Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
AMD

Athlon Xp 3200+ 400FSB is Coming 316

SoDaLaS writes "Athlon 3200+ Coming: According to CNET The Athlon 3200+ with a 400MHz FSB is on the way in the next two weeks. It'll be interesting to see how well the processor overclocks at that high of a bus speed...it didn't seem to hamper the new 800MHz FSB Pentium 4, which many people were worried about too."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Athlon Xp 3200+ 400FSB is Coming

Comments Filter:
  • 400 MHz, 800 MHz (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:21AM (#5852208)
    Lets make sure we're comparing apples to apples. The 400 MHz bus on the Athlon is a DDR doublepumped bus, so its really 200 MHz. The 800 MHz FSB on the P4 is a quadpumped bus, so its really 200 MHz.
    • Re:400 MHz, 800 MHz (Score:3, Informative)

      by VAXman ( 96870 )
      Yes, and the peak bandwidth of the double-pumped 200 MHz Athlon bus is 3.2 GB/s, and the peak bandwidth of the quad-pumped 200 MHz P4 bus is 6.4 GB/s.

      So factoring the double/pumped into frequency gives the more realistic performance picture.
      • Re:400 MHz, 800 MHz (Score:3, Informative)

        by GigsVT ( 208848 ) *
        Yes, but calling it "Mhz" is misleading. That's like saying the PCI bus runs at 1056Mhz because it is 32 lines running at 33Mhz.

        We already have enough misleading and confusing computer terms, we don't need to add another one.
        • While it may be misleading, it is less misleading than, say, PR numbers given for AMD CPU speeds. At least this is actually based on the number of clocks per second.
          • I don't know about you, but I find the PR numbers to be quite handy for comparison purposes. It's certainly a better metric than Mhz.
            • I don't use PR numbers or MHz ratings when comparing CPUs. I visit a review site and peer at many images containing various colored bars and lines. I especially check out the multimedia content creation benchmarks, which represent the most CPU-intensive operations I generally apply my CPU to, and the gaming benchmarks, which are the second most CPU-intensive things... Well, except maybe Unreal Tournament, that engine has always been terribly CPU-bound.
      • Re:400 MHz, 800 MHz (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Does it give the more realistic picture? I'm not a hardware designer or anything, but I've always been under the strong impression that the front-side bus speed mainly matters when you have a memory access. In that case, what really is going to make a difference isn't bandwidth. Instead, it's latency.

        I'm assuming that when something isn't in the cache, the processor is going to read a whole line at a time, but will start with the word actually needed and then fill the rest of the cache line after that

    • by AccUser ( 191555 ) <mhg&taose,co,uk> on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:28AM (#5852276) Homepage
      Why compare apples with apples? Why not apples with pcs? After all, the Athlon is built around the x86 architecture... :-P
    • Hey. Marketing people love to trumpet all kinds of fantasy based figures when they talk about CPU spead.

      The troth is that the only CPU mesure that matters is how long dose it take to rip and encode a DVD to DivX (One of the few tasks that still taks hours.) or whatever application YOU run which YOU feal is too slow on whatever system you have now.

      And for comparison, Athlon 3200+ vs iNTEL 3.2 GHz is not what matters. What matters is iNTEL's $500 CPU vs AMD's $500 (or $100 CPU).
      • by bryanp ( 160522 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @12:11PM (#5853157)
        The troth is that the only CPU mesure that matters is how long dose it take to rip and encode a DVD to DivX (One of the few tasks that still taks hours.) or whatever application YOU run which YOU feal is too slow on whatever system you have now.

        With enough processing power and memory maybe more people would run spell checkers.

        (yes, I'm an evil bastard who can't ignore the chance to take a cheap shot)

    • by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:42AM (#5852399) Homepage Journal
      In that case, wouldn't the AMD thing to do be to call it the "800+" FSB? :)
    • Re:400 MHz, 800 MHz (Score:3, Informative)

      by CTho9305 ( 264265 )
      There are multiple phase-shifted clocks. These clocks run at 200MHz, but features of interest (edges) occur at 400 or 800 million times per second. The end result is functionally indistinguishable from an 800MHz clock.
  • Finally.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkBlackFox ( 643814 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:23AM (#5852225)
    AMD can take advantage of DDR 400 for synchronous system performance. Expanded front side bus + more work per clock cycle= damn good performance. Great stuff.
    • Re:Finally.... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sigep_ohio ( 115364 )
      I would think that it isn't going to do much more than extend the Athlon's lead in some areas(business content) and close an already large gap in others(multimedia) between the P4.

      But it is nice to see that AMD moved the Athlon to the 400MHz bus. Now hopefully they will give the Athlon64 the same support, along with a dual-channel memory controller like in the Opteron.
      • Re:Finally.... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by shamilton ( 619422 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:59AM (#5852524)
        Answer me this, where did this whole notion that P4s are somehow faster than AMD chips come from?

        Canadian dollars:

        1800, AMD: $95, Intel: $215
        2400, AMD: $160, Intel: $240
        2800, AMD: $349, Intel: $499

        That is, comparing the 1800+ to a 1.8 P4, etc. And yes, those AMD readings are usually pretty conservative. If you compare performance per tic, AMD continues to beat the living crap out of Intel, has since the K7, and likely will continue to do so for generations yet.

        Point 1: If you want a cheap CPU, an 1800+ for a hundred bucks (60 USD) is a damn fine deal. If you want to be loyal to Intel, that will buy you a 1.7 Celeron, which is comparable to a T-Bird 1333 of two years back.

        Point 2: If you want to shell out, then you are getting more bang for your buck by buying a high end AMD, although this point is a bit weaker as they tend to get closer in price.

        Point 3: If you REALLY want to shell out some coin, you could buy one of the really high end Intels, which pull ahead of AMD chips due to lack of an AMD offering in the same range. But then, if you are going to shell out, why not purchase a Xeon, or dual AMDs, or Sun hardware, or a data processing centre to run Quake? The scale is only relevant where you can actually compare the two, so in my opinion, this point is moot.

        This can all be explained if you consider Intel isn't so interested in making a great processor as it is making great fabrication processes, and patenting them. The processor is more of a testbed. Much like how id is mostly a technology company, but Carmack has said if they didn't make a game, they would end up missing things in the engine.
        • Ok, chill. Breathe.

          I was really only refering to the Performance differences between the AMD 3000+ vs Intel P4 3.06GHz. These processors are about the same price, and like I said perform similarly. P4 wins some, Athlon wins some. I wasn't bashing anyone, let alone a lowly processor.

          Your right lower priced Athlon's cost less and perform better than comparable priced intel alternatives. Unfortunately at the top of the line, there is no real price difference in processors. And in reality there isn't mu
  • Overclocking (Score:4, Informative)

    by sigep_ohio ( 115364 ) <drinking@seven.am.is.bad> on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:23AM (#5852229) Homepage Journal
    Unless they shrunk the Athlon core, I don't see a lot fo room for overclocking. The 3000+ isn't an overclocking dream, so simply moving to a faster bus ain't gonna make the 3200+ any better.
    • Re:Overclocking (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think the point was that with the high FSB speed there would be little room to increase it. With current intel processors the only way to overclock is via the FSB, but this is not true for current AMD chips that come multiplier unlocked...

      Of course the highest end chips are never great overclockers, they are already quite close to the "edge".

      Current AthlonXP 1700+ on the other hand... cost me $70 and runs at 2500MHz.
    • Re:Overclocking (Score:2, Insightful)

      If I'm not mistake, they affixed a heat spreader to the Opteron. What would stop them from/why wouldn't they slap one on the higher power Athlons? Seems to me that's what keeps the P4's "cooler," along with heatsinks of twice the mass... simple thermodynamic physics.
      • Re:Overclocking (Score:3, Informative)

        by svirre ( 39068 )
        Wrongo.

        Heat spreaders hinder thermal dissappation, they do ot help.

        What they di is to privide a measure of physical protection for the fragile core.
  • Overclocking (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrtroy ( 640746 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:25AM (#5852245)
    Damnit why, everytime a new board comes out, overclocking is brought up.

    First, overclocking works decent for a few people, but is not available to the masses for several reasons including technical difficulty and noise issues

    Second, overclocking is kind of dumb (expecting 10000 evil replies for that, but listen first) because if the board really could safely go faster, the manufacturer would produce it that way, and sell it for more!

    Third, maybe everyone doesnt want their computer to sound like a jet is going off from the cooling needed to overclock, especially since as computers are getting faster, and more "stuff" is being put in smaller and smaller spaces, heat is increasing as well. Thats why mobos are coming with bigger fans, graphics cards are coming with giant fans that take a whole slot, etc.

    Now personally, I considered overclocking, fiddled with it, decided it wasnt for me, but I realize a small amount of people will do it. Cheers to them, but why can we not critically analyze a mobo without considering overclocking, which will benefit less than 1% of users! Lets look at the raw performance, and it should be sweet with this fat bus!
    • Only 'performance' freaks will buy the high-end processors now anyway. Anyone with any sense will save themselves a hundred quid by losing a few MHz...
    • Not only that, but the typical increase of speed when overclocking a motherboard is around 20%. The speed difference is rarely noticable!

      If you had just waited two more weeks, the cost of a faster chip and motherboard would have dropped to the same price that you paid for yours, and you wouldn't need to overclock, add any cooling units (which cost extra money anyway), and worry about the stability of your system.
    • Re:Overclocking (Score:3, Informative)

      The thing with overclocking usually isn't to get the newest, and fastest CPU and then overclock the hell of it. It's to get something in the midrange and then overclock. For instance, when the Barton core was first released you didn't see curious overclockers buying 3000+ parts to overclock, no they (myself included) purchased the 2500+ part at a savings of roughly $400. I can overclock my 2500+ up to what SiSoft Sandra says is 3200+ performance specs with very little noise a-la my watercooling system.
    • Agreed.

      And most overclocking gains you a couple of percent faster computer while you /will/ get gcc going segmentation fault all over your ass while compiling glibc...

      Overclocking was a good idea on my 486sx/25 (going to 33), on the Celeron300A and some of the earlier Durons but nowadays when common processors are breaking 2GHz? It's not the processor that's the bottleneck in todays systems, not the memory, not the bus, not the graphics card and not the harddrive, but a combination of all these parts. Sur
    • Overclocking is a decent measure of hardware stability. I know I regularly look at that data when comparing hardware in reviews.

      It does say something about the potential reliability of a system if you can increase its clock by a good factor and not start to have system failures.
      • "Overclocking is a decent measure of hardware stability. I know I regularly look at that data when comparing hardware in reviews."

        No overclocking is an indication of the margins in the particular device in the particular environment you are overclocking on.

        This can be an indicator of either large process spread (That is the manufacturer has a number of devices performing better than specified but not good enough/many enough to mark them up)

        It can also be an indication of the manufacturers politics w.r.t.
    • Re:Overclocking (Score:5, Informative)

      by fobbman ( 131816 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:49AM (#5852452) Homepage
      I'm going to assume that you are trolling, but as I'm an angler myself I can appreciate a good set of inline blades.

      What I don't think you understand about the CPU business is that when Intel, AMD, whomever makes CPUs, they make them without knowing which one will end up going what speed. It's not until they test them that they find out, and then they put them into a bin based on the max speed they run.

      Well, let's say that they have a good run and they get 60% of them to go at 3000+ speeds, with the rest waterfalling down from there. That's great, but the market isn't demanding a bunch of 3000+ chips. Turns out the big push is for, say, 2400+ chips. So, to fill those orders they set many of those faster chips to run at the 2400+ speeds via the cutting of bridges.

      Why not just release all those 3000+ chips at 3000+ speeds? Profit, dear troll, profit. If they flooded the market with those higher-priced chips, then the price would go down. Better to make a large profit on those fewer faster chips.

      At least, that's how I understand it.

    • First, overclocking works decent for a few people, but is not available to the masses for several reasons including technical difficulty and noise issues

      Anyone can learn to overclock by reading one book. I suggest the motherboard manual. For instance, I was able to overclock my Athlon XP 1700+ to 1.66 GHz by simply increasing the multiplier from bios, and doing nothing else.

      Second, overclocking is kind of dumb (expecting 10000 evil replies for that, but listen first) because if the board really cou

    • Damnit why, everytime a new board comes out, overclocking is brought up.

      It's a good measure of performance and stability. The clock speed is a function of the crystal driving the CPU. Any CPU can (in theory) run at any clock speed. The label on the chip is a function of what the manufacturer feels is the ideal speed based on their testing.

      First, overclocking works decent for a few people, but is not available to the masses for several reasons including technical difficulty and noise issues

      Overclock
    • Personally I think if you want to add more power just go with more machines.

      Really, if one task can't get done, then upgrade! But if you need to - spread out, do so and donate extra clock cycles/routing time (favorite p2p?).

      More computers all just combined and connected is fun.

      • " Personally I think if you want to add more power just go with more machines."

        That works until you realize your software licenses cost $20000 pr. CPU. That makes a couple of $100 extra to get the top of the line CPU seem kind of moot.
    • Overclocking is another metric though. How far you can overclock a processer gives you an idea of how the processor line is going to perform in the future. Processors that are hard to overclock are tuned up closer to the limits of the design, because of that, it will probably take longer to come down in price (because the yields won't be quite as high).
    • by 10Ghz ( 453478 )

      First, overclocking works decent for a few people, but is not available to the masses for several reasons including technical difficulty and

      noise issues

      Ummmm.... How is overclocking going to make the system more loud? I mean, I have 700Mhz Duron with standard fairly standard heatsink/fan. I can push the CPU to about 900Mhz without changing anything, and the system does not make one bit more noise when compared to standard 700Mhz.

      Or do you think that those clock-ticks in the CPU's make a noise, and the

    • You obviously have little experience with overclocking. Read this while you try to pry your foot out of your mouth.

      Listen and learn:
      SAFETY - 90% of the new mobos have thermistors which allow you to monitor the heat of your CPU. If the processor runs reasonably cool (32c-55c) your OC system will last as long as any "retail clocked" processor, ie: indefinitely.

      POTENTIAL - Processor manufacturers already know many of the chips the make can be clocked (with stability) at a higher speed than they're sold. Th
    • See, what you're missing is that when Intel says a chip is only stable at 2.4GHz, they mean that in an improperly cooled case in the Sahara in summer, with a weak power supply, it is stable at 2.4GHz (and should live as long as the warranty). With a proper cooling setup and good power, it may in fact be stable at 3GHz. Overclockers take advantage of these margins to get more for their money.
  • Benefit? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NSParadox ( 135116 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:27AM (#5852260)
    The Athlon chips have not been super-sensitive to changes in FSB. The performance impact of the Athlon XP moving from 2x133MHz to 2x166MHz was significantly less than the P4's gains going from 4x100MHz to 4x133MHz. The P4 gains have been incredible with the jump to 4x200MHz.

    It seems that AMD is trying to squeeze every bit of performance out of an architecture that would be better squeezed by being optimized, i.e. Opteron. It's a shame that AMD's yields of Opteron have proven to be dismal, but if I was a motherboard manufacturer I'd be pretty mad at AMD right now. More motherboard manufacturers are going to have to qualify their boards and more chipset manufacturers will have to qualify their products as well, even if they can already meet 400MHz operation. Will the performance impact really justify the costs that all parties incur by moving to yet a new FSB in less than, what, 6 months?

    • It's not a huge issue on the MB side - most boards have allowed for a 200 MHz FSB for awhile now, although only usable if you wanted to overclock.

      Of course, now they'll need to make sure their boards can exceed 200 MHz, otherwise the overclockers will start whining about not getting an additional 0.5% performance.
  • by Doctor Sbaitso ( 605467 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:28AM (#5852266) Journal
    From HardOCP [hardocp.com] [H]ardNews 6th Edition posted on Wednesday April 30th, 2003:

    Athlon 3200+ Coming:
    The Athlon 3200+ with a 400MHz FSB is on the way in the next two weeks, according to C|Net. It'll be interesting to see how well the processor overclocks at that high of a bus speed...it didn't seem to hamper the new 800MHz FSB Pentium 4, which many people were worried about too.
  • by checkyoulater ( 246565 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:32AM (#5852303) Journal
    I already have trouble cooling my XP1900 without having it sound like a jet engine. With a slow fan and decent heatsink, my CPU still sits around 48 degrees C. I'm afraid to think how hot this thing would be. How can anybody productively use a computer with a fan that is as loud as an engine idling?

    • The athlon is rated to be safely running at 85 C. Mine always runs at 60 because of low noise components (GOOD heatsink but still) and I couldn't care less for it.
      • I believe the 85C rating is the die temperature. My crappy motherboard measures the temperature underneath the CPU. I believe you are supposed to add around 15-20 degrees to that temp to get your real temperature. That makes my 48 more like 68. Still well within acceptable temperatures, however.

        I think I'm just paranoid, for some reason. I guess I spend too much time reading the arstechnica cooling [infopop.net]forums.
        • I believe the 85C rating is the die temperature. My crappy motherboard measures the temperature underneath the CPU. I believe you are supposed to add around 15-20 degrees to that temp to get your real temperature.

          You're supposed to add 15-20 degrees Fahrenheight! That's 6-8 degrees Centigrade.
    • 48C is pretty cool for an Athlon. My 1600+ runs around 53C, AMD specs them upto and past 65C...I wouldn't worry about it, just make sure the HS/Fan doesn't fall off =)
    • With a normal-speed (~5500rpm) CPU fan my athlon XP 1700+ overclocked to 1.66GHz (Athlon XP 2000+ speed) my CPU temp is at 40 deg C even (104 deg F.) Perhaps you improperly applied your thermal compound, you need a better heat sink for that fan, or you have an older core which is less efficient? Or your room is just too hot :)
      • With a normal-speed (~5500rpm) CPU fan my athlon XP 1700+ overclocked to 1.66GHz (Athlon XP 2000+ speed) my CPU temp is at 40 deg C even (104 deg F.)

        Ah, yes but there lies my problem. I have Vantec stealth fan, undervolted to decrease noise. When I crank up the fans, I can get my temp down to the low 40's, at the expense of noise. That is something I will not accept. I'll deal with heat for a quiet room. Now if I could just do something about that damn GeForce fan...
        • Ah, yes but there lies my problem. I have Vantec stealth fan, undervolted to decrease noise.

          You think a Vantec stealth fan sounds "like a jet engine"? It's not whisper quiet, but seriously, it's not very loud either.
          • You think a Vantec stealth fan sounds "like a jet engine"?

            No, that is why I purchased it in the first place. Start with a quiet fan, and then undervolt it to make it that much quieter. You lose airflow, but you more than make up for it with lower decibels. The jet engine I was referring to is the stock fan that AMD puts on their cpu's, or those 5000+ rpm Delta screamers. Those are the fans you need to use to get the >2000 XP's into the low 40's.
    • With a slow fan and decent heatsink, my CPU still sits around 48 degrees C.

      I just installed a Thermalright SK-7 and Vantec Stealth fan with Arctic Silver 3 on a couple of machines running an XP 2000+. Idle temperature is in the low forties (Celsius) and the things are very quiet. Actually, the noise improvement over the retail heatsink/fan combo wasn't really noticeable, although temperatures did drop significantly.

      We've also got a couple of machines running dual MP 1800+ CPUs, and they were *loud* wit
  • This is bad news. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Krapangor ( 533950 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:32AM (#5852305) Homepage
    Computer processors get faster and faster. You might think that this is a good thing, but I'll explain why it has only negative effects.

    With faster processors we get less efficient programs. 10 Years ago you could do internet/email/word processing/spread sheets with just a 33MHz Intel 386 with 16 MB RAM. Today you need for the very same things a Pentium IV with 2 GHZ and 128 MB RAM. There are some niece applications which need a lots of CPU Power like Quake or Nurmerical Simulations, but must Joe Adverage apps don't really need it. The programs need it due to sloppy coding. And the faster CPUs gave rise to the OOP paradigm. While it primarily is a nice theoretical concept for safer and more secure program, it's used these days just for code-bloat and GUI overload. Inpedendent studies show that in fact 73 percent of all "OOP" code is just imperative with C++ class bloat added.
    Further the higher compiler and debugger speeds introduced much more sloppy coding styles. In the 60/70ies the computers of the Apollo program hadn't a single computer crash, which is completely unthinkable these days. The reason why the NASA is keeping old 8080 Intels in their shuttles is that they won't get decent code quality form modern processors these days.

    Personally I think that the whole CS community must rethink their position towards computers speeds. Instead of the todays faster-is-better point we need a paradigm change towards just-as-fast-as-necessary.

    • Today vs Yesterday (Score:4, Informative)

      by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:47AM (#5852437) Homepage
      10 Years ago you could do internet/email/word processing/spread sheets with just a 33MHz Intel 386 with 16 MB RAM. Today you need for the very same things a Pentium IV with 2 GHZ and 128 MB RAM.

      I still use my p133 for many tasks, irc, email and personal server.

      Web browsing on a 386/33, never did it, I had a 386/40. It was VGA (640x480 w16 colours), It was slow, the pages were simple. It was the only thing I could do at the time.

      Now I browse with many windows, 24bit colour at higher resolutions (rarely anything as pathetic as 1024x768).
      I can play mp3's without skipping a beat, along with movies. I was glad to get a .mod playing on my 386 without skipping.

      We've come a long way, we do have overkill for many applications, but it isn't all waste. I think too many people who complain aobut how excessive it is today forget how relatively wimpy it was before it became mainstream.

      Does anyone else remember how cool it was to have a 486 that would dir a directory listing faster then you could read it?
    • I have news for you.

      Back in 1993, Internet access was mostly in text mode, so you really didn't need that much computer processing power to access it.

      Today, Internet access is through web browsers reading highly-formatted graphical pages, Macromedia Flash/Shockwave graphics, and streaming audio/video, much of it through 384 Kbps and faster download speed broadband connections. This requires a LOT more computing power, to say the least.

      Also, the needs for high-end games and multimedia processing has reall
    • by sh4de ( 93527 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:58AM (#5852513)
      There are some niece applications which need a lots of CPU Power...

      And Bob's your uncle? Maybe you meant niche? Also, "a lots" is new to me.

      Mensa member, beware of the high IQ

      Anybody else being cut by the razor sharp irony in this? Or maybe I'm just bitter I didn't get accepted to Mensa with my puny IQ of 138.

    • by javahacker ( 469605 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @12:00PM (#5853048)
      NASA doesn't use Intel 8080 processors in the shuttles. The computers they use were developed for the Apollo program, way before the Intel 8080 existed. They use them because they are simple enough to have provably correct operation, something not true for most processors. This is a quality that must be designed for in the processor, and is more difficult to achieve as the processor becomes more complex. Code quality has nothing to do with the decision. Their code is all assembler by the way, so your code quality is very high, and very expensive.

      Inpedendent studies show that in fact 73 percent of all "OOP" code is just imperative with C++ class bloat added.
      You mean it was crappy, non object oriented code, written by bad programmers! What a shocking notion! Anyone can write bad code in any language, it hardly takes any skill at all, which is the problem, lack of skill.

      And the faster CPUs gave rise to the OOP paradigm.
      OOP is simply a codification of what programmers were already doing, it is neither a magic bullet, or a terrible evil.
  • Press Releases (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rwiedower ( 572254 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:33AM (#5852316) Homepage

    Analysts say it's too early to know how the new chips will rate against each other, with testing not yet complete.

    Yes, I know it's too early to know how the new chips will rate. Everyone should know this. It used to be that a PR blitz was timed for the launch of a product. Now it comes out well in advance. This, in turn, means that delays that could affect the delivery date have to be factored in. Next thing you know, we'll have helpful stories over a month in advance of launch with more helpful statements about how the chips haven't been tested yet.

    Yes, if the chips have already been produced and are filtering into distributors, this point is moot. I just wish more was made when the products emerged and less when it was all pie-in-the-sky hyperbole.

    • Me too. I get so annoyed when I read stories about the "launch" of a new processor or graphics card, only to find myself holding mr happy for 2 months while I wait for the damned thing to actually show up in stores. Companies shouldn't be allowed to say something is "launched" or for sale unless it is actually in the stores. Not while some OEM is getting test samples.
  • by turgid ( 580780 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:38AM (#5852368) Journal
    Please, AMD, just get on with it and give us the Athlon 64. Consign the 32-bit chips to the bargain basement. The workstation and server market has been 64-bit for nearly a decade. It's time we caught up. I'm off to ebay to buy a second-hand alpha workstation...
  • is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wirefarm ( 18470 ) <jim@@@mmdc...net> on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:38AM (#5852370) Homepage
    or did others stop caring a lot about speed somewhere around 1Ghz?
    • I agree. My first computer had a 133MHz Pentium. I then upgraded to a 233PII. Then to a 550III. Even though my current system has a 1700+ XP, the 550 isn't exactly slow. In fact I doubt if my wife could tell he difference.

      I had planned on upgrading to a 2600+ XP when the prices go down, but the only reason I see to do it is for Doom III. I certainly won't be doing it to speed up day-to-day tasks as my 1700+ XP is fast enough for me.
    • it is totally and completely just you.

      things my AthlonXP 2000+ can do significantly better / faster than your 1Ghz processor:

      - encoding mp3 / divx / etc
      - high quality divx playback
      - games games games. War3 at 1280x1024 is beautiful =)
      - Windows XP =/
      • Re:is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by shamilton ( 619422 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @11:24AM (#5852748)
        Indeed. I had the grandparent's mentality for three years, then recently used some extra cash to upgrade my 500 to an 1800 to play UT2003.

        The improvement in general system responsiveness was far greater than I had expected. Windows open faster, it's less evident that things are "drawn" instead of just appearing, much faster boot, etc.

        Also pleasant was reduced time waiting for compiles when making small code tweaks, waiting for photoshop filters, etc.

        You will never hit any sort of upper limit for CPU usage and just stop benefiting.
    • or did others stop caring a lot about speed somewhere around 1Ghz?

      Try running Cinelerra [heroinewarrior.com] on a 1Ghz. Unusable. Your 3D graphics card will not help, you need raw CPU, and I'll bet with an AMD 3200+ you'd still crave more.
      • Try running Cinelerra [heroinewarrior.com] on a 1Ghz.

        Anyone ever heard of this "Cinelerra" thing? No? Not even hardcore geeks have heard of it, much less the average joe? That's not much of an argument for faster CPUs.
    • I pretty much agree with you. I stopped caring somewhere around 1MHz as well.

      Running my 128 in double clock mode broke virtually all my C64 titles. Even GEOS didn't benefit properly without buying all new software. :(

  • What price power? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AccUser ( 191555 ) <mhg&taose,co,uk> on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:39AM (#5852371) Homepage
    I work from home, and have a network of 5 PCs of various specifications. You can tell when they are on because the floorboards in the hall vibrate, never mind the noise they make.

    I have recently invested in a VIA EPIA-M10000 [viamainboards.com] motherboard. It is very, very quiet.

    Sure, it isn't as fast as the latest P4 or Athlon, but it plays DVD (with hardware support), DivX, and MP3 media without any problems. Quake 3 runs well.

    More importantly, I can run all my business applications without any noticable loss in speed.

    I'm going to ditch my other boxes and buy some more of these EPIA systems. It's the quiet life for me.
    • I recently checked into the VIA boards... I'm setting up a home media server and wouldn't mind it using less power and making less noise (not as much of an issue since it'll be relegated to a closet eventually). But the Via chips don't cut it - they may be fine at office tasks, but their MP3 encoding times are abysmal (as is anything else requiring floating point).

      Q3 may play on it just fine (for you... looking at the benchmarks [tomshardware.com] I sure wouldn't call it acceptable), but Q3 is 3.5 years old now. The Via proc
      • by mrtroy ( 640746 )
        Good points, good sir, but look at what the mini itx boards are aimed towards. They are not for the heavy gamers. They are not for video encoders. They are for the majority of people who want a quiet, decently fast, quality mobo.
  • plagarism (Score:2, Informative)

    by synthe ( 86919 )
    When I read the article text submitted by SoDaLaS, I realized I had read it before. Look for [H]ardOCP's [hardocp.com] news about the Athlon XP 3200+ posted yesterday at 11:50am.
  • by ArmorFiend ( 151674 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:41AM (#5852389) Homepage Journal
    What's the real clock speed of this beggar?
  • The last Athlon XP (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jungle guy ( 567570 ) <{rb.moc.oohay} { ... g-xobliamlonurb}> on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:43AM (#5852400) Journal
    Acording to my sources, this should be the last Athlon XP to be released by AMD. Their next desktop processor will probably be Athlon 64, wich will need a different motherboard.

    So my advice is for not buying a computer with Atlhon XP 3200, as your upgrade roadmap will be locked. It is better to buy a computer with a slower (and cheaper) Athlon, and wait untill the price drop to buy an Atlon XP 3200. Or wait for the release of Athlon 64 - it will be an excelent computer for video edition, 3D rendering and games like Unreal Tournament 2003 or Doom III.

    • I don't know about you, but every processor upgrade I have gone through has always resulted in a new Mainboard. Almost half have been to replace Mainboards, but I would not have upgraded if I did not have to replace something.
  • Mmmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by foxtrot ( 14140 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:43AM (#5852409)
    The best thing about a 400 MHz FSB being available on an Athlon chip?

    The 333 MHz FSB chips will drop in price!
  • IT DOESN'T MATTER (Score:2, Interesting)

    by w42w42 ( 538630 )
    It's the naming scheme. It is a 3200+ because that is what it's performance is relative to - a 3.2GHz Intel piece. The 400MHz FSB just allows AMD to take what would have been a slower part, and mark it as such.
  • man! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 0x12d3 ( 623370 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:51AM (#5852465)
    Have I really put off the upgrades for that long? There are FSB's faster than my processor? The funny thing is there is so much latency loading a lot of the modern software you really don't appreciate it! Outlook XP takes just as long to load as OE did back in 97. The xfer speeds have definitely improved (a _lot_) but rendering websites takes as long if not longer than it did 10 years ago (unless yer a fellow dillo user!). I should quit complaining; I'm as thrilled about bus speeds improving as the next guy (I do a good amount of hw irq intensive stuff) but jeez, It would be nice if avg. joe could see the improvements too and not just those of us compiling kernels on the weekend. So much of the hype causes aunt Ethel to upgrade every year with no appreciable speed improvements. But then I guess auth Ethel's never heard of a front side bus...
  • by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @11:08AM (#5852586) Homepage
    I am still holding on to my duron 700, cant have the guts to upgrade, knowing the operton is coming. I'd rather have a slower more expensive 64-bit cpu than a 32-bit. At least I can later upgrade the processor alone.. hopefully.
    Still doesnt hurt to dream about this one.
  • by aliens ( 90441 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @11:09AM (#5852602) Homepage Journal
    There are several posts discussing the problems with overclocking, loud noise, stability problems. I don't know anyone who overclocks to the point that their system is unstable, or puts such loud fans on their boxes that it's unbearable for them.

    Many times you can get a better heatsink fan combo that is quitier than the stock unit.

    I overclock cause it's fun. It lets me get high end results from mid range components. Gives me more bang for my buck, and I didn't go out buying any crazy and expensive watercoolers or the like(although I would like one).

    This is all for gaming and benchmarks of course. No one in their right mind runs overclocked machines in a production environment.

    The point is, unless you have an urge to tinker and see what your equipment can do you'll never understand the draw behind overclocking. Just don't go around saying overclocking is stupid, it's just not for you.
  • Someone mentioned in a previous post that the blurb was plagarized directly off of HardOCP [hardocp.com]. The post was modded up. Now, I can understand that the /. editors may not read HardOCP, but isn't it their responsibility to deal with said plagarism if they are notified of it?

    Oh wait, I forgot, the editors don't read /. either. Never mind.
  • by NerveGas ( 168686 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @12:52PM (#5853529)
    ... and raise the FSB of the AthlonMP's, then we'd have a *really* nice setup.

    Of course, they don't want to risk hurting sales of the Hammer, but it would still be nice to have more than one option, for crying out loud.

    steve

When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.

Working...