amd thoroughbed

[mulder]

does anyone know how fast an amd 2200xp thouroughbed should run as mine seems to run at 1796mhz does that sound right?

[gwallen4]

Yep. That's correct.

1900+ = 1600 MHz

2200+ = 1800 MHz

2400+ = 2000 MHz

Confusing, isn't it?

[Deagle]

Doesn't AMD PR rating rate the performance as equal to the old Athlon? For example a 2500+ perform just as well or better than an Athlon T-bird at 2.5ghz?
PEACE:D

[gwallen4]

Yes. The stated intent of AMD was to compare the new Athlon XP with earlier models using this "Performance Rating". However, everyone knew that this was an advertising gimmick to compare Athlon and Pentium processors.

Up until recently, the AMD classification was fairly conservative. That is, an XP 2400+ really was faster that a Pentium4 2.4 GHz. AMD now appears to be losing ground and making up for it by over-rating the performance of their new processors.

This was discussed recently at AnandTech:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834

[saphalline]

Part of the reason this worked so well for AMD at first was because the original Willamette P4 sucked! It was horrible! Slow, hot, required the heatsink to be bolted to the case! But then, Intel came out with the Northwood core, then the FSB jump from 400MHz to 533MHz and the latest 800MHz. And with the Prescott core primed for release, well, AMD's PR numbers are looking mighty sad!

Rumor has it they "reorganized" the PR numbers when the Barton came out because by that time everyone knew they were meant to be directly compared to the P4's clock speed mania, so there was no shame at that point. You'll also notice that the PR numbers increased by 100 for every 66MHz jump in clock speed for the AthlonXP line, until the Barton. ;) Coincidence? Nope. AMD knew they were losing ground quickly.

[Deagle]

So if I were to get a new AMD processor I shouldn't go higher than a 2500+ because those higher numbers were overated by AMD? I too believe that AMD shouldn't have rush the 3200+ into the market so soon to compete with the new Intel with 800fsb. It is indeed a paper tiger as stated by THG.
PEACE:D

[mulder]

so are celeron 2.2 faster than athlon xp2200?

[drewbob]

Yes and No. Mostly No. The Celeron runs at a higher clock speed, but the Athlon has a serious cache advantage and is definitely a better performer.

[ErnieK]

I have read that the new AMD 3200Mhz compare to the Intel P4 2.6/2.8.

Also I think that the Intel 2.8 is cheaper than the AMD at the moment.

According to The Micro Mart (A mamagazine in the UK) the difference in price is in the region of about £100.00, with AMD being the most expensive.

Up until now I have always reccomended AMD but I think I am starting to change my opinion. Also with Intel there are fewer heat related problems

[saphalline]

Here in the US, AMD is most definitely cheaper! And while the PR's may not be in total agreement with the P4's performance, you can hardly blame AMD for Intel's many P4 versions! How on earth do you design a CPU at one speed to compete with 3 others with that speed from the same competitor?

Also, I think the Barton 3200 is at least on par with the P4C 3.0GHz. In fact, I would gamble that it beats that P4 most of the time. Also keep in mind that the Athlon's architecture in general makes it a superior performer in certain apps. Premier, for instance, a video editing app, always performs better on Athlons - even at much lower speeds. And that's just one example.

The main reason, however, that the Athlons are falling behind the P4's is because AMD is devoting most of its efforts towards its 64-bit CPU's. I hate open a possible can of worms here, but that's a fact.

[alex666]

Try this link for a current athlon - P4 comparison: http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/index.html

marty