asus P4C800 (using a P4-3.0ghz), it scored 248/84 fps (flyby/botmatch) in UT2003. The Athlon scores 234/77 fps.

The same carries true throughout the benchmarks.

While this is normally true, it isn't with this particular chipset; Intel has one of the fastest 875P motherboards on the market. Besides, even the slowest motherboards using the same chipset and using mature BIOSes will perform within 3% of each other in the most commonly used desktop applications.

 

[Jeff7]

AMD, and chipset makers too, better pick up the pace and put out some faster CPU's and chipsets. AMD had the speed crown for awhile there, but I think they are feeling the strain here of Intel's vast resources and better marketing.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: FuManStan
Firingsquad has a brief review up now. It beats the P4 3.0 in quite a few gaming tests, sans Quake 3.

One reason is because they chose to use an Asus for the Athlon and an Intel board for the P4. Intel's boards generally are not as fast as the high performance Asus boards. (Why they chose to not use the Asus... I have no idea.)

For instance, when Firingsquad reviewed the Asus P4C800 (using a P4-3.0ghz), it scored 248/84 fps (flyby/botmatch) in UT2003. The Athlon scores 234/77 fps.

The same carries true throughout the benchmarks.

While this is normally true, it isn't with this particular chipset; Intel has one of the fastest 875P motherboards on the market. Besides, even the slowest motherboards using the same chipset and using mature BIOSes will perform within 3% of each other in the most commonly used desktop applications.

But if you look at their results for the P4 in the "3200+" review and compare it to their P4C800 review... It appears that all components are the same, yet the Asus gets significantly higher scores.

(Unless they are using an old BIOS or some other similar oversight.)

I have yet to see another site where the Athlon beat the P4 in the games like that.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: FuManStan
Firingsquad has a brief review up now. It beats the P4 3.0 in quite a few gaming tests, sans Quake 3.

One reason is because they chose to use an Asus for the Athlon and an Intel board for the P4. Intel's boards generally are not as fast as the high performance Asus boards. (Why they chose to not use the Asus... I have no idea.)

For instance, when Firingsquad reviewed the Asus P4C800 (using a P4-3.0ghz), it scored 248/84 fps (flyby/botmatch) in UT2003. The Athlon scores 234/77 fps.

The same carries true throughout the benchmarks.

While this is normally true, it isn't with this particular chipset; Intel has one of the fastest 875P motherboards on the market. Besides, even the slowest motherboards using the same chipset and using mature BIOSes will perform within 3% of each other in the most commonly used desktop applications.

But if you look at their results for the P4 in the "3200+" review and compare it to their P4C800 review... It appears that all components are the same, yet the Asus gets significantly higher scores.

(Unless they are using an old BIOS or some other similar oversight.)

I have yet to see another site where the Athlon beat the P4 in the games like that.

Yes, I noticed FS used an identical hardware setup for those reviews, but as you said they didn't list the BIOS revision. This is a major oversight if you're someone who is interested in a 3-5% performance delta, since different BIOSes almost always affect performance. I wouldn't make it a habit to compare two different reviews unless the reviewer confirms that the setups were exactly the same. More than likely, FS's ASUS P4C800 and Athlon XP 3200+ reviews were using a slightly different BIOS/software/whatever configuration, which explains the Q3A discrepancy. Identical hardware isn't enough for a fair performance comparison, which is why AT reviews strive to make absolutely sure a performance comparison is 100% fair in every performance related configuration.

 

[Ardan]

You know what? They are BOTH excellent processors in my opinion . I play a lot of games and I really don't think i'm going to notice a drop between 284 and 278fps...or 84 to 77 fps. I am completely neutral but I chose two AMD Athlon XPs a while ago for two PCs because I go for the best deal, and for me (a college student) the best deal is not one that isn't too much faster viewed by the eye that is sometimes twice as much as the Athlon. Remember, I have little cash because it goes to college . If I had money, I'd get a good P4...which i'm sure is what some of you have heard before ("If I had the money..."). I can't wait to see how the Athlon 64 does though (I hate these comparisons of server solutions to highly optimized workstation processors) .

Edit: Don't flame me if you disagree

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Yes, I noticed FS used an identical hardware setup for those reviews, but as you said they didn't list the BIOS revision. This is a major oversight if you're someone who is interested in a 3-5% performance delta, since different BIOSes almost always affect performance. I wouldn't make it a habit to compare two different reviews unless the reviewer confirms that the setups were exactly the same. More than likely, FS's ASUS P4C800 and Athlon XP 3200+ reviews were using a slightly different BIOS/software/whatever configuration, which explains the Q3A discrepancy. Identical hardware isn't enough for a fair performance comparison, which is why AT reviews strive to make absolutely sure a performance comparison is 100% fair in every performance related configuration.

I agree with everything you said.

I'm just saying that there's something a bit flawed with FiringSquad's methodology.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Yes, I noticed FS used an identical hardware setup for those reviews, but as you said they didn't list the BIOS revision. This is a major oversight if you're someone who is interested in a 3-5% performance delta, since different BIOSes almost always affect performance. I wouldn't make it a habit to compare two different reviews unless the reviewer confirms that the setups were exactly the same. More than likely, FS's ASUS P4C800 and Athlon XP 3200+ reviews were using a slightly different BIOS/software/whatever configuration, which explains the Q3A discrepancy. Identical hardware isn't enough for a fair performance comparison, which is why AT reviews strive to make absolutely sure a performance comparison is 100% fair in every performance related configuration.

I agree with everything you said.

I'm just saying that there's something a bit flawed with FiringSquad's methodology.

I agree, the 3.0C is noticably ahead of the 3000+ (5-15%) in gaming apps (except UT2K3 Flyby) in our own review. I'm not 100% sure though, Anand's the one testing the 3200+, perhaps a 400MHz FSB plus a 400MHz FSB-optimized nForce2 boards adds noticable performance?

 

[Sid59]

tomshardware has a review too.

 

[Anand Lal Shimpi]

perhaps a 400MHz FSB plus a 400MHz FSB-optimized nForce2 boards adds noticable performance?

Nope.

I put the review on hold to make sure people could access the NV35 review, you'll see my take on the CPU later today...

Take care,
Anand

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: Anand Lal Shimpi

perhaps a 400MHz FSB plus a 400MHz FSB-optimized nForce2 boards adds noticable performance?

Nope.

I put the review on hold to make sure people could access the NV35 review, you'll see my take on the CPU later today...

Take care,
Anand

Woohoo! :beer:

 

[Double Trouble]

When making my decision as to what processor to buy, I factor in a lot more than just the benchies. In fact, the benchies are usually just a small portion. As long as the processors are within a fairly small range of one another (as is the case with the 3200 and the P4 3G C , the benchmarks are really not even a consideration. I start looking at chipset features, memory requirements, platform "issues", and of course the price. Over the past few years, the Athlons took that "all around" crown for me every time......

But with the Cantorwood chipset and all the features on those boards, I think that might be changing -- despite the fact that the Intel chips are still more expensive than the equivalent AMD chips.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Macro2
AMD performance benchmark information is available at http://www.amd.com/athlonxpbenchmarks.

Fixed link

Oh, and if you want a good laugh, read the fine print where it states what applications they use to come up with their PR rating...

What reputable hardware site uses AquaMark, Dronez, Evolva, Expendable, Half-Life, MDK2, UT (not 2003), and 3dMark 2001??? Welcome to two years ago, AMD.

So, it's unfair to use current SSE2 benchmarks, but it's fair to use benchmarks up to 3 years old.

Oh yeah... and take note that they use a nForce2 board for the Athlon, and an i845G board for the P4. The best chipset for the Athlon, and the i845G which is about the 7th or 8th best chipset for the P4.

Don't pop a vein mr intel guy. AMD won't hold the crown for long. It's not THAT much faster. Besides if they used more modern benchmarks you'd probably gripe about them being unfair as well. I'm kinda interested though: Please name **6** chipsets for the p4 that are better than the i845g.

 

[Pariah]

Oh, and if you want a good laugh, read the fine print where it states what applications they use to come up with their PR rating...

What reputable hardware site uses AquaMark, Dronez, Evolva, Expendable, Half-Life, MDK2, UT (not 2003), and 3dMark 2001??? Welcome to two years ago, AMD.

Let's see, when did AMD release the the Athlon XP and start using the ratings systems... oh yea, 2001. So those were the contemporary benchmarks at the time. So they apparently decided to stay consistent and use the same benchmarks all this time to simplify the process and make it easier for comparison. Jeez, the nerve of them, how dare they do something logical like that. And you wonder why you catch flak and suspicion from some members here when you take unnecessary and unwarranted potshots at AMD like this.

 

[Dug]

-
-
OVERCLOCK IT!!!!!!

 

[PrinceXizor]

Ladies and Gentlement start your flaming!!!:Q

:frown::evil:

That being said, I've seen where the P4 3.0C @ 800Mhz wins about 65-35 and others where it approaches 50-50. The Lost Circuits review seems very good, you might want to check it out before Anand publishes his review.

Ok...sorry for the dose of sanity...let the flaming continue!!

P-X

 

[Agent004]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Oh, and if you want a good laugh, read the fine print where it states what applications they use to come up with their PR rating...

What reputable hardware site uses AquaMark, Dronez, Evolva, Expendable, Half-Life, MDK2, UT (not 2003), and 3dMark 2001??? Welcome to two years ago, AMD.

Let's see, when did AMD release the the Athlon XP and start using the ratings systems... oh yea, 2001. So those were the contemporary benchmarks at the time. So they apparently decided to stay consistent and use the same benchmarks all this time to simplify the process and make it easier for comparison. Jeez, the nerve of them, how dare they do something logical like that. And you wonder why you catch flak and suspicion from some members here when you take unnecessary and unwarranted potshots at AMD like this.

Fair point.

However, having said that, I do see wing's point. It's a new/higher graded processor release in this period and shouldn't it make more sense to see how it performs now with today's software?. Consider XP's rating are suppose to show an accurate, up-to-date representation of performance as of now (ie, 'World?s Highest Performing' at this moment, until something faster comes along)

Even scientific experiments and researchs (with outrageous emphrases on consistency with past data) are carried out with updated benchmark and new testing procedures, I don't see why AMD doesn't update theirs.

Also, it's also a fact the newer softwares/programs stresses more on cpu than before, hence paints a truer picture of performance. Otherwise, why should a tech-site like AT even bothers updating their benchmarks? Why don't they stick to 5-7 year old game, for consistency with even older cpus?

Considering AMD is likely to use this PR system for some time, dare I say, it's misleading customers by not reflecting today's performance with today's software.