This is funny (AMD XP1800+)

[flexy]

i think it's very funny that i caught myself already thinking:

"Ok..since i want to get a new system soon i'll probably get the *best*...eg. Athlon 1800+ for around $239"
(Because...."Does't '1800' sound faaaaaaaaaaaast ?")

Anyway....i figured out how ridiculous (and a waste of money it would be)....because the 1800+ also 'only' runs at 1.53Ghz......and for around $119 i can get a TBird 1.4 which *easily* can be overclocked to 1.60 or higher (wouldn't that make it a 1900+ or 2000+ ?

Well.....just wanted to mention how AMD's psychological games already show results (you just have to read here from people who want to buy new systems soon...most get a 1800+)
If it makes 'sense' is another question...maybe the sticker '1800' is criterium for a purchase ?

Ok..seriously i know there are advantages (like running cooler...drawing less power, whatever)..but it just doesnt make sense to me......but...anyway i'd like to advice anyone to go out and spend twice as much money for this 130 mhz more...since we are in a recession...and the economy needs a boost anyway...and noone wants to see AMD going down.... the whole blue chips industry needs a boost anyway......you get the idea

 

[zippy]

There are other improvements that make an XP 1.53GHz better than a Tbird o/ced to 1.53GHz. Less power consumption and less heat production is a major one in my book, but I also plan to underclock and use passive cooling when I upgrade (effectively downgrade) and build a near silent computer. Another plus is the hardware prefetch - makes accessing the RAM faster and more efficient. This is a big reason why the 1.2GHz MP performs similarly to the 1.4GHz tbird in many tests.

Not to mention, 1.4GHz Tbird @ 1.6GHz...but you neglect to mention that you could overclock the XP 1800+. Rumor has it that it won't go much beyond 1700, but hey, sounds good to me!

 

[sandorski]

You probably couldn't overclock most 1.4s to match the speed(performance) of the XP1800+.

 

[ndee]

A Tbird at 1600MHz would be a Athlon XP 1600+.... a Tbird at 1800MHz would be a Athlon XP 1800+. The XP is rated to the Thunderbird, not to the Pentium 4.

 

[UltraQuiet]

I don't believe that is quite right or I don't understand your post. The XP 1600+ runs at 1400 Mhz and the XP 1800+ runs at 1500 or 1533 Mhz. This is according to what I have read on other boards and at AMD 's website. Very confusing and I think on purpose.

 

[Ryan]

<< A Tbird at 1600MHz would be a Athlon XP 1600+.... a Tbird at 1800MHz would be a Athlon XP 1800+. The XP is rated to the Thunderbird, not to the Pentium 4. >>



WTF?

 

[PlatinumGold]

I don't believe that is quite right or I don't understand your post. The XP 1600+ runs at 1400 Mhz and the XP 1800+ runs at 1500 or 1533 Mhz. This is according to what I have read on other boards and at AMD 's website. Very confusing and I think on purpose.

yes, that's what the XP runs in Mhz, but the xp runs faster than the t-bird at the same mhz, hence the comparison,

xp 1600+ = t-bird at 1600.

 

[flexy]

<< A Tbird at 1600MHz would be a Athlon XP 1600+.... a Tbird at 1800MHz would be a Athlon XP 1800+. The XP is rated to the Thunderbird, not to the Pentium 4. >>



i dont think so !

A XP 1600+ will run SLOWER than a 1.6 Gig clocked TBird of course....my god we are not talking Gigahertz here but 'PR rating' what compares to the average beard-length of a 89 year old chinese...or something like that. (Actually its a bunch of AMD-picked benchmarks)

Interesting to see how people actually begin to believe that the '1800+' stands equivalent for '1.8 Ghz of a TBird'........and i am quite confident that a TBird, clocked at (say) 1.6 Ghz would spit out a PR-rating like AT LEAST 1900+, if not 2000. And...of course AMD doesnt want to advertize with that...as they dont want to advertize with the fact that a 1800+ is only 130 mhz 'faster' than a TB1.4.

But..whatever....nothing against someone doing some tests and showing how big a PR-rating a OCed TB (say 1.6 Gig) results in !

greets

 

[Isaiah]

I think you need to read this review
Athlon XP

 

[ArchAngel777]

<<< A XP 1600+ will run SLOWER than a 1.6 Gig clocked TBird of course....my god we are not talking Gigahertz here but 'PR rating' what compares to the average beard-length of a 89 year old chinese...or something like that. (Actually its a bunch of AMD-picked benchmarks) >>>


He is right. However I would not want a Tbird at 1.6.... think of the power consumption... think of the heat! Ish.... no way.

 

[PlatinumGold]

read the review that isaiah linked.

xp is clearly faster than 1.4 t-bird. in all benchmarks.

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< I think you need to read this review >>



I reread the review and I think I understand now what AMD's intentions were. They want you to look at the model number and instantly correlate that number to the Pentium 4. For example, when you see an XP 1800+ they want you to think/understand that it is comparable to a P4 at 1.8Ghz, 1700 to 1.7Ghz, etc. Informed people will understand that the actual mhz is different but because of the Athlon architecture it does more "work" per clock cycle, therfore an 1800+ running at 1533mhz does ~ the same work as a P4 running at 1800mhz(a conservative estimate by a lot of benchmarks). Do I understand now or am I all jacked up as usual. I am just a an ignorant CPO.

 

[PlatinumGold]

like i said earlier, if you read the review, you will clearly see, it's not the p4 amd is scaling against it's the t-bird.

look at the progression in every single benchmark from t-bird 1.4 to xp1500.

on a lotta the benchmarks the 1.4 t-bird is faster than all the p4's. but the xp's are all faster than the 1.4 t-bird.

 

[Remnant2]

Actually, according to AMD, he's right, the PR rating is officially a comparison to a Tbird's speed. Thus a Tbird at 1.8ghz = Pally 1800 (1.53).

I don't buy it myself, but that's the claim.

 

[flexy]

oups...yes..you're right...clocked at the same speed the XP is faster..

my mistake !

This will of course influence my decision what cpu to get..probably a 1700+ then

 

[UltraQuiet]

I stand corrected. I was confusing what AMD says and what the reviewer thinks AMD's intent is. Sorry if I caused anyone any confusion and wasting space making incorrect statements.

 

[SgtZulu]

Hmm could this be why the price of a 1.4 t-bird has gone up to $115 from the $99 it was only a few weeks ago?

 

[LXi]

Yea, sounds like someone needs to read the reviews before speaking.

 

[Lord Gwynz]

Personally I think Athlon SSE would've been a more appropriate name than Athlon XP + PR speed rating crap. Not only does it give the chip a better description of what sets it apart from the older tbird model but it also points out that it has the same features of Intel chips. The XP designation just makes AMD appear so desperate that they have to kiss M$'s butt, ohhhhhhh let's name our chip after Windows XP and hope ppl will get the idea they belong with each other!! :disgust: And I'm sure AMD had good intentions using the PR speed rating on their new chips, but in the end in the retail outlets, I'm afraid the message is just going to get convoluted and twisted around by the misinformed and biased and people will just be left with the impression that AMD is just fudging up the numbers because their chips really just can't cut it against Intel.

 

[johndoe52]

Excuse me if I like to get the latest and the greatest. It never really happens but I and the new XP really bad. It's going to be great. A friend of mine is going to put together a P4 2ghz system. I'm so looking forward to putting this together running some benchmarks and getting better numbers than him for less money. AMD rules.

 

[Luden]

does temp does amd xp run at compared to Athlon?

 

[flexy]

i couldnt agree more, lord gwynz !


The PR-rating system also has a high potential for backfiring:

() The PR-rating indicates that an XP is running at a slower clockspeed as what the rating tells you....eg. 1800+ for a CPU clocked at 1.53mhz.....and even if AMD says it's for comparison-purposes against the TBIRD (!)....you need a LOT of time reading into how good the CPU performs in real world.....but MANY people (including me)...dont get THAT into detail/research, they see the numbers.....and think: "1800 on the sticker, but 1.53 Ghz in reality...so its a bad thing only invented to compete against Intel....and people may also think that an old TBird at the same clock like an XP should be at about the same performance level."

I didnt know ['til now] that the XP implemented SSE..which is a good thing....but again proof that the silly 'pr-rating' and introduction of terms like 'Quantispeed' seem to overweight the impact of real [good] facts...eg. that the XP is faster than an TBird..that it has SSE etc etc.......

 

[MustPost]

I have a high speed AMD proc.
It tops out at bout 225 mph.

 

[MustPost]

 

[PlatinumGold]

hmmm

how is this different from intel's P4??

because of the increase in pipeline a 1.4 ghz P4 could never truly compete w/ a 1.4 ghz PIII (if intel ever built it).

basically they went with the 20 stage pipeline purely for the purpose of increasing mhz. right? w/o a real increase in performance. where as amd in their latest incarnation of the athlon chip got better performance w/ fewer mhz, so, they should punish themselves by marketing them as lower mhz versions of athlons even tho they are faster than comparably clocked t-birds??