XP 3000+ 400FSB Barton finally available.

[GetInMyFatBelly]

http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=120741

Much cheaper than an XP 3200+

$289

I would get the 6 month warranty for $9 or the 3 year for $15 with that.


This is the 400MHz FSB for those not paying attention and going to post it's been available for a while now.

 

[HiTek21]

Wonder how well this overclocks

 

[Zugzwang152]

Originally posted by: HiTek21
Wonder how well this overclocks

probably as good as or a little less than the other bartons, which are at or very near their max speeds now anyway.

 

[oddjob303]

Yeah my guess is you could probably squeeze it for some more speed but its gettin dry.

How much longer before hammer comes out?

 

[Ness]

September. And they have officially changed the name to AMD64.

 

[nippyjun]

what is the actual speed of this chip?

 

[stevejst]

How much longer before hammer comes out?

Maybe never. Given the hype for 2 years already one would expect nothing but bust. Since AMD credit ratings have been cut, AMD is cutting its workforce by 20% worldwide (!) boy this all look to me like a fast bankrupcy.

 

[uberdood]

$289? I paid $96 for a Barton 2500. With a Thermaltake Volcano 9, I'm running the Barton with an FSB of 200 instead of the default 166. Stable 3200 at 43 degrees C.

 

[c627627]

Disagree with stevejst, desktop CPUs are not where the big money is. AMD recently received 1 huge order for opterons which if sold will be more in one order than the number of Itaniums Intel has sold in its entire history.

Originally posted by: nippyjun: what is the actual speed of this chip?

AMD Athlon XP Table PR Ratings + MHz

 

[FluxCap]

probably as good as or a little less than the other bartons, which are at or very near their max speeds now anyway.

Yeah, if you call a Barton 2500+ at 1.83 overclocked to 2.4 a "little"

 

[stevejst]

Disagree with stevejst, desktop CPUs are not where the big money is. AMD recently received 1 huge order for opterons which if sold will be more in one order than the number of Itaniums Intel has sold in its entire history.

That is exactly what I am talking about. Hype that originates on AMD fanatical sites that has no any fact in it.

The real fact is that AMD as a company has been downgraded:
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/investor/content/nov2002/pi20021119_9442.htm

That is what matters - Wall Street. S&P is not some jacka$$ of a overclockerz web site, it is a meter of economical activities. Bank of America analist also downgraded AMD to "SELL".
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jun2003/pi2003062_6526_pi004.htm


AMD is cutting its workforce globally for 20%, do you know that?
http://www.ananova.com/business/story/sm_709781.html?menu=


I am telling you, AMD is very close to bankrupcy and Opteron and fantasy contracts will not be of much needed help.
The fact is that they are racking up losses for a number of quarters already and they are continuing to do so and according to them they expect to be profitable again in Q4 of 2003. Now what is the chance for that to happen?
I say -- nill. Expect AMD to go bust by the end of year unless economy picks up. Business people already know that.

Why do you think Intel was cutting prices on the low end? They want to strangle AMD because that is the only segment of market AMD is living on. And I'd bet on Intel any time. Intel can afford losses, AMD cannot.

 

[linuxthinker]

AMD's really really REALLY counting on the Opteron taking off -- if AMD loses the x86-64 vs. IA64 battle, AMD's going to be back in the stone age (remember the K6-II series? THAT age.) If it doesn't take off, they've just blown years and millions (billions) on research and development costs that will never pay off.

 

[dealseaker]

crap, crap, crap, i like amd, cost and performance, hope they dont go belly up, hey everyone go out and buy a new chip, that will help them out, and pay retail, throw in a few extra bucs, lol, i know this will raise some eyebrows and yes i probably spelled a bunch of stuff wrong, hope amd gets their act together

 

[amdskip]

They may go bankrupt but that won't stop them. The company will not die, they will reform or some other big company like microsoft will come along and pick them up. Can you say monopoly if intel was the only computer chip manufacturer?

 

[Tokar]

if they go backrupt, they will just file Chapter 11, like KMart (or was it walmart...i cant remember...)...they filed for Chapter 11 and finally after cutting workforce, closing stores nationwide, they are not backrupt any more.

 

[540mb]

You know...at this point I sure wouldn't mind if AMD went belly up. Yes they make a GREAT bargain chip (which I have a couple of), but unfortunately they have no idea how to compete with Intel. Blowing smoke and breaking promises for 2+ years doesn't cut it in the CPU world. All that does is piss of potential customers. "AMD64"....should be "AMD64 years later". For all we know the AMD64 could completely suck and get blown out of the water by the P4s. At least Intel doesn't make these huge promises and delay them for over two years. Intel just keeps cranking out faster chips with improvments here and there. And the naming scheme for AMD. What the hell were they thinking....it's called a 2000 but it doesn't run at 2Ghz. They can feed you all that crap that it keeps up with a Intel 2Ghz...which it does (good idea to send larger instructions per cycle), but why do they feel the need to try and constantly play catch-up with an Intel. Just call it a 1.67 Ghz or whatever and that's it....don't bend over and try and "match" Intel in speed when you can't. Don't even get me going on the opteron naming scheme. Oh well....

 

[Tokar]

Originally posted by: 540mb
You know...at this point I sure wouldn't mind if AMD went belly up. Yes they make a GREAT bargain chip (which I have a couple of), but unfortunately they have no idea how to compete with Intel. Blowing smoke and breaking promises for 2+ years doesn't cut it in the CPU world. All that does is piss of potential customers. "AMD64"....should be "AMD64 years later". For all we know the AMD64 could completely suck and get blown out of the water by the P4s. At least Intel doesn't make these huge promises and delay them for over two years. Intel just keeps cranking out faster chips with improvments here and there. And the naming scheme for AMD. What the hell were they thinking....it's called a 2000 but it doesn't run at 2Ghz. They can feed you all that crap that it keeps up with a Intel 2Ghz...which it does (good idea to send larger instructions per cycle), but why do they feel the need to try and constantly play catch-up with an Intel. Just call it a 1.67 Ghz or whatever and that's it....don't bend over and try and "match" Intel in speed when you can't. Don't even get me going on the opteron naming scheme. Oh well....

kinda agree with the XXXX+ naming scheme...
if they left it at the gigahertz rating...e.g. Athlon 1.41 gHz...then benchmarks comparing an AMD 1.41 gHz chip and an Intel 1.4 gHz chip would have the XP blowing the intel chip out of the water, at which point benchmarkers could make their own conclusions as to how fast they are actually performing...

 

[GetInMyFatBelly]

Something to think about, if AMD was no more, you would be paying what ever Intel wanted you to for a CPU, probably twice the price now and the Pentium sure wouldn't be at 3.2GHz if AMD was gone a while ago, probably closer to 2.6GHz. And no 800MHz FSB, and no 875/865 chipset. It's called competition...

 

[MrC4]

It's called competition

And thank God for it! I pulled an old Boot magazine from 97 a few days ago (pre-athlon) and Intel was charging $1170.00 for their high end desktop chip the PII 300! Now their high end chip goes for less than half this amount.

Those who wish for the demise of AMD better start saving up for their new computer, because it will cost them a hell of a lot more if AMD is gone. :disgust:

 

[GetInMyFatBelly]

Anyone see the new XP 2600+ Barton with 333FSB yet, for the budget crowd?

 

[c627627]

Whaa? There's no such thing as a 2600+ Barton, Willis.

Oh yes there will be:
EDIT w/ thanks to GetInMyFatBelly: The following CPUs are expected in Q3 2003:
Athlon XP 2600+: Thorton, 256KB L2, 2083MHz, 333MHz FSB;
Athlon XP 2600+: Barton, 512KB L2, 1917MHz, 333MHz FSB.

Proof: Epox BIOS "Support auto detect Thorton CPU."

 

[zodder]

Originally posted by: uberdood
$289? I paid $96 for a Barton 2500. With a Thermaltake Volcano 9, I'm running the Barton with an FSB of 200 instead of the default 166. Stable 3200 at 43 degrees C.

I hear dat! Except I prefer the 8045 for cooling.

 

[GetInMyFatBelly]

Originally posted by: c627627
Whaa? There's no such thing as a 2600+ Barton, Willis.

It should be out any time now, will be clocked at 166x11.5. Is already listed here on the right.
http://www.amdboard.com/

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: 540mb
You know...at this point I sure wouldn't mind if AMD went belly up. Yes they make a GREAT bargain chip (which I have a couple of), but unfortunately they have no idea how to compete with Intel. Blowing smoke and breaking promises for 2+ years doesn't cut it in the CPU world.

Kind of like how the Intel 64-bit Merced was going to "destroy" the DEC Alpha, right? Oh, wait, it's taken three generatations later for that CPU line to finally take off in the server market, and hasn't even penetrated the workstation or desktop markets yet.

Originally posted by: 540mb All that does is piss of potential customers. "AMD64"....should be "AMD64 years later". For all we know the AMD64 could completely suck and get blown out of the water by the P4s.

Much like the initial Merced chips were so slow, they were "blown away" by current PIII chips at the time? Where was the "64-bit performance revolution" that Intel promised for so long?

Originally posted by: 540mb At least Intel doesn't make these huge promises and delay them for over two years. Intel just keeps cranking out faster chips with improvments here and there. And the naming scheme for AMD. What the hell were they thinking....it's called a 2000 but it doesn't run at 2Ghz. They can feed you all that crap that it keeps up with a Intel 2Ghz...which it does (good idea to send larger instructions per cycle), but why do they feel the need to try and constantly play catch-up with an Intel. Just call it a 1.67 Ghz or whatever and that's it....don't bend over and try and "match" Intel in speed when you can't. Don't even get me going on the opteron naming scheme. Oh well....

But... a 1.67Ghz AMD *does* match an Intel 2.2-2.4Ghz, in terms of actual workload per unit of constant time. That's what AMD was trying to make consumers aware of. Would you rather that they go the way of the PPC chips, 500Mhz but nearly as fast as a 1Ghz x86 chip, for certain workloads, but no "easy number" for customers to compare with.

The funny thing is, if you overclock a recent AMD XP chip, generally, it *does* run at a true Mhz equal to it's "quantispeed rating", and blows away the equivalent Intel P4 chip at the same clock speed.

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: dealseaker
crap, crap, crap, i like amd, cost and performance, hope they dont go belly up, hey everyone go out and buy a new chip, that will help them out, and pay retail, throw in a few extra bucs, lol, i know this will raise some eyebrows and yes i probably spelled a bunch of stuff wrong, hope amd gets their act together

what'ya mean with 'cost and performance' ? the times when AMD was cheaper than Intel (at eh same level) are definetly over, AMD costs more.
Performance ? Well...fake Performance ratings ('PR rating') and small L2 cache are not really on the 'Performance' side either..

Btw...and i am *still* meditating over why on earth should anyone (Desktop/Home users, that is !) need an AMD64 ??? Do you think 64Bit equals 'faster' ????
I for my part do not have any need for MS Windows 64bit nor the 64Bit AMD Cpu.

Btw. i was (and maybe still am a bit) a *strong* AMD supporter over the years !!!!! BUT...right now, my next system would definetly be a P, because, in contradiction what you say P's are cheaper and faster right now ! AMD once was top notch...but they definetly somehow went the wrong way..

And..btw. who is complaining about the 'dark age' of K6-2 ???? What did you smoke ??? I think *these* times AMD had definetly a nose ahead since a K6-2 was definetly better than some lame P133/P166, despite what people say about Super 7 - it was a good, cost effective and powerful combination years ago !