Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

! Comments/Opinions on XP2600 !

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Windows XP
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 21, 2002 4:58:26 AM

Well, I just finished reading tom's new article "At The Last Second: AMD's Trump Card - The Athlon XP 2600+". I see nobody started a topic about this yet so I guess I'll be the first to comment on this.

Nice that AMD is back in the game again, but I really do hope they don't plan on charging $350 for it because a P4 2.4b or 2.5b would be a much better choice....

More about : comments opinions xp2600

August 21, 2002 5:42:28 AM

I think the only comment I can make is:

AMD has got what it takes to keep up with the big-guns, but VIA... ergh. I hope nVidia comes up with something to piss VIA's lethargic Mobos away and actually get the performance that Athlon can offer.

-

I plugged my ram into my motherboard, but unplugged it when I smelled cooked mutton.
August 21, 2002 5:57:49 AM

The 2600+ is a clear contender, but not a winner. Meaning - this new "B" chip can keep AMD in the game. In some benches it passed the latest Intel chip, in others it got stomped by Intel (memory mostly).
Another key to remember is Intel is about to introduce another speed bump. Which will likely put it ahead of AMD in more benchmarks. Never-the-less, this core rearrangement should hold the gates until barton/Hammer.

Overall, I am impressed. I wasnt expecting anything significant with this release. But, again, it looks like AMD can at least stay very close to the heels on Intel for now. Which, considering how damn old Athlon is, is pretty impressive.

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
Related resources
August 21, 2002 6:18:37 AM

The KT333 was a real disappointment for me. I hope the KT400 does a little better, but from the looks of it, the difference between DDR333 and DDR400 is like 5-6%. The nForce had better do a better job.

The good news is that all of us with thoroughbred supported mobos simply need a bios upgrade. Also, you can probably bet that the 2600+ will be lots cheaper than its Intel counterpart.

1° of separation between my monopoly and yours. That's business with .NET
August 21, 2002 6:40:33 AM

I noticed two things:
1. THG mentioned T-Bred B now has 9 layers of copper interconnections. I seriously doubt this, as it would cost AMD a lot more, if not dramatically. P4 has only 6.
2. On www.amd.com, they have changed the audition firm from Arthur Anderson to Pricewaterhouse.
August 21, 2002 6:50:38 AM

I have one word.....vindication.


I was right, we have a 2.8ghz tbred(I saw the boot screen from the article((still reading)) whatever was wrong with the tbred amd fixxed.

.13 micron tbred@2.8ghz, holy [-peep-], beyond my intial predictions.


"it's possible to overclock this puppy to 2800 MHz, which would correspond to an Athlon XP 3100+. "




vindication!!!

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
August 21, 2002 6:57:08 AM

I knew my calculations werent off, its clear whatever issues they had with the intial tbred have been cleaned up, and if the hammer was not coming we would eventually see 3ghz athlonxp's.



:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
August 21, 2002 6:57:41 AM

Quote:
This can be explained by the following: because the CPU surface is 40% smaller, there is automatically less surface area available for heat dissipation. This begs the question of why AMD still doesn't use a heat spreader, as do the Intel Pentium 4 and the AMD "Hammer."


Because heatspreaders INCREASE TEMP MORON.


vokkel is an idiot sometimes.



:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
August 21, 2002 7:01:46 AM

The faults not his, in this case, intel shoudlnt call it a heatspreader when its really a core protector.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
August 21, 2002 7:05:30 AM

Quote:
2400 MHz, which corresponds to an Athlon XP 2800+. An extreme increase in clock speed is only possible with ice-cooling, for a CPU die temperature of -41 degrees Celsius, at which even 2800 MHz (corresponds to Athlon XP 3100+) can be attained.


PS: isnt a core speed of 2800mhz actually a 3600+?


2.133=2600
2.2=2700
2.266=2800
2.33=2900
2.4=3000
2.46=3100
2.53=3200
2.6=3300
2.66=3400
2.73=3500
2.8=3600



Hmm, another strike for vokel.


:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
August 21, 2002 7:13:30 AM

Actually Mat...its not.......

Quote:
Correction in Model Numbering: Now at 133 MHz Increments

With the launch of the Athlon XP with the Palomino core, AMD also introduced its new model number system, called P-rating. The idea behind this was to create a direct comparison to arch-rival Intel, which markets its CPUs using "real" megahertz figures. This is a language that the less tech-savvy customers can understand: megahertz and gigabyte. As we've already determined in numerous articles, a processor's performance capabilities cannot be analyzed in terms of pure clock rate numbers.

In any case, our recent test comparisons made it clear that the model numbering for the top AMD CPUs did not correspond to the performance of comparable P4s. Because of this, AMD adjusted its virtual values to become lower: previously, a clock increase of 66 MHz meant the equivalent of 100 additional points; now, the 100 points are related to the absolute values. <b>This is AMD's admission that the previous performance scale was set too high, especially when it came to the higher clock speeds.</b>


This means the whole PR Rating from b4 is changed........which according to what the article states.......a 2800MHz chip is a 3100+.....

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=13597" target="_new">-MeTaL RoCkEr</A>
August 21, 2002 7:16:09 AM

Something else is wrong, at those speeds AMD should have done better IMO.

Best data compression, notice the 2600+ (over 500Mhz behind) scoring higher than the 3000+

The 2200+ and the 2600+ are too close together performance wise. More than just a PR change from all the data shown by THG.

Longer pipeline? slower L1 or L2 cache?





You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
August 21, 2002 7:19:10 AM

At high speeds compression is bandwidth limited, all the tests were on 166fsb(skewing the benchmarks btw as the pentiums were oced on the fsb, but no harm no foul)

so faster speeds would appear different on the p4(scaling wise) as the chips fsb is also being increased.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
August 21, 2002 7:21:32 AM

Actually.....i think i was tired when i read ur post..............i believe ur right......wow...thanx 4 making me realize that!!

wow...

also...notice some wierd reading in some benchmarks.........

like quake 3 for example.........

lets forget PR #'s etc for a minute......

look at the Quake 3 results.......

P4 1.6AGHz - 231.9fps
AXP 1.6GHZ - 256.4fps

now lets go up a bit.....

P4 2.53GHz - 341.5fps
AXP 2.66GHz - 320.9fps

the clock speed of this AXP is HIGHER than the P4's and the fps is LOWER as compared to the 1.6 to the 1600MHz chip.....

now.....if u plug in AMD model # to P4 MHz.....nothing makes any sense anymore..........



<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=13597" target="_new">-MeTaL RoCkEr</A>
August 21, 2002 7:25:35 AM

Yes and No...

i agree to the most part with u.....but it is still impressive to say the least seeing how the POS chipsest this platform is running on..........alos keep in mind...that compression test where the 2600 beat the 3000 and 2800 was because for some reason he could only run CL-2 at 133MHz FSB...and 2.5 for anything higher...i dont think he tried hard enough.....or he used some crappy ram....

ALSO...by any chance did you gusy notice this guy took out the 3000+ out of the equation for a big chunk of those benchamrks ????

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=13597" target="_new">-MeTaL RoCkEr</A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by MeTaLrOcKeR on 08/21/02 03:26 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 21, 2002 7:27:00 AM

Metal, bandwidth limited, the p4's are all increasing bandwidth as they go up.


quake 3 is bandwidth limited, rdram is faster for quake than ddr.


:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
August 21, 2002 7:40:52 AM

Its entirely possible, the 1.6 you were comparing was at 100fsb, the 2.56 is at 133fsb, that extra bandwidth may have put the p4 over the clock per clock performance of the axp.



:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
August 21, 2002 7:56:42 AM

These chips only make the nforce2 that much more compelling of a chipset. Imagine all those features packed in one board and a high performance/inexpensive cpu. I highly doubt AMD will have outrageous prices on these chips.

AOL-For people who like to pay extra for their SPAM
August 21, 2002 9:16:08 AM

The article has the price for the 2600+ at $350 which I doubt is the case. Over at HardOCP, they're saying that AMD has the price at $297 apeice.
August 21, 2002 11:23:10 AM

AMD is a company which constantly amazes me. They have some *very* good people.

To use the miniscule resources they have at their disposal, to virtually equal Chipzilla should be a source of pride to all AMD employees.

Perhaps deep down we all have a soft spot for underdogs - especially hard working, dirt-cheap underdogs! I run all AMD right now, and it's clear to me that chipsets are now what's holding AMD cores back - with Barton to come, who will carry the torch for AMD?

There's only so much overclocking a man can do!!!111

==============

How many escape pods are there? <b>"NONE, SIR!"</b> You counted them? <b>"TWICE, SIR!</b>
August 21, 2002 11:39:59 AM

I didn't even see that, this is great news, thanks. Well, that's good things are moving a long. I still have an XP1800 to update sooner or later.




Hey Baby, want to play with my computer?
August 21, 2002 1:09:59 PM

Still, kind of odd that the slower, non-OC'd t-bred scores lower than the OC'd-to-high-heaven t-bred. Sort of makes you wonder...

I prefer to go with the AnandTech benchmarks, which basically show the same thing--P4 wins some, T-bred wins some, both parts OC very well. At least the AnandTech results don't have any funky twists--besides which, I've come to trust AnandTech more than THG.

<A HREF="http://skarpsey.dyndns.org/" target="_new">Skarpsey</A>
August 21, 2002 2:14:21 PM

Ummm am i missing something? AMD major selling point has been "more bang for the buck". I can overclock my p4 2.26 to 3GHz using the cooling fan that came with the chip. This new AMD chip REQUIRES high end watercooling??
August 21, 2002 2:35:13 PM

When I first read the article, the first thing that hit me was: What the heck is a McLaren photo doing there?

:cool: :eek:  :redface: :frown: :lol:  :mad:  :eek:  :smile: :tongue: :wink:
August 21, 2002 2:35:36 PM

When I first read the article, the first thing that hit me was: What the heck is a McLaren photo doing there?

:cool: :eek:  :redface: :frown: :lol:  :mad:  :eek:  :smile: :tongue: :wink:
August 21, 2002 2:53:05 PM

"The good news is that all of us with thoroughbred supported mobos simply need a bios upgrade. Also, you can probably bet that the 2600+ will be lots cheaper than its Intel counterpart."


So I could stick this in my asus a7v333 even though it supports a 133 clock speed and not a 166? a new bios could allow it to run at 166? i'm just curious. I'd like to think I could get some extra life out of my system this way.....

*** :cool: Duff Man says a lot of things, OH YEAH!!! :cool: ***
August 21, 2002 3:04:06 PM

All I see in these benchmarks is how jacked up the chipsets for the AMD processors are. No wonder AMD is deciding to place its own MMC in the Hammer Core. Better control of memory gives the CPU a huge boost. This definitely blows and I hope the chipset makers more of SiS than Via can fix this problem. I will wait for the right chipset first before I buy this CPU.

Here is the other tid bit. Intel at the end of this month announces the fastest cheetah on the planet at 3.06Gs. 500MHz is a huge boost and unless the chipset for the AMD CPUs is overhauld AMD will just have a very short lived victory over its arch rival.
My name may be Jesus, but don't go around asking for miracles.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by jamdev12 on 08/21/02 11:07 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 21, 2002 3:17:12 PM

My god ... It's really weird, you know. Not a single moment anyone has doubted the performance of the Via KT333 over the past months, and now, all off a sudden, at least four different people blame them for the slightly below expected performance of the new AMD processors, just because a reviewer (who happens to be quite a big dude in the CPU-world) sais so ... Get your own opinion, dudes! Really, come on ...
It could also be, for example that the memory throughput shown by SiSoft Sandra is dependant on the CPU's internal caching algorithms, or the FSB speed. Do you really expect a 10% performance increase because of an increased memory bandwidth (266 MMz DDR to 333 MHz DDR) if the FSB sits there actually bottlenecking the entire system? I don't. Even not with the best chipset available. Please, don't blame VIA. They actually do a quite good thing by improving performance by just a few percents when using DDR333 on a system equipped with a 266 MHz-equipped CPU.
As for the rest, I think AMD did quite a good job with this B-revision of the T-bred core. But something actually really is bottlenecking their CPU's. Is it the FSB? I don't know ... Some articles show that an 166 MHz FSB does not give an AMD processor the performance boost you'd expect form it. At least not with the Palomino's. I hope somebody is going to publish an article with an unlocked Tbred-B soon. An XP 2600+ with a 166 MHz FSB (DDR333) coupled with DDR400 memory ... What will be the difference?

Greetz,
Bikeman

<i>Then again, that's just my opinion</i>
August 21, 2002 3:31:06 PM

I was somewhat disappointed (both with THG and AMD) when reading this article.

The <i>wide majority</i> of real-world benchmarks showed that at stock speeds not only was the P4 @ 2.53GHz with PC1066 RDRAM able to beat the AXP 2600+, but even the <b>P4 @ 2.4GHz</b> could best AMD's new treasure.

It was only in a rare few benchmarks that the AXP 2600+ shined.

On top of that, the Intel CPUs overclock well enough just with the retail heat sink. Yet to get a decent overclock of the AXP 2600+, THG had to use extreme ice water-cooling to achive temps of <b>-41 C</b>! Talk about insane cooling just to try and show an AXP that can actuall OC worth a darn.

<i>And just how high can a P4 OC with the same ice cooling?</i> Funny that THG doesn't even try to say...

Then take the price listings in the article. The AMD AXP 2600+ for $297 that in <b>most</b> applications was a tiny bit slower than an P4 2.4GHz, which THG lists at a price of $201. [sarcasm]<i>Oh yeah, great bang for your buck, baby!</i>[/sarcasm] A hundred bucks more for AMD's processor that in <i>most</i> cases will perform almost as well as the P4. Yay?

Don't get me wrong. I'm <b>incredibly glad</b> that AMD <i>finally</i> pulled their collective head out of their arse to fix the obviously flawed Thoroughbred core design.

At the same time though, THG's declaration of "<b>In the benchmark tests, the Athlon XP 2600+ manages to surpass the Intel Pentium 4/2533 once more</b>" shows just how biased THG is towards AMD. When in the <b>majority</b> of the benchmarks a P4 2.4GHz beat the AXP 2600+, I find it very difficult to agree with THG's conclusion.

But hey, at least it shows that AMD isn't completely neglecting the AXP in favor of Hammer development after all. And who knows, maybe with Barton's increased cache, AMD's P-ratings will yet again actually make the rating comparable to a P4's GHz.

Though, for some reason, I can't help but also thinking that will be the same day that pigs will fly...

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
August 21, 2002 3:40:06 PM

I agree completely. I think the most important conclusion from these benchmarks is the re-statement of the obvious. The evidence proving again how critical bandwidth is for removing CPU bottlenecks begs the question: How much longer will I have to suffer VIA chipsets to garner the latest morsels of bandwidth tech?

Too bad AMD can't take the chipset bull by the horns (I know, they're small 'n poor) and develop an uber stable chipset that does their sweet CPU's some justice. Just my opinion.

<font color=purple><i>Smokey McPot - Your Baby's Daddy</i></font color=purple>
August 21, 2002 3:50:43 PM

Can You imagine what a 2600+ with 533 FSB would do to a P4 2.53. The chips already nearly there and with that increased bandwidth it would blow it away. AMD really need to pull away from 133/166.

Update: sorry I didnt mean to blame it on AMD, it should be VIA who are making that step<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by tombance on 08/21/02 11:52 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 21, 2002 3:55:37 PM

Read anandtech's article, it is the best review out that I have seen so far.

<font color=blue>Unofficial Forum Cop</font color=blue>
August 21, 2002 3:58:54 PM

Quote:
Can You imagine what a 2600+ with 533 FSB would do to a P4 2.53. The chips already nearly there and with that increased bandwidth it would blow it away.


HUH?

That is impossible. How is it going to go from 266 to 533? That is not even close to almost there.

<font color=blue>Unofficial Forum Cop</font color=blue>
August 21, 2002 3:58:57 PM

Also take note that the CPUID SS posted in the article SSE failed when overclocked to 166FSB, IMO that is a problem.


Lets see if this works, I am surprised Raystonn has not checked in...



You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
August 21, 2002 3:59:16 PM

Also take note that the CPUID SS posted in the article SSE failed when overclocked to 166FSB, IMO that is a problem.


Lets see if this works, I am surprised Raystonn has not checked in...



You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
August 21, 2002 4:09:51 PM

I was scaring the worse but aftre the result no need to worry P4 win most of the bench with a good margin but i also mean that AMD can produce a good 0.13 micron it will help for hammer.

Thank you rdram intel have win many bench just becasue they have a dual channel RDRAM for 2 year.



The day i meet a goth queen that tell me Intel suck.I turn in a lemming to fill is need in hardware.
August 21, 2002 4:12:23 PM

P4 have allwayse scale better that K7 and maybe even K8

The day i meet a goth queen that tell me Intel suck.I turn in a lemming to fill is need in hardware.
August 21, 2002 4:15:32 PM

Mat I disagree this isn't a simple "die shrink" any more... it is a complete circuit redesign with another layer of copper to improve interconnect preformance. a simple Palomino shrink wouldn't scale as high.

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
August 21, 2002 4:19:56 PM

Look again in the article, SSE does not failed when overclocked to 166 FSB.

So no problem with 166 FSB.
August 21, 2002 4:19:57 PM

Quote:
Then take the price listings in the article. The AMD AXP 2600+ for $297 that in most applications was a tiny bit slower than an P4 2.4GHz, which THG lists at a price of $201. [sarcasm]Oh yeah, great bang for your buck, baby![/sarcasm] A hundred bucks more for AMD's processor that in most cases will perform almost as well as the P4. Yay?

That's exactly what I've been thinking. Even a P4 2.53GHz @ $243 is cheaper than the XP2600+ and they trade in terms of performance.

With even watercooling they were only able to get up to 166MHz FSB, whereas on a 2.26B, 166MHz is almost guaranteed and with a 2.4B, you might hit it, both with <b>STOCK COOLING</b>. That just goes to show that these overclocks aren't really that great. Who knows what these P4s could do with watercooling, but I'd be willing to bet that they'd do more than 3GHz (to equal the PR of 3000+ for the 2.4GHz t-bred) easy.

<i>Past mistakes may make you look stupid, but avoiding future ones will make you look smart!</i>
August 21, 2002 4:59:23 PM

Quote:
With even watercooling they were only able to get up to 166MHz FSB, whereas on a 2.26B, 166MHz is almost guaranteed and with a 2.4B, you might hit it, both with STOCK COOLING. That just goes to show that these overclocks aren't really that great. Who knows what these P4s could do with watercooling, but I'd be willing to bet that they'd do more than 3GHz (to equal the PR of 3000+ for the 2.4GHz t-bred) easy.

When the cpu runs at higher temps, P4's thermal protection throttles down the cpu to reduce heat, so you will not have any significant performance boost without high quality water cooling.
August 21, 2002 5:03:55 PM

Quote:
When the cpu runs at higher temps, P4's thermal protection throttles down the cpu to reduce heat, so you will not have any significant performance boost without high quality water cooling.


If you don't know what you're talking about, please don't.


In general (not to Spitfire):
I stopped by because Spuddy told me there were some interesting AMD threads going on. Nice to see nothing has changed, still plenty of people incapable of thinking for themselves and accepting whatever they see. Or going to the other extreme, and disregarding what they don't like without actually stopping to think about why.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
August 21, 2002 5:09:59 PM

Hey man.

First: Who's spuddy?
Second: Am I incapable of thinking for myself?
Third: Do you agree with my observations?

<i>Past mistakes may make you look stupid, but avoiding future ones will make you look smart!</i>
August 21, 2002 5:15:02 PM

BTW, I posted this over at SharkyForums:

Quote:
I've gotta say, I'm not Intel fanboy or nothing, but here goes:

Ok, the XP2600+ doesn't even concretely beat a P4 2.4B. The 2.4B will be ~$200 by the time XP2600+ comes around and they'll be $297... not such a good deal. Then the 2.53GHz is even faster, and it'll only be $243, still under $297. Not looking so good now huh?

Then, overclocking. Ok, so the t-bred B does a lot better than the "A" version. Good for AMD. They seem to have solved some of the ramping problems. Uh oh... it still only does 2.4GHz "<i><b>with the best watercooling system available on the market</i></b>". That's 3000+. Now, looking at the charts, the 2.53GHz basically equals the XP3000+. Not so good huh? Now, do some minor o/cing with the stock Intel HSF, and you'll easily beat the XP3000+, for $50 less...

So only at XP3400+ (which they used <i><b>a special cooling technique to keep the CPU die temperature to -41 degrees Celsius</i></b>) was it able to beat the 2.53GHz in mostly everything. Then again, that's using non conventional cooling. Even with that, the 2.8GHz P4 was able to keep up most of the time. Now think, with some watercooling and a P4, you'll easily be able to beat a *special cooling technique* overclocked AXP, for much less.

So, I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like this is still not so good, and the rating of XP2600+ seems to be a bit off. So at lower speeds (1800+ or so) I'll say AMD has a great thing going, a great price/performance ratio, but at higher levels, AMD just can't cut it anymore.

<i>Past mistakes may make you look stupid, but avoiding future ones will make you look smart!</i>
August 21, 2002 5:27:18 PM

Quote:
First: Who's spuddy?


Spud/Spuddy/Spudmuffin, the most hated member of the forums. He's been banned...I think four times. He's a complete [-peep-] when he's here, but I talk to him on Messenger all the time and he's fine.

Quote:
Second: Am I incapable of thinking for myself?


No, I wouldn't say that.

Quote:
Third: Do you agree with my observations?


Based on the evidence currently available, yes.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
August 21, 2002 5:28:41 PM

Check out the review on Vans Hardware ( www.vanshardware.com ) which says the Athlon is clearly the faster processor. The only thing holding the Athlon back from besting the P4 in EVERY benchmark is memory speed. PC1066 is the only reason why the P4 can compete with the Athlon. Thank god the Hammer platform addresses these issues.
!