Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > T-Bred has 512KB L2 Cache ?!?

T-Bred has 512KB L2 Cache ?!?

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - T-Bred has 512KB L2 Cache ?!?

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
mr_gobbledegook   04-09-2002 at 10:05:43 PM

There are some recent rumours from <A HREF="http://www.amdzone.com" target="_new">AMDZone</A> that T-bred has 512Kb of L2 Cache. Apprarently Compaq have T-bred based notebooks on sale now....<A HREF="http://athome.compaq.com/MiddleFrame.ASP?Page=ShowRoom&Tab=0&CompPart=470029-662&AppID=18930&PriceLevelID=18930&SuperCategoryId=&ProductLineId=440&Famil" target="_new">Click</A>, the specfication also clearly states there is 512KB of L2 On chip cache.

<font color=purple>Ladies and Gentlemen, its...Hammer Time !</font color=purple>

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
eden   04-09-2002 at 10:18:37 PM
- 0 +

Hmm if it went to laptop design, then surely desktop ones would be easier to implement, right? If so, then I do hope Tbreds have 512K L2!! Could really help negate the 533MHZ FSB for P4!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!

Reply to eden
Raystonn   04-09-2002 at 10:20:12 PM
- 0 +

AMD is making 1.4GHz chips for laptops using the T-Bred? Are you sure this is the T-Bred and not just wishful thinking (typo or lying) on the part of Compaq?

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

Reply to Raystonn
Anonymous   04-09-2002 at 10:22:56 PM
- 0 +

Hopefully, the delay is due to the introduction of a 512KB L2 On Chip Cache. If so, I forgive the poor bastards over at AMD.

/Copenhagen

Reply to Anonymous
Anonymous   04-09-2002 at 10:29:41 PM
- 0 +

Raystonn, what do you think about the likelyhood of overclocking the upcoming P4 2.26B (533 MHz) to PC1200 spec. with the current available TI DRCGs and whatever available Samsung RIMMs ?

Which part is most likely going to be the limit ?

Would it be better to take a P4 2.0A and overclock to PC1066 spec. or whatever is possible ?

/Copenhagen

Reply to Anonymous
mr_gobbledegook   04-09-2002 at 10:33:42 PM
- 0 +

Well we already know there are +1700 T-breds floating around...<A HREF="http://www.vr-zone.com/Home/news138/news138.htm#2254" target="_new">Click</A>. It doesn't seem that far fetched in thinking AMD are releasing a +1600 mobile T-Bred. Naturally mobile parts will be clocked lower than the desktop versions.

<font color=purple>Ladies and Gentlemen, its...Hammer Time !</font color=purple>

Reply to mr_gobbledegook
eden   04-09-2002 at 10:38:04 PM
- 0 +

Besides, their Athlon 4 was 1.33GHZ, it would make sense to go upwards for latops too now wouldn't it Ray?
I dunno but Ray's post had little sense...

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!

Reply to eden
mr_gobbledegook   04-09-2002 at 10:42:27 PM
- 0 +

You can find a pic of the mobile T-bred <A HREF="http://www.vanshardware.com/news/2002/02/020201_PC/020201_PC.htm" target="_new">here</A> (it uses the new micro-PGA packaging)..as a result it is only 33mm sq compared to the normal desktop package size of 49.5mm sq.

<font color=purple>Ladies and Gentlemen, its...Hammer Time !</font color=purple>

Reply to mr_gobbledegook
Raystonn   04-09-2002 at 10:43:27 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

Raystonn, what do you think about the likelyhood of overclocking the upcoming P4 2.26B (533 MHz) to PC1200 spec. with the current available TI DRCGs and whatever available Samsung RIMMs ?


The processor could handle it. The memory and motherboard (DRCGs) would be the questionable parts. This is only a 12.5% overclock and is very questionable at the moment. If the new PC1066-capable motherboards come with a 2X RDRAM multiplier, then overclocking the processor will be no problem. Otherwise, I suggest grabbing a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 on with 400MHz FSB. The higher multiplier makes overclocking of the processor much easier.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

Reply to Raystonn
Anonymous   04-09-2002 at 10:52:31 PM
- 0 +

The P4 2.20A will be priced as the 2.26B, so which one would you prefer ?

/Copenhagen

Reply to Anonymous
Raystonn   04-09-2002 at 10:59:19 PM
- 0 +

That depends on what motherboards are available at the time and what they can do. If the chipset can work at high FSB speeds and offer a lower RDRAM multiplier (2X), I might grab a B model. Otherwise, I would grab the A model. If I did not want to overclock at all, I would grab the B model.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

Reply to Raystonn
FatBurger   04-09-2002 at 11:02:15 PM
- 0 +

Am I the only one that missed the fact that it says "Athlon 4"?
No thoroughbred for you! Come back, one month!

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft

Reply to FatBurger
mr_gobbledegook   04-09-2002 at 11:13:46 PM
- 0 +

Huh ?!.....AMD have always called thier mobile versions of Athlon XP as 'Athlon 4'. Or have I totally missed the point ??

<font color=purple>Ladies and Gentlemen, its...Hammer Time !</font color=purple>

Reply to mr_gobbledegook
FatBurger   04-09-2002 at 11:22:30 PM
- 0 +

But I wouldn't have thought this would be an 'XP', as it's a new core. Since the Athlon has had 4 cores, it's the Athlon 4. Therefore, the Thoroughbred would be the Athlon 5. Or am I wrong on something here?

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft

Reply to FatBurger
mr_gobbledegook   04-09-2002 at 11:27:37 PM
- 0 +

err..no I think AMD are sticking to Athlon 4.

<font color=purple>Ladies and Gentlemen, its...Hammer Time !</font color=purple>

Reply to mr_gobbledegook
zengeos   04-09-2002 at 11:59:24 PM
- 0 +

According to Compaq the chip is available in build to order systems NOW and should be available in retail soon (The 725 series is apparently a retail model)

I guess this helps explain some of AMD's seeming delay in shipping (tho this does prove that they did indeed begin Thoroughbred shipments before the end of Q1 as they claimed.)

I wonder how much the addition of another 256KB of L2 cache will improve performance? Any ideas anyone?

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>

Reply to zengeos
mbetea   04-10-2002 at 01:01:18 AM
- 0 +

i forgot the thread or even who posted it. but i thought i heard someone saying before that the xp/tbred wouldn't gain that much performance wise with 256kb L2 more?

I run duals because i multitask between notepad, outlook express and winamp :lol:

Reply to mbetea
eden   04-10-2002 at 01:41:39 AM
- 0 +

I'd say just about enough to compete Intel's new FSB and RDRAM. But I do hope it's true. Someone should contact Compaq and ask them for any possible typos, if not, then Tbred is indeed something we underestimated!
Besides, add 256K L2, and 333MHZ RAM and FSB, and you got enough juice to compete the new NWs, as well as higher speeds!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!

Reply to eden
FatBurger   04-10-2002 at 01:47:34 AM
- 0 +

The bigger L2 cache will provide some performance boost, but not as much as a 166 FSB would have :frown:

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft

Reply to FatBurger
AMD_Man   04-10-2002 at 01:56:25 AM
- 0 +

Quote :


The bigger L2 cache will provide some performance boost, but not as much as a 166 FSB would have


You can't be sure about that.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

Reply to AMD_Man
Matisaro   04-10-2002 at 03:13:41 AM
- 0 +

Burger, I read somewhere(inq I think) that amd may introduce the tbred without any change in titles, and deffinatly for the mobile.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:

Reply to Matisaro
Quetzacoatl   04-10-2002 at 03:16:31 AM
- 0 +

With the die shrink to .13nm, will it be easier (possibly) to get up to 166FSB? Imagine that with 512kb L2 cache...very competative with the Piva.

"When there's a will, there's a way."

Reply to Quetzacoatl
Matisaro   04-10-2002 at 03:18:54 AM
- 0 +

?


I have never heard of an athlon which wont do 166fsb when you lower the multi, why is everyone acting like it cant do 166fsb all of a sudden.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:

Reply to Matisaro
Quetzacoatl   04-10-2002 at 03:25:20 AM
- 0 +

Oh. I can't mine to go above 150Mhz FSB. Athlon T-bird at 1.46Ghz right now, multiplier 11 with 133FSB. My motherboard doesn't like anything above 150Mhz I guess. Or is it because the AMD760 chipset limits the max FSB?

"When there's a will, there's a way."

Reply to Quetzacoatl
AMD_Man   04-10-2002 at 03:37:23 AM
- 0 +

Get an IWill XP333 and some good DDR RAM and you can get to 200MHz.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

Reply to AMD_Man
Matisaro   04-10-2002 at 03:38:46 AM
- 0 +

Quote :

Oh. I can't mine to go above 150Mhz FSB. Athlon T-bird at 1.46Ghz right now, multiplier 11 with 133FSB. My motherboard doesn't like anything above 150Mhz I guess. Or is it because the AMD760 chipset limits the max FSB?



The chip, not mobos and ram, I have never heard of a chip which could not do 166fsb(assuming the mobo can ram could handle it)

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:

Reply to Matisaro
camieabz   04-10-2002 at 03:40:14 AM
- 0 +

Any mention of the size of the L1 cache? I assume it would be 128k.

<b><font color=blue>~ Whew! Finished...Now all I need is a Cyrix badge ~ </font color=blue> :wink: </b>

Reply to camieabz
khha4113   04-10-2002 at 03:41:17 AM
- 0 +

I'd prefer Abit KR7A or Asus A7V333.

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.

Reply to khha4113
eden   04-10-2002 at 03:42:07 AM
- 0 +

It is 128k and will remain so.
Intel's cache is different, which explains the small size of 8KB.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!

Reply to eden
xxsk8er101xx   04-10-2002 at 04:03:21 AM
- 0 +

no your right.

It's the mobile Athlon XP. check out amd's website. It's just athlon XP. AMD does not have on there site anywhere about a mobile t-bred. They have mentioned the mobile athlon XP however.

These compaq web designers probably don't know the difference between a mobile pentium 4 and a mobile athlon xp.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>

Reply to xxsk8er101xx
FatBurger   04-10-2002 at 06:00:07 AM
- 0 +

Quote :

You can't be sure about that.



Not really, but look at how much of a difference it made on the P4. Not a huge amount. The P4 needs the bigger cache more because of the small L1 and higher latency of RDRAM. On the other hand, the data prefetch is better, so it needs it less. But I think I can still confidently say that a FSB increase would help the Athlon more.

Quote :

Burger, I read somewhere(inq I think) that amd may introduce the tbred without any change in titles, and deffinatly for the mobile.



I assumed it would change since they moved to numbers (at least it should, IMO). We'll have to wait for the official announcement to know for sure, I guess.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft

Reply to FatBurger
Matisaro   04-10-2002 at 06:07:20 AM
- 0 +

Quote :

Not really, but look at how much of a difference it made on the P4. Not a huge amount. The P4 needs the bigger cache more because of the small L1 and higher latency of RDRAM. On the other hand, the data prefetch is better, so it needs it less. But I think I can still confidently say that a FSB increase would help the Athlon more.



Why not both, theres nothing stopping us computer savvy people from running the 512k tbred at 166.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:

Reply to Matisaro
castle   04-10-2002 at 06:09:20 AM
- 0 +

You are right. Here is the FAQ about the mobile XP 1600+

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processor [...] html#15626

Reply to castle
zengeos   04-10-2002 at 06:12:10 AM
- 0 +

Skater, Compaq reps have confirmed the chip in question is indeed a Thoroughbred chip

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>

Reply to zengeos
xxsk8er101xx   04-10-2002 at 02:59:51 PM
- 0 +

right thats why on AMD's website they have information about the Mobile athlon XP and AMD has not even released the "t-bred".

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>

Reply to xxsk8er101xx
Willamette_sucks   04-10-2002 at 04:17:51 PM
- 0 +

Hey, do you really think i should be able to get the FSB to at least 150 without lowering the multiplier? I have an AXP 1900 on a Soltek SL-7DVRV4 with a dragon orb 3 and good case cooling. The ram is Kingston DDR 266 CL=2.0 ECC(off), and i cant get it past 146.

The first LAN I went to was at a PETA convention. They booted me after I shot a zombie in HL DM!

Reply to Willamette_sucks
Kennyshin   04-10-2002 at 04:25:45 PM
- 0 +

I have Athlon 1600+ retail, MSI nForce420D, Crucial DDR PC2100. I can't get it past 146 either.

Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal

Reply to Kennyshin
FatBurger   04-10-2002 at 05:23:45 PM
- 0 +

Quote :

Why not both, theres nothing stopping us computer savvy people from running the 512k tbred at 166.



That would be nice.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft

Reply to FatBurger
xxsk8er101xx   04-10-2002 at 08:15:34 PM
- 0 +

here is proof it is only a .18micron mobile athlon XP

it's at www.anandtech.com or hardocp would have it too probably.

"HardOCP is reporting that the rumours of 512k Athlons are just that. We also have some confirmation from our own Anand Lal Shimpi in our forums:
I saw the short article and link you posted about a possible Thoroughbred laptop being sold by Compaq. I can assure you that this is not a Thoroughbred based computer, merely a typo error on Compaq's part. Currently the only Athlon 4 processors available come with 256kb of L2 cache. This will remain so even when the Thoroughbred mobile processors do come out. I don't know if you are familiar with AMD's ordering part number system (OPN), but here is the OPN for the Athlon 4 1600+ AHM1600AQQ3B The last 3 in the OPN stands for the L2 cache size = 256kb. All of this is publicly available information on the AMD website. Just look for the Athlon Model 6 Data Sheet. "

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>

Reply to xxsk8er101xx
ath0mps0   04-11-2002 at 06:16:36 AM
- 0 +

Quote :

HardOCP is reporting that the rumours of 512k Athlons are just that


If you check the <A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com" target="_new">HardOCP site</A> you will see the following quote:

"Just wanted to say thanks for pointing out something we missed. The laptop is not a Thoroughbred proc. It is a mobile Athlon 4 with 64KB on the L2. It has been fixed. Thanks again.

Adam Gernhart
Compaq.com Quality Assurance, Site Operations, and CEMS Administrator"

Well he obviously doesn't have a clue what he is talking about because the Athlon 4 (.18 mobile palomino) has always had (and still has) 256kB of L2 cache. The proc he must have been referring to would be a Duron. In addition, the reference has NOT been "fixed." I went to the compaq site myself and selected from the menus a 725US (not from the above link), and it still says "512KB L2 cache." I'm not saying that it isn't a typo, just that HardOCP's Compaq contact is not valid, is uninformed or worse, doesn't have a clue.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.

Reply to ath0mps0
eden   04-11-2002 at 01:54:39 PM
- 0 +

Still ya gotta admit, we woulda really loved 512K L2 for desktop Tbreds!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!

Reply to eden
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > T-Bred has 512KB L2 Cache ?!?
Go to:

There are 1302 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.458 seconds
Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
How do I win badges?