no idea about the cache, but will debut at 1.6 GHz and 166 MHz (333 DDR) FSB in later revisions thanks to the new 0.13 micron process, that will save a lot of die space which could be used for the extra L2 cache of 512k. But I guess they will make a server/MP version with 512k and a desktop version with 256k and SMP disabled, just like PIII Tualatin.
<font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
<font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
no idea about the cache, but will debut at 1.6 GHz and 166 MHz (333 DDR) FSB in later revisions thanks to the new 0.13 micron process, that will save a lot of die space which could be used for the extra L2 cache of 512k. But I guess they will make a server/MP version with 512k and a desktop version with 256k and SMP disabled, just like PIII Tualatin.
<font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
<font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
mr_gobbledegook
Distinguished
- Sep 3, 2001
- 468
- 0
- 18,780
Yep thats pretty much what I was gonna say. I am still<i>'hoping'</i> it can also do SSE2. However we might have to wait till the Barton core for that.
<font color=purple>~* K6-2 @ 333MHz *~
I don't need a 'Gigahertz' chip to surf the web just yet ;-)</font color=purple>
<font color=purple>~* K6-2 @ 333MHz *~
I don't need a 'Gigahertz' chip to surf the web just yet ;-)</font color=purple>
Yes - enough stuff is starting to trickle through thanks to Intel that it would be good to consider AMD taking up SSE2 next year at some stage. Probably not feature in Thoroughbred as you say though.
-* <font color=red> Under Offer </font color=red> *-
email for application details
-* <font color=red> Under Offer </font color=red> *-
email for application details
flamethrower205
Illustrious
- Jun 26, 2001
- 13,105
- 0
- 40,780
I'm just waitin for the hammer- that should be nice (and I've got 3 thousand bucks to spend on the processor itself if necessary- dual processor would be better though).
NOS and a <font color=red> Ferrari </font color=red> can be fun!
NOS and a <font color=red> Ferrari </font color=red> can be fun!
lhgpoobaa
Illustrious
- Dec 31, 2007
- 14,462
- 1
- 40,780
im assuming that thouroughbred will also be backwards compatible with 133 fsb....
will 150fsb be an official spec?
and do u think it will be released as diferent chips.
i.e. bred C = 133, bred D = 166?
Excuse me for a moment. I need to drive my ergonomic wheely chair over a sheet of bubble wrap!
will 150fsb be an official spec?
and do u think it will be released as diferent chips.
i.e. bred C = 133, bred D = 166?
Excuse me for a moment. I need to drive my ergonomic wheely chair over a sheet of bubble wrap!
flamethrower205
Illustrious
- Jun 26, 2001
- 13,105
- 0
- 40,780
Most probably. When's teh release date supposed to be?
NOS and a <font color=red> Ferrari </font color=red> can be fun!
NOS and a <font color=red> Ferrari </font color=red> can be fun!
I think it will be in 133 and 166 variants. There is little to be gained from 150FSB - it is such a small increment over 133 relatively. PC2700 (DDR333) will be fairly available by then (now shipping 512MB PC2700 in Japan) do I think it will be 133 for the C and 166 for the D. I think they'll be differnt chips and thus a mobo upgrade to support PC2700/DDR333 which is no real surprise.
Essentialy any current (or immediate future) production Athlon mainboard is old hat once Thoroughbred 166 is released.
-* <font color=red> Under Offer </font color=red> *-
email for application details
Essentialy any current (or immediate future) production Athlon mainboard is old hat once Thoroughbred 166 is released.
-* <font color=red> Under Offer </font color=red> *-
email for application details
lhgpoobaa
Illustrious
- Dec 31, 2007
- 14,462
- 1
- 40,780
still
one of the attractive things about athlons... whould have to be backwards compatibility.
wonder how they will deal with that.
the budget line catered by the morgan and its replacment
mid range and older boards with a 133 fsb breadie, then top of the line with the 166 and possibly even the 200 fsb breadie
(assuming DDR 400 becomes a certified standard)
Excuse me for a moment. I need to drive my ergonomic wheely chair over a sheet of bubble wrap!
one of the attractive things about athlons... whould have to be backwards compatibility.
wonder how they will deal with that.
the budget line catered by the morgan and its replacment
mid range and older boards with a 133 fsb breadie, then top of the line with the 166 and possibly even the 200 fsb breadie
(assuming DDR 400 becomes a certified standard)
Excuse me for a moment. I need to drive my ergonomic wheely chair over a sheet of bubble wrap!
The top end Thoroughbred doesn't have to be backwards compatible if they make a lower 133/266FSB variant.
Think AthlonB/C and KT133. Sure, Athlon was compatible with 100/200FSB boards, but only in the B variant - and they very soon were seen to be the poor cousin with higher prices and lower performance. KT133A and then the rash of DDR boards pretty much killed out any interest in KT133.
So we repeat the cycle in 2002/2003. Sure there will be a chip available for your kt266a board, but it will run badly compared to it's brother on the kt333a/SiS785/nForce 480 or whatever....
-* <font color=red> Under Offer </font color=red> *-
email for application details
Think AthlonB/C and KT133. Sure, Athlon was compatible with 100/200FSB boards, but only in the B variant - and they very soon were seen to be the poor cousin with higher prices and lower performance. KT133A and then the rash of DDR boards pretty much killed out any interest in KT133.
So we repeat the cycle in 2002/2003. Sure there will be a chip available for your kt266a board, but it will run badly compared to it's brother on the kt333a/SiS785/nForce 480 or whatever....
-* <font color=red> Under Offer </font color=red> *-
email for application details
flamethrower205
Illustrious
- Jun 26, 2001
- 13,105
- 0
- 40,780
Would the PR for the thoroughbred be based upon comparitive performance to pally, or T-Bird?
NOS and a <font color=red> Ferrari </font color=red> can be fun!
NOS and a <font color=red> Ferrari </font color=red> can be fun!
somerandomguy
Distinguished
- Jun 1, 2001
- 577
- 0
- 18,980
The PR rating for the Thoroughbred will almost certainly just start where the Althon XP ends. If the last XP they make is a 2100+, then I'll bet the Thoroughbred will start at 2200+. That's my theory anyway.
"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
lhgpoobaa
Illustrious
- Dec 31, 2007
- 14,462
- 1
- 40,780
i can see it going in steps of 150 or 200 though, as i believe thats what the northwood will be doing too.
*thinks*
ok... we have
XP 1800+ = 1533 = 133 x 11.5
XP 1900+ = 1600 = 133 x 12
0.13 2200+ = 1666 = 166 x 10 ???
0.13 2400+ = 1750 = 166 x 10.5 ???
hmmmmm
reckon this sound fair?
Excuse me for a moment. I need to drive my ergonomic wheely chair over a sheet of bubble wrap!
*thinks*
ok... we have
XP 1800+ = 1533 = 133 x 11.5
XP 1900+ = 1600 = 133 x 12
0.13 2200+ = 1666 = 166 x 10 ???
0.13 2400+ = 1750 = 166 x 10.5 ???
hmmmmm
reckon this sound fair?
Excuse me for a moment. I need to drive my ergonomic wheely chair over a sheet of bubble wrap!
somerandomguy
Distinguished
- Jun 1, 2001
- 577
- 0
- 18,980
flamethrower205
Illustrious
- Jun 26, 2001
- 13,105
- 0
- 40,780
I just wonder.. how would they rate a 133 fsb t-bred ?
Lets assume a 2200+ is a 1.66 ghz Tbred with 166 fsb. What would a 1.66 ghz "c" model with a 133 fsb be called ? 2200- ? OR would they lower the numbering, like 2000 or 2100 ? Thats gonna be confusing as hell.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Lets assume a 2200+ is a 1.66 ghz Tbred with 166 fsb. What would a 1.66 ghz "c" model with a 133 fsb be called ? 2200- ? OR would they lower the numbering, like 2000 or 2100 ? Thats gonna be confusing as hell.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram