Everyone saw that or was it just me? :eek:

What the hell is going on inside the brains of those AMD people? Anyone care to explain? That 2.2Ghz, 400Mhz-FSB Barton doesn´t even beat the 3.0Ghz P4 on i875! How the hell will it ever take on a 3.2Ghz P4?

That rating system of theirs just jumped to another level of ridiculous... I would admit a little variation, but that´s just... well, it´s BS!!! So OK, the ratings system is hardly perfect, but the 3200 just seems vastly overstated. Really. AMD ought to do something, and do it quickly!
15 answers Last reply
More about xp3200
  1. I'm inclined to agree. With the earlier versions of the Athlon they did have a case for using the PR rating system, but now it's totally out of scale to the actual performance and clock speed of their CPUs.

    No way I'd fork out that kinda cash for an XP3200+.

    :eek: I want to be Dutch, but I'll settle for perfection :eek:
  2. The AMD rating system should avoid THG to do tests. Yes, just because XP 3200+ is almost equal to a P4 3.2 GHz.
    This means that AMD believe that all AMD customers are idiot.
    Because we are not idiot and because there must be an idiot between the customer and AMD "rating men" around this "rating" concern.............
    The fact is that AMD, after surpassing the GHz barrier slept, while Intel found the way to make a big jump in the ability of the core processor to operate at high frequencies, do not forget that some blocks of the P4 core run at double the frequency of the base core clock. That means there are some circuits within the core that are clocked at 6 GHz and more.
    AMD utilised the last breath of the Athlon and also gave it more cache (oxigen) and want compete with the successor of the P3 which was the first and true competitor of the Athlon. Amd only changed the geometry of the channel (130 nm against 180) or adding some hardware instruction for multimedia compatibility or finally the cache. The rest only concerned the frequency core clock which is related mainly with the technology used to build the chip. Very few modifications have been realised on the design of the CPU with respect to the circuitry. After some years the two main bottlenecks arose, the difficulty to increase the core clock and, principally, the lack in the memory interface.
    When AMD presented his advanced Alfa bus (derived from Digital) it represented a missile for Intel, still hitch with the old bus. Amd still uses the Alfa bus and Intel has passed through two bus generations (P3 and P4). Rambus arose and failed. And AMD with its alfa bus is still here, solid as a rock, but steady as a rock.
    The same Chipmaker (Via, SIS, ALi) may build two different chipsets which, using the same RAM, perform much better with P4 then with Athlon, independently from the CPU capability, only due to the superior Intel bus.
    I am an AMD fan since from the age when AMD said "more performances for the same money". OK, now, for the same reason we should go with Intel.
    I should like to foster a new "Rating" index. The "Price Index". Following this criteria, the XP 3200+ should be priced at half then it actually is.

    <font color=red>the new bios of my mobo let me to choose the P.rating number of my CPU.
    Now I have an XP 8000 + </font color=red>
  3. For being an AMD fan like myself, I severly admit that AMD are just starting to appear more and more stupid. It's unbelievable how they could even dare to say that the 3200+ is the "worlds fastest PC processor". Not even Intel is claiming such crap. It's like you say, pure bullshit. Now if I had the money, i'd go straight away and buy that upcoming P4 3.2 CPU instead. With the 3200+, AMD can't even beat the P4 3.0. They'd stand in the corner of shame against the P4 3.2. I think I've just heard that "world's fastest processor" one too many times.

    Now sure, AMD might be claiming that "3200+" is meant to comparing Barton VS. Thunderbird. But who's gonna believe that?

    - An AMD fan a large bit closer to resigning.

    My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ CPU / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
    Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Maxtor 80Gb ATA-133 / Hercules GTXP SC /
    Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
  4. Noone, absolutely noone I know thinks that the rating on AMD processors is related to the thunderbird...

    Things will become very interesting when the 3.0Ghz actually scales to 3.2Ghz, which is a 7% increase in clock. Traditionally, I´d expect nice scaling, which´ll make the 3.2Ghz faster than the 3.0Ghz P4 by a margin, and the 3.0Ghz is already faster than the 3200! Oh boy...

    So: <font color=blue><b>3.2Ghz P4 HT</b></font color=blue> vs <font color=green><b>3200+ Barton</b></font color=green> is one duel which´ll have AMD look very, very bad indeed :redface: ...

    <i>(at 2.2Ghz, they had it coming, anyway!)</i>
  5. The Model Rating PR, PR, PR, is just PR trying to compare to the Intel P4. If that wasn't the case, then I wonder why the XP2800+ Barton, is clocked at 2.08 GHz when the XP3000+ Barton is clocked at 2.16. I mean 80 Mhz more couldn't possible be making up for a 200 mhz "thunderbird deficit".

    No, very obviously the Athlon XP model rating is meant to compare to the Intel P4. Just too bad the rating is false.
    It'll probably be a while before methinks again that Intel uses more strong-arming tactics than what AMD does.

    My next CPU is an Intel...

    My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ CPU / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
    Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Maxtor 80Gb ATA-133 / Hercules GTXP SC /
    Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by sabbath1 on 05/13/03 12:26 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  6. I hate to say it, but that's what I tried to tell you. It's relatively sad from AMD to do such, I just don't want to even comment and do my traditional page-long posts on observing a new product. Even the loyal followers will stop looking at them.

    Still, AMD has one last lifeline at the moment (not the future), in regards to the very low priced CPUs in the low-end. An XP2400+ is a bargain now, at 95$, pretty soon it will be priced around 80, and then 50$. That is extremely enticing for me to upgrade my current XP1600+ for example.

    You're right though, even I who would think of simply upgrading CPUs alone, am strongly considering Intel next time, despite the higher cost.

    This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
  7. Yeah well, anyone who gets fed with bad PR comes to a point when he'd had enough. That time is rapidly coming up for me. Obviously nor Intel or AMD are any nicer than the other. And Intel has the strong upper hand in both performance and quality of product right now. It's impossible to deny.

    Even Opteron is no clear winner for AMD as it performs way slower than the Xeon in Workstation benchmarks.

    Intel platforms are still more expensive, but the new 800 FSB line from 2.4 - 3.2 is gonna appeal to many people, all the way from budget to high-end.

    My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ CPU / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
    Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Maxtor 80Gb ATA-133 / Hercules GTXP SC /
    Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
  8. well.... if u compare mhz. intel 2.2ghz vs amd 2.2 ghz intel is waaaaaaaaaaaaay behind !!!
  9. compare mhz !!! for example amd 2.2 ghz vs intel 2.2 ghz. then intel sux and amd rox getting so much power out of that clockfreqvence !!!
  10. Okay, and Intel rox for getting more MHz. The better processor is the one that performs better, or costs less, not the one with better IPC.

    Only AMD fanboys would resort to the "AMD gets more IPC they are better" argument.
  11. I'm starting to think you're either a 13 year old brat, or a fake user made by someone here who wanted to just enjoy some flamewars, so he created a fake user that acts like a little baby.

    Ok who is it this time? DH, is that you?

    If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
  12. No, I´m guessing this guy isn´t a 13 year old brat... that would make him more reasonable...

    Have you seen his earlier post on that fried MB/CPU thread? Oh boy, he just said "don´t touch things you don´t understand !!" He´s just laughing at us.
  13. Did amd know about the intel 200 fsb when they began production of the xp3200? Is the 3200 7% faster than the xp3000? Yes the 3200 is a disapointment when compaired to the canterwood setup. The big news should not have been the chip, but rather the 200 fsb support. As a result of this basic change all Bartons are better able to run on that bus. The only three thousand two hundred is the xp 3000 @ 200 fsb. That is the way I see it, and if intel fans see it differently perhaps it's my blinders not thiers.
    Please not that I am saying for amd to compare to the new intel chips they would have to increase the clock speed of thier procs by 300 mhz, but that to my perception the current batch of bartons could be so clocked.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by endyen on 06/01/03 08:44 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  14. AMD has more IPC, Intel has more MHz. None matters more...or less.

    My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
    Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Western Digital Raptor / Hercules GTXP SC /
    Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
  15. I will say this once and then I’m going to go shower. Bosse did have a point in that 2.2 AMD dose out perform a 2.2 533 p4. I fell icky. However, bear in mind that as of 6/17/03 4:00 PST, pricewatch.com listed the AMD 3200+ at $440, and the Intel p4 2.26 w/533 FSB at $173. So the question that now arises is; is the AMD 3200+ 154% better than a P4 2.26 in a cost comparison?….. Hmmm, one dose wonder. THG….a little help here.

    Again in to the trenches that is the PR battle. A friend of mine at Intel put it this way. Look at Intel, they make products, when they release a new one they throw a party for themselves and send out a ton of press releases. They give it a name market it, and send it on its way. Never referencing anything but the chip and what it can do and hire guys that paint them selves blue and that don’t talk, as spokesmen.

    Look at AMD. The PR ratting it self is making reference to Intel. If you knew nothing of Intel (good luck), you’d look at a AMD proc and say “what the hell dose 3200+ tell me?”. Back when I bought a 1700 there was no other information on the front of the case. On the wife’s P4 box it’s all there “2.0 GHz, 512k cache, 400 MHz FSB. AMD makes a point to reference Intel bench marks on AMD’s website when ever it makes them look good or just out right flame Intel. Go to Intel’s site almost all listings for AMD have to do with Flash memory and joint projects. Anyone remember the Apple spots where the burned up the guy in the bunny suit? Fast forward to now. People don’t even joke about apple anymore. It’s more along the lines of “wow it’d be nice if that great OS could get some decent hardware behind it” Just a warning to the Fanboys and AMD it self…not that either seem to listen.

    Now to be honest I can say I am grateful to AMD for two things, one past, and one future, nothing present. First the past. 10 years ago, if you had told someone, you could put together a good computer in a decade for under $1000, they’d just laugh or say something mean or stupid like Bosse would. The shear fact that there is a competitor to Intel has done wonders for the pocket books of end users every where. My 486 in ’94 cost over 3 grand. My current box costs less than $900.

    The future. I’m looking froward to the Athon64 if it ever gets here. I can appreciate that every once in a while AMD seem to throw some gas on the campfire of change in the industry. 64-bit some day will make everyone very happy. Not so sure that it’ll work today for AMD, but a process has been started.

    Today there is nothing good about the company. All I hear from them is a sound like a 8 year old “creamy is better than chunky” AMD needs to grow up. So do the fanboys.

    Sorry for the long post. Many thoughts never jotted down. I love cut and paste.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs AMD Product