Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

XP 2100+ article - comments?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 13, 2002 4:50:44 AM

Your thoughts on the article? I'll say something tomorrow, I'm off to bed in a minute.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!

More about : 2100 article comments

March 13, 2002 4:57:33 AM

heh, i just skimmed through it and all i can say is good job AMD, sweet what they've done, but i don't think its gonna be a big seller, even with its nice performance

didnt have one of em electronic pens so ill just type my name,<i>CoOoLMaNX</i>
March 13, 2002 4:59:44 AM

Just remember while you rest.

All Pentium 4 CPUs with an FSB clock speed of 133 MHz and 533 MHz Rambus memory that are not yet available on the market were marked with a blue-and-black bar and are there only for reference purposes.

Good article except reading that over and over.


All errors are undocumented features waiting to be discovered.
Related resources
March 13, 2002 5:41:57 AM

mmm, they could have at least put it only once on each page...

:wink: Engineering is the science of making life simple, by making it more complicated.
March 13, 2002 5:51:09 AM

Quote:
All Pentium 4 CPUs at an FSB clock speed of 133 MHz and 533 MHz Rambus memory that are not yet available on the market were marked with a blue-and-black bar and are there only for reference purposes.


Do they think we're idiots? This was the most annoying review ever.

<font color=red>If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</font color=red>
March 13, 2002 5:54:42 AM

what was with that comment about the thoroughbred not adding anything new, "just a die shrink"
... AMD hasn't finalized anything... well not to the public...

:wink: Engineering is the science of making life simple, by making it more complicated.
March 13, 2002 5:57:04 AM

Interesting, I didnt think the xp2000+ could compete that well with Intels latest. But I guess it can. I will have to look at other sites before drawing a final conclusion.
The 533mhz bus looks real good on the pentium.. beat AMD is almost all the benchmarks. When is that supposed to hit the market?
Finally, im curious to see what the jump to 1.8 gigs does for AMD on their xp2100+..

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
March 13, 2002 7:06:29 AM

I agree its dumb that there three People doing a post about it.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2002 8:01:47 AM

Im really annoyed by these copy/paste reviews. "Archiving is a very practical application. WinACE 2.11 was used under Windows XP blablabla". Something tells me we will read that very same line when Tom benches the Hammer, or Precott or whatever next year. They just recycle their last cpu review, change a few comments and publish it. Good thing we still have anand.

As for the conclusions of the review; I cant say im thrilled by a 67 Mhz increase. The difference between Nortwood and Athlon XP are neglectable if you ask me. Office performance really is a NON issue, I mean, how much faster does your spell checker need to run ? Internet performance LMAO.. Quake3.. do we really need 300 Fps ? Who cares about a few percent more or less... maybe im getting too old for this forum ;-)

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
March 13, 2002 8:10:22 AM

They need to get rid of some of the old benchmarking games and apps. Use Serious Sam and some of the newer engines instead of Quake3 at the very least.

Maybe I don't understand this, but if a monitor supports 85 Hz at a current resolution then would you even be able to notice anything above 85 FPS?

<font color=red>If you were to have sex with your clone would that be considered incest or masturbation?</font color=red>
March 13, 2002 8:19:20 AM

The nv15 demo of quake 3 is much better, the regular quake 3 demo is all about streaming ram bandwith, and not about cpu, when there is alot of cpu intensive action on the screen like in the nv15 demo, the gap is far lessened and a truer picture arises.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2002 2:13:33 PM

So..If AMD can match and beat Intel with DDR ram, what would happen if AMD were to support RAMBUS ram?

Would AMD then really kick Intel's but?
March 13, 2002 2:28:52 PM

Quote:
So..If AMD can match and beat Intel with DDR ram, what would happen if AMD were to support RAMBUS ram?

you would get a huge heatsink and fan for you chipset...
AMD chipsets already <b>NEEDS</b> a fan on them at 266mhz...imagine the size of the fan for 400+mhz...
btw...you'll get better performance too :wink:

<b><A HREF="http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?2932776" target="_new">P4 + DDR333</A>=<font color=blue>OK</font color=blue></b>
March 13, 2002 3:02:29 PM

AMD wouldn't benefit from RDRAM currently, the extra bandwidth would go to waste.

Well, it's official. Frank and/or Bert is a complete moron. I'll give my reasons if anyone wants, but I think most people read the latest review and know why.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!
March 13, 2002 3:09:54 PM

Quote:
So..If AMD can match and beat Intel with DDR ram, what would happen if AMD were to support RAMBUS ram?

Would AMD then really kick Intel's but?

Not necessarily. From what I understand, the Athlon can't take full advantage of the bandwidth offered by RDRAM, so you wouldn't see much, if any, improvement. The P4 was designed with RDRAM in mind and it needs all the memory bandwidth it can get in order to perform at its full potential.

<i>I made you look. But I can't make you see.</i>
March 13, 2002 4:36:48 PM

I was impressed with the performance of the CPU, and would still buy an XP over a P4. Regardless of the improved performance in Northwood Pentium 4 are still to expensive.
The biggest thing holding back the athlon I believe is it's FSB. I would have liked to have seen 166FSB with a 512L2.
March 13, 2002 4:40:22 PM

Perhaps it was Anand in their recent 2100 review that suggest a FSB increase to 166mhz won't have a major impact on Athlon's performance compared to P4's performance. They suggest that AMD would be better off increasing the on chip cache to 512 k rather than upping the FSB if it came down to a choice between the two.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 13, 2002 4:46:43 PM

i find it funny that he did that ... we all know there are a few who can't read and takes things completely out of context. i simply skipped it .. why did you read it over and over anyway? lol just skip it

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
March 13, 2002 5:00:36 PM

Of course with a die shrink from .18 to .13, they <i>should</i> be able to do both <i>and</i> still have a smaller die with better electrical and thermal performance. To do anything less is, in my opinion, no better than what Intel did to the P3. (I.E. Turning it into a Celeron so that it can't out-perform their P4s.)

<pre>If you let others think for you, you're the
only one to blame when things go wrong.</pre><p>
March 13, 2002 5:33:10 PM

With double the engineers AMD probably would. But, like most any business, AMD tries to budget limited resources more in line with actual revenue. So, AMD seems to do things in more gradual steps.. 6-9 month smaller upgrades instead of 12-18 month larger upgrades. It seems to work well for them and has allowed them to more rapidly qualify enhancements from what I can tell.

Intel for it's part has more chip families in concurrent production:

P3, Celeron, P4 and Itanium. All of these have split off resources. BUT Intel does have substantially more engineering resources. I suggest you give AMD the millions it would cost them to hie more engineers to upgrade Athlon.. AGAIN and still maintain the Hammer development which is a very aggressive schedule in and of itself.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 13, 2002 5:43:28 PM

slvr

Put yourself in the AMD engineers shoes.

They have just so many engineers. So, they have to balance the continued development of Athlon which is now reaching and perhaps exceeding the original design specifications; exceeding their original end of life performance expectations, I bet, OR transition engineers to the new Hammer processor, which by those same expectations will perform significantly better AND scale better as well.

AMD and Intel BOTH must continually analyze where things are today and where their opposing CPUs will be months and years from now and plan accordingly.

Look at Intel's roadmap.. Prescott coming in around a year; increased FSB coming in a few months. Athlon probably will NOT compete well against these and no amount of core tweaking would improve performance enough to make it worth the engineering effrort. The CPU is nearing EOL by any standards. It will be 4 years old this coming winter and that's getting long in the tooth in CPU terms.

Hammer is their logical next generation CPU. It is a year ahead of the next closest competition from Intel and promises, as I mentioned, better speed scaling than Athlon can provide. At the same time the die size is only marginally larger than Athlon but it offers SSE2 support along with the SSE support Athlon added so well.

You can give this or that rebuttal, but the bottom line is AMD has to make engineering decisions based on their own inside information. I suspect AMD is far more in the know about where Hammer is in development and how well it will perform already. Furthermore, IF Hammer was going to underperform you can be sure AMD would be making major improvements to Athlon as we speak to fill the void IF those improvements woul significantly improve performance.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 13, 2002 5:59:17 PM

How many engineers does it take to change a few bridges? The move to a 166MHz FSB shouldn't require <i>any</i> new engineers to implement.

They're already doing a die shrink, which requires planning, implementation time, and testing. Then they're doing a switch over to SOI which requires at the very least testing. They're already going to be changing the bridges anyway just for the new clock speeds. So at the very most if AMD moved to a 166MHz FSB, it would still require no more man-hours than what they are already doing.

True, the cache would be nicer to see, but even still, anything is better than nothing, which is what AMD has planned.

Speaking of cache, it would take a whole 1 additional engineer at most to implement.

Millions? I'm not talking about any major change. Just up the cache a little and set it to a FSB default of 166MHz, which most overclockers can already do anyway, and which VIA already officially supports a chipset for.

<pre>If you let others think for you, you're the
only one to blame when things go wrong.</pre><p>
March 13, 2002 6:16:48 PM

LOL

I'm glad you are so intimate with CPU engineering Slvr. I look at things like upping the FSB or adding more cache and see...more engineering time and work required to implement.

But you seem to know more about it than me so I defer to your magical no engineering resources required statement :) 

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 13, 2002 7:17:40 PM

I thought it was awsome, I wonder when there will be a CPU which uses >100W of power, then I will be able to heat my house with it. Kinda incredible considering there are P3s that use 8.2W of power. Don't even consider putting a UPS on your AMD system unless its BIG.
March 13, 2002 8:28:47 PM

The article or the chip? I thought the article was fine as usual. i do agree that they could use some new benchmarks. as for the chip... eh, nothing to crap your pants about. another good performer from amd. nothing to make me take it over a p4 except for price at the moment. but on my budged i can't afford a keyboard right now...

no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end, when we all disintegrate, it'll all happen again.
March 13, 2002 10:37:31 PM

My Tbird 1400 + 4x 10k RPM SCSI disks DO heat my room =/

Jesus saves, but Mario scores!!!
March 13, 2002 10:43:15 PM

That's a good question. I think it we would be hard pressed to notice the difference between 85fps and 185fps anyway even if the refresh rate was 185hertz.
March 13, 2002 11:18:59 PM

Yeah, I cant tell the diff above 85 and I notice it more then most people. I mean if it was side by side I bet I could, but just looking at the monitor 85hz is a good rate 4me....

Jesus saves, but Mario scores!!!
March 13, 2002 11:29:34 PM

The article was ok... the CPU was cool but I agree they need better benchmarks Q3 is too old. Anyway, anyone ever notice that everytime AMD launches a new Athlon XP the headline is:
Athlon XP ****+: AMD Turns up the heat
March 13, 2002 11:33:49 PM

hehe Mech...must be all those Athlons supposedly frying....according to that other infamous Toms Hardware video ;) 

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 13, 2002 11:35:03 PM

It also makes me wonder....when Thoroughbred comes out will the article read "AMD turns DOWN the heat and turns up the performance"?

heh

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 13, 2002 11:50:38 PM

doubt they will put that long a title.
March 14, 2002 12:12:07 AM

First of all, on the Frames-per-second issue - The human eye has a hard time seeing anything over 30FPS - only the most sensitive (5% of population) see a difference. Movies (in the theatre) are at 24FPS. The problem with video games at 30FPS average is that the PC often stalls for short periods of time, resulting in some scenes with <30FPS and some >30FPS. It is the slower scenes that you will notice. I usually like an average of >50FPS on my games - the slow scenes are usually still >30FPS.

Monitor refresh rates have very little to do with perceptible FPS (yeah, they can get in harmonic sync on vertical motion of horizonal lines that can cause interesting effects, but not normally). 87(i) (43.5Mhz) interlaced used to be a problem due to the "flashing" of horizontal lines, but no more. 60MHz is a serious problem in US office environments where the flourescent lights run at the same frequency and cause flicker. Anything above 70 is good, and the higher frequencies (72-100) are even better on your eyes.

OK - the real reason AMD isn't adding cache on the Tbred is $$$. By performing the die shrink, AMD can get about double the chips per wafer in yield (more chips due to size and even more due to better performance yield). This results in lower cost per shipped proc. While Intel is moving to 300mm wafers, AMD won't do this until the 90nm Hammer or maybe later when it builds a new FAB for 65nm process. AMD can afford this because their dies are so much smaller than the P4. Adding cache reduces the proc yield per wafer (in size and in rejects due to bad cache), i.e. profits.

Oh and the article, while informative, wasn't anything special.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
March 14, 2002 12:26:46 AM

But Mech!!

C'mon!!

I think I've had too much sugar today


When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 14, 2002 12:44:31 AM

The human eye cannot discern any flickering at 24fps in a movie theatre due to the darkness. In a bright environment it can discern flickering at up to 60fps or so.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 14, 2002 1:00:04 AM

The flickering in the bright environment has more to do with the "harmonics" between the interior lights and the screen refresh than with the FPS of the game.

Most Video games are played on consoles attached to TVs. These run at 25MHz (PAL) or 30MHz (NTSC) interlaced. Frame rates above 30 are completely irrelevant on these platforms and I don't hear people complaining that they don't get enough FPS to prevent flicker on their X-box or PS2.

The main problem with PCs running video games is that they have a tendancy to stall/slow while performing other tasks - this reduces the frame rate to the visible range - video consoles don't have this problem.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
March 14, 2002 1:22:05 AM

No actually, the lack of flickering in a movie theatre is because the back of your eye actually retains the old image for a short amount of time. In an environment without light, the image on your eye is not replaced with any other light. Thus, it appears seamless.

There is another issue that most lights flicker at 60Hz, but it has nothing to do with the reason why movie theatres can get away with such a low framerate. Even if lights flickered at a rate of 400Hz, you would still be able to see the flickering in a movie running at 24fps in a brightly lit room.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 14, 2002 1:41:21 AM

<font color=blue>"Maybe I don't understand this, but if a monitor supports 85 Hz at a current resolution then would you even be able to notice anything above 85 FPS?"</font color=blue>

Try this:

Get a FPS reading from any game at 85hz. Then, set your monitor frequency to 60hz. Check your FPS again. It should be lower (at least it was on my system using UNREAL for the FPS with timedemo). So it seems like the monitor refresh is the limiting factor.

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
March 14, 2002 2:29:10 AM

Most games sync to the vertical refresh by default. You can disable this, for such things as benchmarking. However, you will never actually see more frames per second than your monitor delivers with its refresh rate. For optimal performance you want your monitor's refresh rate to be above the framerate of the game whenever possible.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 14, 2002 5:37:36 AM

Phoenix,
The reason AMD isnt going implementing a 166mhz bus isnt the difference is performance is marginal at best (compared to a 133 mhz bus). I saw a few sites that overclocked to 166, put in PC333 memory. Ran the benchmarks... they got < 3% on most benchmarks.
The jump to 200mhz fsb made all the difference in the world. Some benches with DDR400 memory saw > 25% increase. BTW, it was Kingmax who special made the ram for testing.

<A HREF="http://www.x86-secret.com/popups/articleswindow.php?id=..." target="_new">http://www.x86-secret.com/popups/articleswindow.php?id=...;/A>

Anyway, from what I have seen so far... 166mhz wouldnt be worth the hassle. Im sure some hardcore enthusiasts might disagree. (awaits the flame)

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
March 14, 2002 7:14:06 AM

Quote:
Speaking of cache, it would take a whole 1 additional engineer at most to implement.




LOL


LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL


LOL



you do realize you have to move practically EVERYTHING around to add more cache, and you have to retest EVERYTHING for timing.

Silver, sorry but alot of your cred just got shot in the engineering dept man.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 14, 2002 4:24:47 PM

Quote:
you do realize you have to move practically EVERYTHING around to add more cache, and you have to retest EVERYTHING for timing.

You do realize that moving from .18micron to .13micron etching requires you to update the core's blueprints and retest <b>everything</b> anyway?

And 128KB of additional cache <i>could</i> just be placed along side the existing design after the shrink and <i>still</i> allow the CPU to fit onto a smaller die than the current Palomino.

Quote:
Silver, sorry but alot of your cred just got shot in the engineering dept man.

Actually, I think if anyone's credability got shot, it was yours. It would be incredibly easy for AMD to do it, unless they plan on releasing the chip without first testing it. (Which would be a darn stupid thing to do.) So there shouldn't be any additional work required that a single engineer couldn't handle by him/her self.

Granted, the performance gain wouldn't be the most amazing improvement in the world, but anything is still better than nothing. And even after these improvements it should still be a smaller die size, so the cost reasons are hardly feasable. This is especially true when in and of itself, the 166MHz FSB wouldn't even require any die changes whatsoever from their original plans, so even if they only made that one change, it would still give better performance for no additional cost.

Why would <i>anyone</i> pass up the opportunity to improve performance, no matter how small of an improvement, for <i>no</i> additional cost?

The answer is simple. AMD doesn't <i>care</i> about the Athlon's performance any more. All they want is to do is stall for time until the ClawHammer is marketable. There is no <i>good</i> reason, there is only a lack of care for a product that is about to be phased out.

<pre>If you let others think for you, you're the
only one to blame when things go wrong.</pre><p>
March 14, 2002 6:02:28 PM

I'm sorry, but I think Matisaro is right. It's not only the room to put the additional cache there, but you also need to reroute a huge amount of conductors in the silicon. Think of it. It requires a lot of calculations. And although I'm not sure wether it will need to be taken into account, the influence to the rest of the circuit could be determining, too. Ever heard about induction of electric currents? No, I agree with Matisaro. Putting another 256K, or even 128K of additional cahce IS a lot more complicated than you might suspect...

Greetz,
Bikeman

<i>Then again, that's just my opinion</i>
March 14, 2002 6:25:24 PM

I disagree. But then, it also really all depends on just where the cache was laid out on the die to begin with. If they had surrounded it with other components, then it would be hard to add more and would require moving components around. However, if it is on the outer edge of the die, then it wouldn't be difficult at all.

Either way though, one lone engineer <i>could</i> easily do the redesign by Barton <i>if</i> a redesign was needed to add the cache.

And that still doesn't explain why AMD doesn't also offer a Thoroughbred with a 166MHz FSB. <i>If</i> the Thoroughbred works perfectly fine in most currently used motherboards (my thought is that the core voltage of the T-bred <i>might</i> be too far under what most MBs can support), I can understand why AMD would want to continue supporting the 133MHz FSB, because then people could just pop in their Athlon 2600+ and never even need to know that it is a new core.

However, if the Thoroughbred only works in new motherboards, then AMD has nothing to lose by doing a complete migration of the T-Bred to a 166MHz FSB.

<i>And</i>, again, either way AMD has absolutely nothing to lose by offering the option of a T-Bred and/or Barton officially with a 166MHz FSB since there already are motherboards that would support this.

Computers <i>should</i> be all about options. Take away options and you might as well be using an X-Box with a keyboard.

<pre>If you let others think for you, you're the
only one to blame when things go wrong.</pre><p>
March 14, 2002 8:56:43 PM

Quote:
You do realize that moving from .18micron to .13micron etching requires you to update the core's blueprints and retest everything anyway?

And 128KB of additional cache could just be placed along side the existing design after the shrink and still allow the CPU to fit onto a smaller die than the current Palomino.



Of course I realize that, I have said so several times in several debates with ray and others.

Your comment appeared as if you could just add more cache easily to an existing design, I did not put it together with the shrink my bad.


Quote:
Granted, the performance gain wouldn't be the most amazing improvement in the world, but anything is still better than nothing. And even after these improvements it should still be a smaller die size, so the cost reasons are hardly feasable. This is especially true when in and of itself, the 166MHz FSB wouldn't even require any die changes whatsoever from their original plans, so even if they only made that one change, it would still give better performance for no additional cost.


Smaller than the axp, but NOT smaller than a tbred without the cache, so there would most certainly be more cost. AMD feels the athlon can compete with the northwood for the next 9 months till hammer, and they dont NEED to improve the athlon core anymore, to do so is a waste of silicon in their oppinion, and I agree.

Because I can run a tbred at 166fsb and get a godly overclock, with NO problems, so it dosent bother me.


Quote:
Why would anyone pass up the opportunity to improve performance, no matter how small of an improvement, for no additional cost?

The answer is simple. AMD doesn't care about the Athlon's performance any more. All they want is to do is stall for time until the ClawHammer is marketable. There is no good reason, there is only a lack of care for a product that is about to be phased out.


The answer is it would increase cost, and there is no good reason in amd(and my) oppinion to do it.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 14, 2002 8:58:37 PM

Quote:
And that still doesn't explain why AMD doesn't also offer a Thoroughbred with a 166MHz FSB. If the Thoroughbred works perfectly fine in most currently used motherboards (my thought is that the core voltage of the T-bred might be too far under what most MBs can support), I can understand why AMD would want to continue supporting the 133MHz FSB, because then people could just pop in their Athlon 2600+ and never even need to know that it is a new core.

However, if the Thoroughbred only works in new motherboards, then AMD has nothing to lose by doing a complete migration of the T-Bred to a 166MHz FSB.

And, again, either way AMD has absolutely nothing to lose by offering the option of a T-Bred and/or Barton officially with a 166MHz FSB since there already are motherboards that would support this.


Amd has stated tons and tons of times, the tbred will run in socket a motherboards, there is loittle for amd to gain(some performance) and alot for amd to lose(increased cost and an overdiversified line for no reason(IE 133fsb tbreds and 166fsb tbreds with different multipliers)

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 14, 2002 11:13:28 PM

No AMD has not given up on Tbred. They will play Intel's game for one year with their P4: The clock speed game.
They have stopped on IPC. Now it's time to ramp up the clock to show Athlons the big mountains, go hike up there with the NW and show it their mighty climbing skills.


--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 15, 2002 1:26:28 PM

Quote:
Smaller than the axp, but NOT smaller than a tbred without the cache, so there would most certainly be more cost.

In comparison to without the cahce, yes, there would be a tiny cost. However, in that the die either way would be smaller than what they're currently using, the cost to produce Thoroughbreds with a slightly improved cache would still be less than to produce the AXPs. So they would still be saving money over how they are operating right now.

Quote:
AMD feels the athlon can compete with the northwood for the next 9 months till hammer, and they dont NEED to improve the athlon core anymore, to do so is a waste of silicon in their oppinion, and I agree.

The 166MHz FSB isn't a waste of <i>any</i> silicon, nor would it cost them anything to implement.

Further, by only ramping clock speed AMD is making a clear statement that they don't care about the people with Athlons anymore. It seems like a pretty bossy (Intel-esk) stance to take to me.

Quote:
Because I can run a tbred at 166fsb and get a godly overclock, with NO problems, so it dosent bother me.

I appreciate that it doesn't bother you. However, as I work a lot with corporate PCs, the lack of official support for it bothers me considerably. If AMD is trying so hard to break into the corporate and professional world with their Hammers, they are doing a piss-poor job of impressing us with their Athlons.

Quote:
Amd has stated tons and tons of times, the tbred will run in socket a motherboards

I can 100% guarantee that I could walk out and purchase a SocketA motherboard that the Thoroughbred won't run in if I wanted to. Sure, AMD supports the SocketA standard. Great. So that means that my chip is assured to fit into the socket. That in no way means that it will actually run on the motherboard though.

Quote:
there is loittle for amd to gain(some performance) and alot for amd to lose(increased cost and an overdiversified line for no reason(IE 133fsb tbreds and 166fsb tbreds with different multipliers)

I have to greatly disagree. They have a lot to gain in terms of increased support from corporate and professional system development from OEMs who want to officially run the Athlon at a 166MHz FSB. As far as what they have to lose? There is no increased cost for just a FSB ramp, and AMD has successfully run a diversified FSB line(AthlonB and AthlonC) in the past. If they use a clear naming convention they have nothing to lose. They could simply call the 133MHz FSB Thoroughbred the Athlon xx00+ and the 166MHz FSB Thoroughbred the Athlon xx00!. No increased cost, minimal confusion, and a new product-hype for marketting to enjoy. <font color=blue>We now support the <i>Athlon+</i> and the <i>Athlon!</i>!</font color=blue> It seems like AMD would have nothing to lose and a noticable gain if they did it intelligently.

<pre>If you let others think for you, you're the
only one to blame when things go wrong.</pre><p>
March 15, 2002 1:31:47 PM

Quote:
Now it's time to ramp up the clock to show Athlons the big mountains, go hike up there with the NW and show it their mighty climbing skills.

But why not make sure that they have a little better footwear before they go hiking and climbing? (Especially when Intel plans on giving the Northwood new 133MHz shoes on the way up that big mountain.)

<pre>If you let others think for you, you're the
only one to blame when things go wrong.</pre><p>
!