Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 3000- 2666 real chip Speed- Bye Intel-

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 27, 2002 3:38:42 PM

very nice and thanks for the link.......eager to see it available and benchmarked

by the way, what they mean by prototype?

but, i think this should be tbred and not palomino.......i do not know??????

wish if there was UnDo in the life
January 27, 2002 4:01:29 PM

Avast!! t-bred I believe it to be as well. Arrrr....

My Jesus is whiter than your Jesus.
Related resources
January 27, 2002 4:08:01 PM

FWIW, this article does not look credible to me.

"... 2666MHz is friggin' incredible (Doing the math, 133x20 is only 2660. The exact number is around 20.045). ..."

Even the author comes across as a little technically incompetent.
January 27, 2002 4:30:21 PM

Hey that artical looks a bit untrustworthy ! Sorry to say this but the picture looks like a fake as well. For a start the die and packaging is all one shade of colour as does not look a photograph. Someone must have spent some time in Paintshop Pro with the airbrush.


<font color=purple>~* K6-2 @ 333MHz *~
I don't need a 'Gigahertz' chip to surf the web just yet ;-)</font color=purple>
January 27, 2002 4:43:37 PM

I did the math to calculate what the core frequency must be (ball park) for a Palomino 3000+. The chip core frequency should be around 2333MHz, not 2666MHz! The article is a fake.
January 27, 2002 4:49:10 PM

See what you mean. Its AMD freaks like these that give AMD a bad name. Its blatently a cheap attempt to give AMD a boost. It makes me sick that people have to resort to such measures to fuel thier un-dieing love for AMD.

<font color=purple>~* K6-2 @ 333MHz *~
I don't need a 'Gigahertz' chip to surf the web just yet ;-)</font color=purple>
January 27, 2002 4:52:46 PM

What did you use Bush math? AMD could call it whatever they want, but 133x20 is still around 2666. You can live in denial all you want. Besides if you actually looked at the site- which it seems you may have missed- the guy who posted the article constantly posts articles all of which you can verify as 100% true- why ruin a good multi year reputaion by lying about this?


My Jesus is whiter than your Jesus.
January 27, 2002 4:56:56 PM

You've both assumed they decided to stick with their earlier ways of labeling chips speed. Besides it's a 3000+ which could actually be set as a higher speed chip- also it's a prototype- since when has any company had to abide by the way we think they should label their chips? If they did then this whole xp... thing would never be in the first place.

My Jesus is whiter than your Jesus.
January 27, 2002 5:08:01 PM

WOW.
although the die does not look completely credible , the guy might have had a good digicam.
I think this ones a true story, brace yourselves for impact !!!!
January 27, 2002 5:24:56 PM

"... What did you use Bush math? ..."

I used back-of-envelope calculations. Looks like whoever is perpetuating this hoax simply added 1000 to both the model number and the chip operating frequency of the AXP 2000+ (1666.66MHz).

"... You can live in denial all you want. ..."

If it is true, I probably want one (but I don't think it is).

"... the guy who posted the article constantly posts articles all of which you can verify as 100% true ..."

Looks like he screwed up this time!

"... why ruin a good multi year reputaion by lying about this? ..."

I don't know why some people lie. Maybe it's a joke?
January 27, 2002 5:28:30 PM

Well, looking at an old pic of a <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q2/010608/index.html" target="_new">1.4 T-Bird</A>, I'd have to say that the XP 3000+ looks much like the old T-Bird design, and nothing like the newer <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/index.html" target="_new">Palomino</A>. Therefore, I'm forced to conclude as well that this a doctored photo. The packaging looks like ceramic, which would probably not work for a CPU running that hot. And, I'd also like to point out that the bridges look exactly like the old T-Bird, and the die is the exact size as the old T-Bird, and we all know that that will not be the case.

-SammyBoy
January 27, 2002 5:33:37 PM

people, they do have the speed right. i don't know about how true the site is, but the speed is right. see 133.3333333333x20 will give you that speed. that is how the mults work.

<font color=purple><b>Let us respect each other, so we can all be friends.</b> :wink: </font color=purple>
January 27, 2002 5:38:39 PM

That's true but there is no 20.045 multiplier!

Quote:

The exact number is around 20.045

January 27, 2002 5:42:23 PM

Yes, but I read somewhere else that on the new Palomino (Throughbered or whatever) the design will be much more alike the T-bird then the XP, all outside components will be moved back to the front.

My case has so many fans that it hovers above the ground :eek:  .
January 27, 2002 5:44:06 PM

<b><A HREF="http://www.amdzone.com/#1" target="_new"><i><font color=red>Faked Athlon XP 3000+</font color=red>
Reported by: Chris Tom At: 1:28 PM
There is an image of a faked Athlon XP 3000+ floating around. I will not post to any site foolish enough to put it up and try and make money off of it.</A></b></i>


:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.
January 27, 2002 5:46:49 PM

first i'll agree with svol, and now all i have to say is the guy is a dumbass over at the other website. the way the multiplier works is as follows, 133.33x20 and not 133x20.045

<font color=purple><b>Let us respect each other, so we can all be friends.</b> :wink: </font color=purple>
January 27, 2002 6:25:38 PM

I believe that a handpicked pre-production Throughbred could maybe do 2666MHz aircooled just like Intel has samples that are able to do 3000MHz aircooled. The MHz difference between AMD and Intel on 0.18 micron was 333MHz (2000MHz-1666MHz) and one could also expect that difference would hold on to 0.13 micron (3000MHz-333MHz) = 2666MHz. But there's no reason why AMD should hand out such precious samples already; for testing ??? Maybe they want to show some of their major OEM's that they are not trailing Intel.


<i>/Copenhagen</i>

<b><i>Seagate Barracuda IV.
Bad performance in RAID setups!
</i></b>
January 28, 2002 12:58:30 AM

As much as I would love it if AMD released a 3000+ processor I think this is a hoax, and not a very good one.

"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
January 28, 2002 1:12:21 AM

Quote:
It's so right. It's so pretty. It puts Schindler's list to shame. It is the ultimate good.

It is the ultimate fake. And your comparison is offensive. And Jesus wasn't white (he would have been tan).

<i>Hi I am from Canada, I don't use amd cause they melt my igloo eh.</i>
January 28, 2002 1:16:46 AM

jesus wasn't blonde with blue eyes? i thought he was from california though? :wink:
see what he's up to <A HREF="http://www.jesus.com/" target="_new">here</A>

ps. why did my previous post get deleted? hmm.

happiness is finding a stick of ram in your mail.
January 28, 2002 5:59:03 AM

hmm where to start? well here i go: first, the new packaging is green, a fairly bright shade of green and in no way confuseable with the blue color pictured there. on the other hand, it does bet the question of how he got a picture of a "3000+ at 2666mhz" at POST... even if he could somehow hack the ID registers (a feat in and of itself), it's not easy to get a palamino up to 2666 mhz.

oh, and intel "tan" isn't the best way to say Middle-Eastern. ah f*ck it, say whatever you want.

Hard work often pays off in time, but laziness always pays off now.
January 28, 2002 6:15:50 AM

>it does bet the question of how he got a picture of a "3000+ at 2666mhz" at POST

very easily done, ever heard of DOS?

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2002 6:41:28 AM

You truly believe this to be a super secret Intel killing prototype? One question if I may. Has AMD ever packaged a prototype chip or as we like to call it "engineering sample" on a packaging like that? Also where is the core id number, batch number and FAB numbers, aren't all "special" CPU’s marked that way? Also the whole, exact dimensions of TBird core kind of throws me off, by the way when did the palomino get rectangular I do remember the Comdex picture of the 0.13u palomino it was... kind of square. Also being the palomino in its current 0.18u form could never reach that speed air cooled or otherwise (well maybe liquid nitrogen).
Now I am not insulting you character here, but maybe you should just take another look, a good "LONG" look and come back to us on what you realize. Because that looks more fake than Dennis Rodman and Michael Jackson combined.

Back into the woodworks I go.

-Spuddy


:lol:  Go Ahead Peel Me. I Dare Ya" :lol: 
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Spuddy on 01/28/02 02:37 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 28, 2002 7:28:33 AM

It's complete crapola the pic is a fake! The bridges are identical to a older tbird, how you going to achieve a 20x multiplier?

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
January 28, 2002 7:47:00 PM

Ok- first on a new chip on a new board may be able to do 20x multiplier quite well. As far as the schindler thing- please get over your self- and the Jesus comment is a direct sarcastic dig at the mormon faith. Obviously you didn't get that one either. We all know what color he was. Green- he was an alien

My Jesus is whiter than your Jesus.
January 28, 2002 8:46:16 PM

AMD Fanatics Get Duped Story at 11

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
January 28, 2002 8:56:21 PM

Intel fanatic posts FUD once again, the continuing story updated hourly.

Hard work often pays off in time, but laziness always pays off now.
January 28, 2002 9:09:44 PM

lol

happiness is finding a stick of ram in your mail.
January 28, 2002 11:14:24 PM

"... Ok- first on a new chip on a new board may be able to do 20x multiplier quite well. ..."

It was <A HREF="http://www.deadbodies.org/forum/showthread.php?s=db34ce..." target="_new">faked</A>. Bury this dead horse!

"... As far as the schindler thing- please get over your self- and the Jesus comment is a direct sarcastic dig at the mormon faith. Obviously you didn't get that one either. ..."

I also thought you came across as offensive. Guess I don't get it either.
January 28, 2002 11:32:59 PM

pretty sad story really.

a. old lookin core with tbird bridges
b. comment about multiplier
c. math (by all reports the numbering scheme for t-bred wont differ from whats currently used... thus a XP3000+ should be only 2333Mhz.


holes big enough to drive my kingswood thru!


The lack of thermal protection on Athlon's is cunning way to stop morons from using AMD. :) 
January 29, 2002 3:10:45 PM

No worries here- I'm not denying it's status of fake. All I said was that 20x is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Let's get this Jesus thing out of the way as well- it's not supposed to be offensive, unless you're mormon, but then who cares? I mean have you ever seen the mormom Jesus? He looks like he's been burried for a month and then washed up and bleached. He's whiter than me and I can barely tan. This I find far more offensive than my comment. Denying christs heritage so they can continue to feel ok about themselves being racist. How many black mormons do you know? I'm an anthropologist and so my life is often consumed in studying religions, and I have to say that out of every religion, big or small, from snake handelers to Aton, the only one I have found worth really dissing is mormonism. It's such a joke with such useless roots. But who knows, according to South Park- they end up being the only ones who get it right.

My Jesus is whiter than your Jesus.
January 29, 2002 4:19:57 PM

Post deleted by MadCat
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 29, 2002 4:33:40 PM

is't real?
January 30, 2002 1:13:55 AM

nope they are not, i'm looking at one right now and they are a bit different. thats all i'm saying. not anything more, its a bit different.

<font color=purple><b>Let us respect each other, so we can all be friends.</b> :wink: </font color=purple>
January 30, 2002 1:46:35 AM

Shhhh... no words

My Jesus is whiter than your Jesus.
January 30, 2002 6:37:41 AM

Protoype chips are not stamped with anything special. I have seen a few prototypes. The core was blank. Absolutely nothing was stamped on it. The packaging (casing and die) for prototypes is identical to the production chips. There is no reason to package a prototype differently from the production model. Otherwise your tests and benchmarks would not be reliable.
Engineering samples and prototypes are different. There are not that many prototypes made,they make a lot of engineering samples. I have seen boxes (200+ chips) of engineering samples. But have only seen 2 or 3 prototypes in any given location. Also engineering samples are stamped like any other chip.
For an interesting discussion on hammer, read this article:

http://www.hardwaremania.com/reviews_eng/hammer/hammer1...



year 2010: Intel? Whose that?
January 30, 2002 9:09:29 AM

Quote:
from snake handelers to Aton, the only one I have found worth really dissing is mormonism. It's such a joke with such useless roots. But who knows, according to South Park- they end up being the only ones who get it right



LOL. Good thing I'm an atheist, or I might have been insulted.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
January 31, 2002 2:31:42 PM

Sorry, but you link doesn't work.

My case has so many fans that it hovers above the ground :eek:  .
January 31, 2002 5:47:53 PM

I even emailed Mike Magee (editor of the Inquirer) the link and this is what he replied back:

<font color=blue>
From: "Mike Magee" <mike.magee@btinternet.com>
To: "Mr G" <mr_gobeldegook@yahoo.com>

Subject: RE: Pictures of Athlon XP 3000+

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 19:21:25 -0000

Thanks :) 

Yes - I saw it - it's almost certainly a dud...

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Mr G [mailto:mr_gobeldegook@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 7:04 PM
To: mike.magee@theinquirer.net
Subject: Pictures of Athlon XP 3000+

This artical looks a bit suspect to me, but its worth
a mention anyway. It includes a photo of the prototype
and a screen shot.

http://www.m3dzone.com/article.php?sid=2089&mode=thread...
</font color=blue>

Now if the Inquirer refuses to publish this story then what does that say about the artical ?!!

<font color=purple>~* K6-2 @ 333MHz *~
I don't need a 'Gigahertz' chip to surf the web just yet ;-)</font color=purple>
January 31, 2002 6:32:25 PM

Only 4 L1 bridges and no L10 bridges. Looks like it might be a Duron.

The default multiplier appears to be 9X. L3 bridges going top down are closed, open, closed, open. L4's are open, closed, open, closed. (These combinations don't occur on the XPs).

Default voltage looks like 1.6 volts. L7 brigdes going left to right are closed, open, closed, open, closed.

Can't make out the L6 bridges but I'm pretty sure it's a Duron 900. The die is not tall enough to be an Tbird.


<b>We are all beta testers!</b>
!