Well so far the tbred can't overclock for shit. :)

Silentst2000 · Jun 10, 2002, 03:03 PM

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/xp_2200/

Malus · Jun 10, 2002, 04:51 PM

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzA2

peroni · Jun 10, 2002, 04:52 PM

Same results at tomshardware and anandtech
Disappointing to say the least.

GO INTEL!!!!!!

Malus · Jun 10, 2002, 08:58 PM

It's a shame that a XP +2200 is just about as fast as a 2.53 ghz Intel processor. Almost makes not being able to overclock it not such a bad thing.

~~Crash Override~~ · Jun 10, 2002, 10:57 PM

anyone who complains that its running at standard speeds almost as fast as the P4 NorthwoodB 2.53 at about a third the price is nuts lol

Silentst2000 · Jun 11, 2002, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malus
It's a shame that a XP +2200 is just about as fast as a 2.53 ghz Intel processor. Almost makes not being able to overclock it not such a bad thing.

Not hardly...I looses by quite a margin in quite a few of those tests.

Silentst2000 · Jun 11, 2002, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Crash Override
anyone who complains that its running at standard speeds almost as fast as the P4 NorthwoodB 2.53 at about a third the price is nuts lol

almost?

Yeah......................

Necrosis · Jun 11, 2002, 02:38 AM

All I can say to this flame is who gives a shit? Comparing a 1.8 gig processor to a 2.53 is pretty stupid if you ask me. It's like comparing a tricked out V6 to a big block V8. I consider this processor a small step, in the long run to kick Intel's ass. Not everyone over clocks anyway.

JavaFox · Jun 11, 2002, 05:21 AM

Everyone is so knee-jerk in their reaction to the T-bred's apparent inability to overclock. What is with you naysayers, anyhow? Just because T-bred --which has been out for one day-- doesn't overclock, everybody assumes that this is some limitation of the core or the architecture.

That is an ignorant statement. Not because it's false --it could be-- but because it's the easy answer. Nobody seems to want to consider other options or explanations.

Let me say this. Being ignorant is not wrong. Staying ignorant is. Everybody starts somewhere, but if you're unwilling to learn, expand your mind a little, and consider other ideas, then you play no useful part on an intelligent forum such as this one.

Check the following two statements out (emphasis mine):

http://www.vanshardware.com/:
... I have noticed a very large number of misconceptions in reviews today regarding the "low potential headroom" of AMD's 0.13-micron Athlon XP. It is clear that AMD is currently using a process skew emphasizing higher yields and lower power dissipation, apparently to produce large numbers of mobile chips. This is logical since mobile parts command higher ASPs. Such a mobile-friendly process skew would result in a slower transistor and reduced maximum clock-speeds.

Faster transistors have shorter gate lengths and are therefore leakier (consuming power when doing nothing at all). That AMD is using a slower transistor is demonstrated by typical current in Stop Grant, which is less than one-third of that leaked by the Intel Pentium 4 Northwood core in this sleep mode (the P4-Northwoods wastes an amazing 18A when the chip is doing nothing!). This makes the Thoroughbred a much better mobile part, but higher clock-speeds will likely have to wait until AMD remixes its recipe for faster transistors.

---------------------

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000368:
Our sources indicate that AMD's yields at 0.13µ are pretty good, but that the binsplits have a lot of room for improvement. While 1.5V is good enough to get the Thoroughbred up to 1600 MHz, higher clockspeeds are only attained with some kind of overclocking. Now this is hardly of a reason for panic, as it is even sort of a "tradition" for AMD. With far fewer resources for debugging and tuning, new process technology almost always experiences some teething problems. The highest speed grade (233 MHz) of the 0.35µ K6 needed 3.2V instead of 2.9V, and the first K6-2 batch ran at only 333 MHz, but achieved 450 MHz after some tweaking. At first, the 0.18µ Athlon K75 needed 1.8V to reach 1 GHz, while a few months later, the 1 GHz Athlon Thunderbird happily ran at 1.75V. The first Palominos were limited to 1200 MHz, but achieved 1733 MHz a few months ago. So, as you can see, there's a history here where it always takes a little time to get the most from a particular process/core.

Vaporizer · Jun 11, 2002, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Everyone is so knee-jerk in their reaction to the T-bred's apparent inability to overclock. What is with you naysayers, anyhow? Just because T-bred --which has been out for one day-- doesn't overclock, everybody assumes that this is some limitation of the core or the architecture.

That is an ignorant statement. Not because it's false --it could be-- but because it's the easy answer. Nobody seems to want to consider other options or explanations.

Let me say this. Being ignorant is not wrong. Staying ignorant is. Everybody starts somewhere, but if you're unwilling to learn, expand your mind a little, and consider other ideas, then you play no useful part on an intelligent forum such as this one.

Check the following two statements out (emphasis mine):

http://www.vanshardware.com/:
... I have noticed a very large number of misconceptions in reviews today regarding the "low potential headroom" of AMD's 0.13-micron Athlon XP. It is clear that AMD is currently using a process skew emphasizing higher yields and lower power dissipation, apparently to produce large numbers of mobile chips. This is logical since mobile parts command higher ASPs. Such a mobile-friendly process skew would result in a slower transistor and reduced maximum clock-speeds.

Faster transistors have shorter gate lengths and are therefore leakier (consuming power when doing nothing at all). That AMD is using a slower transistor is demonstrated by typical current in Stop Grant, which is less than one-third of that leaked by the Intel Pentium 4 Northwood core in this sleep mode (the P4-Northwoods wastes an amazing 18A when the chip is doing nothing!). This makes the Thoroughbred a much better mobile part, but higher clock-speeds will likely have to wait until AMD remixes its recipe for faster transistors.

---------------------

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000368:
Our sources indicate that AMD's yields at 0.13µ are pretty good, but that the binsplits have a lot of room for improvement. While 1.5V is good enough to get the Thoroughbred up to 1600 MHz, higher clockspeeds are only attained with some kind of overclocking. Now this is hardly of a reason for panic, as it is even sort of a "tradition" for AMD. With far fewer resources for debugging and tuning, new process technology almost always experiences some teething problems. The highest speed grade (233 MHz) of the 0.35µ K6 needed 3.2V instead of 2.9V, and the first K6-2 batch ran at only 333 MHz, but achieved 450 MHz after some tweaking. At first, the 0.18µ Athlon K75 needed 1.8V to reach 1 GHz, while a few months later, the 1 GHz Athlon Thunderbird happily ran at 1.75V. The first Palominos were limited to 1200 MHz, but achieved 1733 MHz a few months ago. So, as you can see, there's a history here where it always takes a little time to get the most from a particular process/core.

lol, i really liked your post, i could never express myself like that in English =(

Silentst2000 · Jun 11, 2002, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Everyone is so knee-jerk in their reaction to the T-bred's apparent inability to overclock. What is with you naysayers, anyhow? Just because T-bred --which has been out for one day-- doesn't overclock, everybody assumes that this is some limitation of the core or the architecture.

That is an ignorant statement. Not because it's false --it could be-- but because it's the easy answer. Nobody seems to want to consider other options or explanations.

Let me say this. Being ignorant is not wrong. Staying ignorant is. Everybody starts somewhere, but if you're unwilling to learn, expand your mind a little, and consider other ideas, then you play no useful part on an intelligent forum such as this one.

Check the following two statements out (emphasis mine):

http://www.vanshardware.com/:
... I have noticed a very large number of misconceptions in reviews today regarding the "low potential headroom" of AMD's 0.13-micron Athlon XP. It is clear that AMD is currently using a process skew emphasizing higher yields and lower power dissipation, apparently to produce large numbers of mobile chips. This is logical since mobile parts command higher ASPs. Such a mobile-friendly process skew would result in a slower transistor and reduced maximum clock-speeds.

Faster transistors have shorter gate lengths and are therefore leakier (consuming power when doing nothing at all). That AMD is using a slower transistor is demonstrated by typical current in Stop Grant, which is less than one-third of that leaked by the Intel Pentium 4 Northwood core in this sleep mode (the P4-Northwoods wastes an amazing 18A when the chip is doing nothing!). This makes the Thoroughbred a much better mobile part, but higher clock-speeds will likely have to wait until AMD remixes its recipe for faster transistors.

---------------------

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000368:
Our sources indicate that AMD's yields at 0.13µ are pretty good, but that the binsplits have a lot of room for improvement. While 1.5V is good enough to get the Thoroughbred up to 1600 MHz, higher clockspeeds are only attained with some kind of overclocking. Now this is hardly of a reason for panic, as it is even sort of a "tradition" for AMD. With far fewer resources for debugging and tuning, new process technology almost always experiences some teething problems. The highest speed grade (233 MHz) of the 0.35µ K6 needed 3.2V instead of 2.9V, and the first K6-2 batch ran at only 333 MHz, but achieved 450 MHz after some tweaking. At first, the 0.18µ Athlon K75 needed 1.8V to reach 1 GHz, while a few months later, the 1 GHz Athlon Thunderbird happily ran at 1.75V. The first Palominos were limited to 1200 MHz, but achieved 1733 MHz a few months ago. So, as you can see, there's a history here where it always takes a little time to get the most from a particular process/core.

That's all nice and said BUT you missed this on the thread title.

Well so far the tbred can't overclock for shit.

I'm aware of how amd does that.

When the first 1ghz tbirds came out most could only hit like 1200 tops.

Then the axia came out and everyone was hitting 1.33/1.4 ghz.

What I need to stress that the first northwoods pulled off some amazing o/cs.

Tbred did not.

Reason I posted this was to blast all the fanatical amd fanboys saying the tbred will hit 2.7 ghz overclocks.

That might happen if barton comes out...who knows...Hell maybe the hammer will do that. Who fucking know's and I don't care either.

JavaFox · Jun 12, 2002, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Silentst2000
That's all nice and said BUT you missed this on the thread title. What I need to stress that the first northwoods pulled off some amazing o/cs. Tbred did not.

I don't care that you can overclock Northwoods -- inferior architecture is still inferior.

UberLord · Jun 12, 2002, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
I don't care that you can overclock Northwoods -- inferior architecture is still inferior.

And? I don't care how crap the architecture is as long as it runs my programs fast.

Diablo6178 · Jun 12, 2002, 02:24 PM

Well lets see these are the very first .13 chips that AMD has ever made. Not overclock well? Imagine that.

Intel was able to play around with .13 on the Tulatin before going to Northwood. We all know that the Tulatins don't do steller overclocks either, 200-300 Mhz tops.

So why the hell are you all so suprised? I guess you guys are just spoiled into thinking that the chips these days are easy to make. AMD is putting all their time and effort into Hammer not the current Athlon line. They'll get the .13 process right with this revision, then hand over Barton to UMC.

Would you waste your time improving something that your giving to someone else to make, when your bread and butter(Hammer) needs to be up to speed and running at year end?

Silentst2000 · Jun 12, 2002, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
inferior architecture is still inferior.

Surely you can't be serious...

I can give you 5 reason's why that it is better

Silentst2000 · Jun 12, 2002, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Diablo6178
Well lets see these are the very first .13 chips that AMD has ever made. Not overclock well? Imagine that.

Intel was able to play around with .13 on the Tulatin before going to Northwood. We all know that the Tulatins don't do steller overclocks either, 200-300 Mhz tops.

There was 50% o/c's from the tualatin celeron's... 1.0A's...................

Silentst2000 · Jun 12, 2002, 10:54 PM

oh and tomshardware has a good review on the 1.8 celeron's...

fanboys need not apply.

Diablo6178 · Jun 12, 2002, 11:03 PM

July 30th, 2001
Type: CPU
Manufacturer: Intel
Author: Anand Lal Shimpi

Overclocking

You can probably guess that the 0.13-micron manufacturing process opens up the potential for the Pentium III to be a great overclocker. Our retail 1.2GHz processor was able to hit 1.44GHz (9 x 160MHz), unfortunately the board we tested on (ASUS TUSL2-C) would not allow voltage adjustments thus preventing us from getting a reliable set of benchmarks at 1.44GHz.

With voltage adjustments you should be able to hit 1.35 – 1.5GHz pretty easily with the 1.2GHz Pentium III.

Nice how you compare an intial release .13 Tbred CPU to a very mature .13 Tulatin. Sucks being wrong doesn't it.

Silentst2000 · Jun 12, 2002, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Diablo6178
July 30th, 2001
Type: CPU
Manufacturer: Intel
Author: Anand Lal Shimpi

Overclocking

You can probably guess that the 0.13-micron manufacturing process opens up the potential for the Pentium III to be a great overclocker. Our retail 1.2GHz processor was able to hit 1.44GHz (9 x 160MHz), unfortunately the board we tested on (ASUS TUSL2-C) would not allow voltage adjustments thus preventing us from getting a reliable set of benchmarks at 1.44GHz.

With voltage adjustments you should be able to hit 1.35 – 1.5GHz pretty easily with the 1.2GHz Pentium III.

Nice how you compare an intial release .13 Tbred CPU to a very mature .13 Tulatin. Sucks being wrong doesn't it.

Not wrong.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/cpu/celeron1a-oc/

Just a little off on the dates

(I had no idea the celeron version was launched that late)

Anyways that's what a 20% o/c with the tualatin?

Who cares that the pci and agp bus's are way out of spec. Along with the memory...

It still did better than the tbred with its amazing 5% or less o/c's.

Doomtrooper · Jun 12, 2002, 11:43 PM

http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/936/10.html

Silentst2000 · Jun 12, 2002, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doomtrooper

http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/936/10.html

Well there is...

800 mhz?

To "prevent" o/cing...or there is a problem with the cpu when it hits higher mhz.

Amd pulling all their R&D from the athlon line for hammer? It's not like their athlon isn't their volume seller...

Hundred's of motherboards and 3 working chipsets for the hammer yet they have delayed the hammer and itmight not even make it out tell first half of next year?

Who care's about intel's3 + ghz prescott with 667 fsb and 1 mb l2 cache and varius other undisclosed enhancements. (and a mobo with dual channel ddr 333 to boot...)

And with in a 3-6 months of prescott release it is suppost to be on the .09 process as well.
with clock speeds at around 8-10 ghz.

Silentst2000 · Jun 12, 2002, 11:51 PM

and its not like they don't have yamill up their sleeve too.

Doomtrooper · Jun 12, 2002, 11:56 PM

You are funny

...
Care to make a little wager on who will own the speed crown in six months ..

Yes Intel the BIG DDR lover now, after AMD developing and pushing the TECH forward instead of forcing Rambus down everyones throat, now Intel welcomes DDR with open arms...

JavaFox · Jun 13, 2002, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Silentst2000
Surely you can't be serious... I can give you 5 reason's why [the P4] is better

Oh, can you?

P4 Architecture can be summed up in one word: marketing. Clockspeed is what sells chips and Intel cuts every corner and makes every sacrifice to get P4s to clock higher. Fanboys accuse AMD of overmarketing their Athlon XP chips but it is Intel, not AMD, who is going with a Marketing Over Technology approach.

Let's first start at the L1 cache. The size of the L1 cache of the P4 is matched by only one another Intel processor: the 486. The Athlon, on the other hand, has a cache 16 times larger than that of the Pentium 4. Think about how pitifully small that cache is. To put it into perspective, the P4 could not even load the DriverHeaven logo into its L1 cache. In fact, "[at] a 1024x768 screen resolution and a 32-bit color depth, 2 scan lines of video consume 8K of data.... manipulating more than two scan lines of video data at a time will overflow the L1 cache on the Pentium 4." *

The decoder is also an area in which the P4 is technically inferior. It takes 21 clock cycles for the P4 to decode 64 bytes of x86 code. On the P3 or Athlon, the time it'd take is more like 7 to 11 cycles. The decoder on the P4 is only capable of handling one instruction per clock cycle. The Netburst decoder is not only technically inferior, it is alone -- which is to say that the Athlon beats it not only in quality, but in quantity. The Athlon has three x86 decoders.

The biggest problem with the P4 is its pipeline. Its long, ultradeep pipeline allows the P4's clockspeed to hit extraordinary levels -- at the expense of everything else. The deeper pipeline translates to this: longer latencies, less executed per clock cycle, ridiculous penalties when the processor makes a missed branch prediction, increased processor complexity (which translates to larger dies), and bizarre heat/power issues.

Also, as alluded to in the previous paragraph, the Intel Pentium 4 has a ridiculously obese die. In its .13 micron form, the P4 is still larger than the .18 micron Athlon was. Now that AMD has begun .13 micron production, the difference is even more significant -- 146mm^2 versus 80mm^2.

Exactly how is the P4's design superior to that of the Athlon?

--

* http://www.emulators.com/docs/pentium_1.htm

Sources:

http://www.vanshardware.com/reviews/...hlonXP2000.htm
http://www.emulators.com/docs/pentium_1.htm
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...4^3742,00.html
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=113

Silentst2000 · Jun 13, 2002, 08:26 PM

"Nevertheless, the Willamette introduces some very interesting concepts like double pumped ALUs and trace caching, which greatly enhance the "x86 decoding/micro-op core" architecture. The Willamette will reach incredibly high clock speeds, and has quite a few tricks in its sleeve to soften the problems of such a long pipeline. It will be very hard for the competiion to keep up with Willamette's clockspeed"
There is 3 reason's...

quad pumped fsb.

"That is unless, however, Intel makes sure support for the new ISSE2 instructions is superb. In that case, Intel's new sibling will blow every other CPU out of the water. Intel has supported developers very well in the past, but it takes time to build up software support and rewrite applications. "

There's 5.

Now how about you quote some stuff form some none extremely biased againist intel websites?

All of that was from ace's hardware.

(now to break down all your information.)

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Let's first start at the L1 cache.

It doesn't have any...

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Think about how pitifully small that cache is. To put it into perspective, the P4 could not even load the DriverHeaven logo into its L1 cache. In fact, "[at] a 1024x768 screen resolution and a 32-bit color depth, 2 scan lines of video consume 8K of data.... manipulating more than two scan lines of video data at a time will overflow the L1 cache on the Pentium 4."

You will never find data remotely close like that in the trace cache so that comparison is completely unfounded. Though I'm sure the p4's 512k l2 can easly handle that which is TWICE the size of the athlon and is also why the northwood was still bigger than the athlon xp at .18 ....and the p4 also has a much larger transister count...Oh and the l2 is connected at 256 bits compaired to the athlons 64 bit which gives the p4 considerable bandwidth advantage there.

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
The decoder is also an area in which the P4 is technically inferior. It takes 21 clock cycles for the P4 to decode 64 bytes of x86 code. On the P3 or Athlon, the time it'd take is more like 7 to 11 cycles. The decoder on the P4 is only capable of handling one instruction per clock cycle. The Netburst decoder is not only technically inferior, it is alone -- which is to say that the Athlon beats it not only in quality, but in quantity. The Athlon has three x86 decoders.

I'm not too sure on this one...I thought the p4 uses trace cache to elimnate this or something. Anyone care to comment?

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
The biggest problem with the P4 is its pipeline. Its long, ultradeep pipeline allows the P4's clockspeed to hit extraordinary levels -- at the expense of everything else. The deeper pipeline translates to this: longer latencies, less executed per clock cycle, ridiculous penalties when the processor makes a missed branch prediction,

Yeah but when the p4 gets a good branch prediction it gets more done. And the ipc loss is made up by the much greater clock speed it allow's...as we all know.

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
increased processor complexity

Source?

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
and bizarre heat/power issues.

So bizarre that it runs way cooler at the same clock speed as an athlon! OMG! WTF IS WRONG!?

Oh the p4 also has a much better thermal design.
which is reason 6 so I guess I goofed up eh?
*note.
I'll fix all the grammar and typo's and the like later...in a rush. Need to leave.

Necrosis · Jun 16, 2002, 08:51 PM

Quote:

"That is unless, however, Intel makes sure support for the new ISSE2 instructions is superb. In that case, Intel's new sibling will blow every other CPU out of the water. Intel has supported developers very well in the past, but it takes time to build up software support and rewrite applications.

What about SSE3???

Quote:

Now how about you quote some stuff form some none extremely biased againist intel websites?

He has to against someone that is biased against AMD; seems fair enough to me.

Quote:

You will never find data remotely close like that in the trace cache so that comparison is completely unfounded. Though I'm sure the p4's 512k l2 can easly handle that which is TWICE the size of the athlon and is also why the northwood was still bigger than the athlon xp at .18 ....and the p4 also has a much larger transister count...Oh and the l2 is connected at 256 bits compaired to the athlons 64 bit which gives the p4 considerable bandwidth advantage there.

I've heard this before, and because of the Northwood finally coming out not to long ago it finally means something. Higher transistor counts means higher leakage current too. Besides the only way this really makes any difference is when the P4 is running at a much higher clock speed than an Athlon.

Quote:

Yeah but when the p4 gets a good branch prediction it gets more done. And the ipc loss is made up by the much greater clock speed it allow's...as we all know.

So bizarre that it runs way cooler at the same clock speed as an athlon! OMG! WTF IS WRONG!?

OMG, when their both running at the same clock speed the Athlon clearly out paces the P4, because it does more per clock cycle. Could be the reason why it runs hotter too.

UberLord · Jun 16, 2002, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Necrosis
Could be the reason why it runs hotter too.

Nah - the reason why Intels run cooler (on average) is because the retail boxed versions ship with a decent HSF combo. Whereas I've never seen a boxed AMD chip with a decent HSF combo.

If I don't clock my 1.4 Athlon, it runs cooler than my PII400 @ work

Zardon · Jun 16, 2002, 09:48 PM

the XPs run hot, the new .13 core will help.

Silentst2000 · Jun 17, 2002, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zardon
the XPs run hot, the new .13 core will help.

Not really.

The die is 33% smaller and thus 33% less surface area.
The voltage wasn't droped 33% either. So in most cases it might run hotter.

Silentst2000 · Jun 17, 2002, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UberLord
Nah - the reason why Intels run cooler (on average) is because the retail boxed versions ship with a decent HSF combo. Whereas I've never seen a boxed AMD chip with a decent HSF combo.

If I don't clock my 1.4 Athlon, it runs cooler than my PII400 @ work

And it gives off less watts of heat than the athlon does.

Jun 10, 2002, 03:03 PM	#1
Silentst2000 Can I be cool? Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 355 Rep Power: 0	Well so far the tbred can't overclock for shit. :) http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/xp_2200/ __________________ P4@2.4ghz Radeon 9700pro DDR 400 Nuff said

Jun 10, 2002, 04:51 PM	#2
Malus BSD SMASH! Join Date: May 2002 Location: A rabbit hole. . . Posts: 1,170 Rep Power: 0	http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzA2 __________________ quad (FreeBSD/amd64 8-CURRENT): Intel Q6600 - Asus P5E-VM HDMI - 2x2 GB Kingston PC6400 DDR2 Ram - Seagate 320GB 7200RPM HD - 2xSeagate 1TB 7200RPM HD in RAID 1 via ZFS - Lite-On 20x DVD Multi Recorder - Coolermaster Centurion 5 router (FreeBSD/amd64 8-CURRENT): Intel E4500 - Intel D945GCNL - 2 GB PC6400 Mushkin Ram - Lite-On 48x24x48x16 - Seagate 320GB 7200RPM HD - Silverstone SST-SG02-F wanderer (FreeBSD/i386 7-CURRENT): Lenovo Thinkpad T61p mini (OS X 10.5): Intel Core 2 Duo @ 1.8Ghz, 4 GB Mushkin PC5400 Ram - Headroom MicroDAC Portable sound: Rockboxed iPod Video -> Westone UM2's Not-So-Portable Sound: Headroon MicroDAC -> Singlepower PPX3-SLAM -> Grado RS-1's or Beyerdynamic DT-880's Very-Not-Portable-Sound: Squeezebox v3 -> Denon AVR-1507 -> B&W 683's & Sunfire HRS-10

Jun 10, 2002, 04:52 PM	#3
peroni DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 591 Rep Power: 0	Same results at tomshardware and anandtech Disappointing to say the least. GO INTEL!!!!!! __________________ Gaming Rig 3DMark2k1 PCMark2k2 The Server 3Dmark2k1 PCMark2k2 Notebook 3Dmark2k1 PCMark2k2

Jun 10, 2002, 08:58 PM	#4
Malus BSD SMASH! Join Date: May 2002 Location: A rabbit hole. . . Posts: 1,170 Rep Power: 0	It's a shame that a XP +2200 is just about as fast as a 2.53 ghz Intel processor. Almost makes not being able to overclock it not such a bad thing. __________________ quad (FreeBSD/amd64 8-CURRENT): Intel Q6600 - Asus P5E-VM HDMI - 2x2 GB Kingston PC6400 DDR2 Ram - Seagate 320GB 7200RPM HD - 2xSeagate 1TB 7200RPM HD in RAID 1 via ZFS - Lite-On 20x DVD Multi Recorder - Coolermaster Centurion 5 router (FreeBSD/amd64 8-CURRENT): Intel E4500 - Intel D945GCNL - 2 GB PC6400 Mushkin Ram - Lite-On 48x24x48x16 - Seagate 320GB 7200RPM HD - Silverstone SST-SG02-F wanderer (FreeBSD/i386 7-CURRENT): Lenovo Thinkpad T61p mini (OS X 10.5): Intel Core 2 Duo @ 1.8Ghz, 4 GB Mushkin PC5400 Ram - Headroom MicroDAC Portable sound: Rockboxed iPod Video -> Westone UM2's Not-So-Portable Sound: Headroon MicroDAC -> Singlepower PPX3-SLAM -> Grado RS-1's or Beyerdynamic DT-880's Very-Not-Portable-Sound: Squeezebox v3 -> Denon AVR-1507 -> B&W 683's & Sunfire HRS-10

Jun 11, 2002, 05:21 AM	#9
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	READ, people Everyone is so knee-jerk in their reaction to the T-bred's apparent inability to overclock. What is with you naysayers, anyhow? Just because T-bred --which has been out for one day-- doesn't overclock, everybody assumes that this is some limitation of the core or the architecture. That is an ignorant statement. Not because it's false --it could be-- but because it's the easy answer. Nobody seems to want to consider other options or explanations. Let me say this. Being ignorant is not wrong. Staying ignorant is. Everybody starts somewhere, but if you're unwilling to learn, expand your mind a little, and consider other ideas, then you play no useful part on an intelligent forum such as this one. Check the following two statements out (emphasis mine): http://www.vanshardware.com/: ... I have noticed a very large number of misconceptions in reviews today regarding the "low potential headroom" of AMD's 0.13-micron Athlon XP. It is clear that AMD is currently using a process skew emphasizing higher yields and lower power dissipation, apparently to produce large numbers of mobile chips. This is logical since mobile parts command higher ASPs. Such a mobile-friendly process skew would result in a slower transistor and reduced maximum clock-speeds. Faster transistors have shorter gate lengths and are therefore leakier (consuming power when doing nothing at all). That AMD is using a slower transistor is demonstrated by typical current in Stop Grant, which is less than one-third of that leaked by the Intel Pentium 4 Northwood core in this sleep mode (the P4-Northwoods wastes an amazing 18A when the chip is doing nothing!). This makes the Thoroughbred a much better mobile part, but higher clock-speeds will likely have to wait until AMD remixes its recipe for faster transistors. --------------------- http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000368: Our sources indicate that AMD's yields at 0.13µ are pretty good, but that the binsplits have a lot of room for improvement. While 1.5V is good enough to get the Thoroughbred up to 1600 MHz, higher clockspeeds are only attained with some kind of overclocking. Now this is hardly of a reason for panic, as it is even sort of a "tradition" for AMD. With far fewer resources for debugging and tuning, new process technology almost always experiences some teething problems. The highest speed grade (233 MHz) of the 0.35µ K6 needed 3.2V instead of 2.9V, and the first K6-2 batch ran at only 333 MHz, but achieved 450 MHz after some tweaking. At first, the 0.18µ Athlon K75 needed 1.8V to reach 1 GHz, while a few months later, the 1 GHz Athlon Thunderbird happily ran at 1.75V. The first Palominos were limited to 1200 MHz, but achieved 1733 MHz a few months ago. So, as you can see, there's a history here where it always takes a little time to get the most from a particular process/core.

Jun 10, 2002, 10:57 PM	#5
~~Crash Override~~ Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: Olympia, WA Posts: 2,448 Rep Power: 0	anyone who complains that its running at standard speeds almost as fast as the P4 NorthwoodB 2.53 at about a third the price is nuts lol

Jun 11, 2002, 02:38 AM	#8
Necrosis HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 8,838 Rep Power: 131 System Specs	All I can say to this flame is who gives a shit? Comparing a 1.8 gig processor to a 2.53 is pretty stupid if you ask me. It's like comparing a tricked out V6 to a big block V8. I consider this processor a small step, in the long run to kick Intel's ass. Not everyone over clocks anyway.

Jun 12, 2002, 02:24 PM	#14
Diablo6178 DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A place you've never been. Posts: 9 Rep Power: 0	Well lets see these are the very first .13 chips that AMD has ever made. Not overclock well? Imagine that. Intel was able to play around with .13 on the Tulatin before going to Northwood. We all know that the Tulatins don't do steller overclocks either, 200-300 Mhz tops. So why the hell are you all so suprised? I guess you guys are just spoiled into thinking that the chips these days are easy to make. AMD is putting all their time and effort into Hammer not the current Athlon line. They'll get the .13 process right with this revision, then hand over Barton to UMC. Would you waste your time improving something that your giving to someone else to make, when your bread and butter(Hammer) needs to be up to speed and running at year end?

Jun 12, 2002, 10:54 PM	Thread Starter #17
Silentst2000 Can I be cool? Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 355 Rep Power: 0	oh and tomshardware has a good review on the 1.8 celeron's... fanboys need not apply. __________________ P4@2.4ghz Radeon 9700pro DDR 400 Nuff said

Jun 12, 2002, 11:03 PM	#18
Diablo6178 DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A place you've never been. Posts: 9 Rep Power: 0	July 30th, 2001 Type: CPU Manufacturer: Intel Author: Anand Lal Shimpi Overclocking You can probably guess that the 0.13-micron manufacturing process opens up the potential for the Pentium III to be a great overclocker. Our retail 1.2GHz processor was able to hit 1.44GHz (9 x 160MHz), unfortunately the board we tested on (ASUS TUSL2-C) would not allow voltage adjustments thus preventing us from getting a reliable set of benchmarks at 1.44GHz. With voltage adjustments you should be able to hit 1.35 – 1.5GHz pretty easily with the 1.2GHz Pentium III. Nice how you compare an intial release .13 Tbred CPU to a very mature .13 Tulatin. Sucks being wrong doesn't it.

Jun 12, 2002, 11:43 PM	#20
Doomtrooper Driverheaven Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Great White North Posts: 206 Rep Power: 0	AMD has nothing to worry about at all... http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/936/10.html __________________ "It's time to kick A$$ and chew bubble gum....and I'm all out of gum." Duke Nukem November 1996

Jun 12, 2002, 11:51 PM	Thread Starter #22
Silentst2000 Can I be cool? Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 355 Rep Power: 0	and its not like they don't have yamill up their sleeve too. __________________ P4@2.4ghz Radeon 9700pro DDR 400 Nuff said

Jun 12, 2002, 11:56 PM	#23
Doomtrooper Driverheaven Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Great White North Posts: 206 Rep Power: 0	You are funny ... Care to make a little wager on who will own the speed crown in six months .. Yes Intel the BIG DDR lover now, after AMD developing and pushing the TECH forward instead of forcing Rambus down everyones throat, now Intel welcomes DDR with open arms... __________________ "It's time to kick A$$ and chew bubble gum....and I'm all out of gum." Duke Nukem November 1996

Jun 16, 2002, 09:48 PM	#28
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	the XPs run hot, the new .13 core will help.