XP 3000+ 400FSB Barton finally available.

[c627627]

AMD prices newly released processors high, but it's difficult to argue that the same is true for entry level CPUs.

Regarding a 2600+ Barton, it's true there are 266 and 333 FSB versions of 2600+ Thoroughbreds, but I do believe there are no rumors of any kind anywhere else about a 2600+ Barton.

EDIT w/ thanks to GetInMyFatBelly: The following CPUs are indeed 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."

 

[darqice]

For $41 I just received an AMD XP1700 DLT3C JIUHB (B-core, 1.5v) from Newegg that with an easy overclock *will* hit XP3000-3200 speeds with a 200 (400) mHz FSB.

This is Pentium 3.06 Ghz performance for *1/10th* of the price! ($41 vs $410)

How can ANYONE not absolutely love AMD for something like that?? This is absolutely amazing. /nuff said

 

[abaez]

lets see some benchies

 

[darqice]

waiting for my mushkin 3200ddr, will post benchies then!

 

[BobSnob]

Having read Tom's review of the Barton 3200+, I am very much less inclined to buy another AMD chip. They are grossly inflating their performance ratings relative to the Pentium, and that stinks of desparation.

"...we at THG call on AMD to correct the model numbering for the new Athlon XP. Otherwise, customers will end up losing their faith in AMD if what they are buying does not live up to the marketing-speak on the box. "

 

[GetInMyFatBelly]

Originally posted by: c627627
AMD prices newly released processors high, but it's difficult to argue that the same is true for entry level CPUs.

Regarding a 2600+ Barton, it's true there are 266 and 333 FSB versions of 2600+ Thoroughbreds, but I do believe there are no rumors of any kind anywhere else about a 2600+ Barton.

Please provide more links about it if you come across them but I still stand by generally accepted speculation that the only new Barton releases will be the 3400+ and the 3600+, if that.

Athlon XP 2600+: Barton, 512KB L2, 1917MHz, 333MHz

Here is another reference:
http://www.net2hardware.com/news.asp?news=2742

And before you go and say that these are the only two references, do some homework yourself...
In Google type in "XP 2600+ Barton" (with the quotes)

Wait, here's another one for you...
http://www.amd3d.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=11

OK, how about this:
Brand Name: AMD Athlon 2600+;
Marking: AXDA2600DKV4D;
Frequency: 1917MHz;
FSB: 333MHz;
L1 Cache: 128KB;
L2 Cache: 512KB;
VCore: 1.65V;
Model ID: Model 10;
CPUID: 6A0;
Manufacturing Technology: 0.13 micron;
Max Current Icc Max: 41.40A;
Maximum Power: 68.30W;
Tcase max: 85°C;
Tca (°C/W): 0.63;
CPU PGA Package: organic.

 

[540mb]

Originally posted by: 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.

First off...I don't remember NEARLY...not even REMOTELY the amount of hype for merced as there has been for AMD64. And for the speed comment....AMD shot itself in the foot with the naming scheme. They could have gone with a the simple speed for the name and not that xxxx+ crap and let the consumer choose. Then when you go to buy your comp you see..."Hmmm, 1.5 Ghz for intel vs. 1.5 Ghz for AMD and holy crap the AMD one is stomping all over the Intel one. Oh yeah, and what do you know, the AMD chip is half the price." Now as a consumer, that is so much more appealing than some stupid naming scheme that tries to keep up with Intel and hides the real information about the AMD chip.

On another note....did anyone else hear that AMD is releasing a chip based on 128bit architecture next month? They said it's going to change the chip world. Hopefully it will come out as fast as the AMD64 came out.

 

[Corporate Thug]

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.

what voltage?

 

[GetInMyFatBelly]

For the naming scheme, it should have been simple, AMD should have used both, Athlon 2.2GHz (XP3200+), settles everything, let's you know the speed and what they believe it's comparable to. Personally I can understand the whole XP XXXX+ thing, and would have preferred that they used the last two digits to describe the FSB speed. ie, XP 2620+ would mean = to 2600 and the 20 would designate 200FSB. hence the XP 2816 would be the XP 2800 with 166FSB, they could even have the Barton cores add a single digit ie XP 3017 for XP 3000 with 166FSB +1 for barton core (well maybe +3 for Barton and +1 for Thouroghbred, and +2 for Thouroghbred "B", but now it's getting complicated?)

 

[larciel]

whew~ it's hot in here

 

[cheapgoose]

and the fan boys are out.

 

[Tiembo]

Originally posted by: MrC4

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:

Yes, there needs to be a rival CPU manufacturer to Intel. Much like how Linux needs to survive in order to keep Microsoft at bay. Why do you think IBM's dumping a boatload of money and resources into Linux development?

I've always liked Intel CPUs and chipsets better, but that doesn't mean I wish ill will on AMD. But investors might digress...

 

[Tiembo]

Originally posted by: flexy


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.

Your average computer user doesn't even need 1GHz. Not too long ago, 1+GHz machines came with 128MB of SDR RAM and 5400rpm drives. Those computers weren't that much "faster" than machines sporting more RAM and 7200rpm HDs, but with much less MHz on the CPU. But the general public just thinks faster processor = faster computer. So I'm guessing that they'll do the same for 64bit CPUs.

"A 3GHz 64bit processor will be twice as fast as a 3GHz 32bit processor, right?"

 

[duuuma]

AMD's going bankrupt? Wow, someone must have the ability to see into the future, b/c no regular person would be able to translate an analyst's "sell" recommendation or operating losses into a chapter 7 or chapter 11.

Either that or you must be their auditor and realized that they don't have enough cashflow to meet their liabilities/debt obligations? If you can predict their bankruptcy and the demise of their company, then I guess i'll be congratulating you when you make a ton of money by shorting their stock.

You've got to back up a statement like "I am telling you, AMD is very close to bankrupcy" with some more evidence than a couple of one liners you found on yahoo and businessweek.com. Maybe you've got some insider information the rest of the world doesn't know, but that's pretty unlikely....

I would hope that people don't flee from AMD stock just b/c a single line on businessweek.com said "Banc of America downgraded Advanced Micro Device (AMD ) to sell" or b/c they're cutting their workforce. Don't you know that analysts often manipulate the market with their recommendations? Why do you think a man like Warren Buffet is so rich? It's b/c he does research himself, buys the stock of solid companies and then tells the rest of the world of the great companies he's investing in thus driving up the price of those stocks. Cutting the workforce could be a positive sign, indicating a movement toward cost cutting and improved efficiency in their manufacturing process.

Research AMD the company and read their financial statements and annual reports (or have someone who understands accounting read them for you), before you make a crass generalization on the future of their company.

sorry to thread crap, but sheesh.

 

[EF9]

i agree with dummma <--------- does it mean what i think it does?

 

[BobSnob]

Originally posted by: 540mb

... And for the speed comment....AMD shot itself in the foot with the naming scheme. They could have gone with a the simple speed for the name and not that xxxx+ crap and let the consumer choose. Then when you go to buy your comp you see..."Hmmm, 1.5 Ghz for intel vs. 1.5 Ghz for AMD and holy crap the AMD one is stomping all over the Intel one. Oh yeah, and what do you know, the AMD chip is half the price."

That's supposing that AMD wanted to pitch Athlons against similar GHz Pentium, which they didn't. They wanted to pitch Athlons against similar performing Pentiums, which is fair enough as long as their perfermance ratings are fair. Unfortunately they have recently made nonsense of their performance rating scheme leaving customers to have to overclock the the cpus in order to get their advertised performance level. Recent tests have shown that the Athlon XP 3200+ should have been rated 2800+ which is, in my mind, very dishonest marketing.

 

[stevejst]

Research AMD the company and read their financial statements and annual reports

Listen, you will never know the company is going to bankrupcy or not, based on the company reports. Makes sense?

http://www.zdnetindia.com/biztech/enterprise/news/stories/76500.html

To be precise, AMD is racking up 6 quarters of financial losses, all in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars. And they are continuing making further losses. For the year 2002 they lost billion and a half.

Of course, they might be doing fine in the future after they cut their expense and workforce. Now what is a chance for that? "SELL" means exactly that, cut the losses and run away from that company because their future looks bleak. They put all the gamble on Opteron and if that doesn't take off the way the hype is ... judge yourself.

 

[c627627]

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."


But here's a question regarding AMD Athlon XP Table PR Ratings + MHz

Barton is just a Thouroughbred with double L2 cache, right? So if we know that

2.083 GHz Athlon XP 2600+ (Nov 2002) Thoroughbred 333 FSB

What is the difference between 2600+ T-Bred 333 FSB 256 cache
and 2600+ Thorton 333 FSB 256 cache?

 

[stevejst]

What is the difference between 2600+ T-Bred 333 FSB 256 cache
and 2600+ Thorton 333 FSB 256 cache?

Billy Bob's endorsement?

 

[c627627]

You funny Willis,
Here.

 

[Eric1285]

I <3 AMD

 

[GetInMyFatBelly]

I think I read somewhere that the Thortons will replace Durons and they may not be different than the Thoroughbreds.

 

[c627627]

Same thing, different name, you say? That's what I thought but the man here says Bartons are architecturally different from T-Breds. Meaning it's not just the extra cache...

 

[GetInMyFatBelly]

I've read that the Bartons ARE the same as the thoroughbreds, just with twice the cache and haven't been redesigned.
So don't know if I believe him.

 

[c627627]

I don't know if it qualifies as a redesign but they said that Barton core is physically bigger by about 20 percent when compared to T-Bred.

Bigger core does help out with cooling so there's your reason #2 to get a Barton over Thoroughbred if prices are close.