1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AMD Barton

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by WilHarris, 10 Feb 2003.

  1. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,882
    Likes Received:
    89
    yeah I read your review, the Barton was coming out on top in the real world apps, however the P4 was still on top in the synthetic benchmarks as used in the review here. \o/

    Its a nice "no BS" review, based around more synthetic benchmarks, its a shame the P4 was tested using a Rambus platform, as their future seems to be diminishing, with the improvements of DDR technology. :cooldude:

    The CPU market is hotting up again, with the fact that the P4 in its current state is going to end up like the pIII.cu 1.13Ghz chips, hence the drop to 90nm later this half of the year on the intel side of the fence. They will max out at around 3.2Ghz.
    As for the barton, questions are still to be asked, why the drop in clock speed? I imagine its related to the stability, (a reason why the XP2800 has appeared in very sparce proportions), this needs to be sorted out, however with the budget of AMD at the moment mostly concentrating on Athlon 64 (from what I gather) which should open a rather large can of whoopie over intel for a short period :)

    btw, if you read the hexus review, they seem not to have a clue what they are talking about on the sandra alu tests, where the cache size is immaterial, and has no effect on the results. :hehe:
     
  2. Jamie

    Jamie ex-Bit-Tech code junkie

    Joined:
    12 Mar 2001
    Posts:
    8,180
    Likes Received:
    54
    The most interesting thing I have noticed is that the 2800+ was outperforming or doing as well as the barton 3000+ in some tests (results I have noticed while reading all the reviews that poped up yesterday).

    I do think the drop in clock speed was a bad idea and will be the hottest point of discussion.

    Very tough choice between the 3.06 and 3000+ tho, its going to come down to price I think.
     
  3. asmodai

    asmodai What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    10 Feb 2003
    Posts:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Re: AMD v Intel



    Your very correct, what AMD has done in chip design has really shaken up the market, as it forces Intel to stop relying on raw numbers and concentrate on performance regardless of clockspeed. The fact that a 2.2 odd gig chip is even put in the same race as a 3 gig shows that clock for clock, the AMD is still the strongest. Unfortunately, the chips are no longer sold on a clock for price ratio, as the new Barton cores prices show. If you compare the chips on price to price, then the P4 3.06 is suddenly quite viable. As AMD has supply issues (had? I'm not sure if it's over yet) with their processors, they may still not be able to compete with Intel.

    No matter which brand ends up better, it's all good for consumers as competition drives the prices down. Just hope they can get enough chips produced to meet the demand.
     
  4. Green Soda

    Green Soda What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    26 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    823
    Likes Received:
    0
    HAHAHAHAHAHAAH! your damn right!!!! :clap: :clap:

    Well, i must say that the processor preformance is a bit of a dissapointment for me... I really like the AMD chips, but this review has been a stab for me... Oh well... I think Haz is right, that when the chip gets refined a bit more (hint hint AMD: unlock the damn thing...), they can be just as good as Intel, or better (prays..).
     
  5. Cheese

    Cheese Doc

    Joined:
    6 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    4,609
    Likes Received:
    1
    You think the P4 at its current die size will max out at 3.2? I know intel are transfering to 0.09µm but I thought 0.13 had more life in it than that... they always say how far the chip will overclock is a good guide, and most 3.06's push past 3.5 (and to 4 with vapo) - comparing that to the 3000+ which I've only seen go to 2.5 (which is a good overclock don't get me wrong, but if you use overclocking as a guide as to how far an architecture will stretch then % for % amd and intel will have to change at about the same stage). 3.2GHz sounds very low IMO anyway...

    Rob.
     
  6. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,882
    Likes Received:
    89
    The reason for the barton not being a "demon" overclocker is the fact that it just falls outside AMDs manufacturing sweetspot, which is also why the price may seem a little high :)

    a quote from the same review, in relation to the P4s max out. ;)
    I know a CPUs "overclockability" is always a good sign of how far a CPU will go, but... clock up a p4 @ stock volts, that'll give you an idea as to how far that architechture will go. Don't forget, use a stock HSF, as thats what "most" users will be using if ya get me ;)

    Same with the Barton, the best I've heard with a stock fan and stock voltage was around 2.3Ghz, around a 7-8% overclock :)
     
    Last edited: 11 Feb 2003
  7. Cheese

    Cheese Doc

    Joined:
    6 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    4,609
    Likes Received:
    1
    We'll have to wait and see I guess, the future of the processor market certainly isn't looking boring ;)

    Rob.
     
  8. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,882
    Likes Received:
    89
    If AMD had released the hammer, you would have had the intel panic, turning into a similar situation as they had with the PIII 1.13Ghz, where it was a speed that was too much for its architechture :)

    The only things AMD have to compete with this half of the year are the 800Mhz FSB move, and more mainstream DCDDR chipsets for the intel platform :)

    Ramping upto 200Mhz FSB would see a large increase in performance from the Athlons, lets hope they don't hold back too much with that ;)
     
  9. Green Soda

    Green Soda What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    26 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    823
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep.... IMO, you hit it right on...:clap:
     
  10. yodasarmpit

    yodasarmpit Modder

    Joined:
    27 May 2002
    Posts:
    11,384
    Likes Received:
    221
    It would seem from not just this review but from others as well that the AMD has the Intel pegged on real world benchmarks.

    The only problem is the price, for your average high street buyer of a PC (who has only ever heard of Intel) an alternative must be lower in price.
     
    Last edited: 12 Feb 2003
  11. 1398342003

    1398342003 Ubermodder

    Joined:
    2 Sep 2002
    Posts:
    960
    Likes Received:
    1
    Something to take note of is that the Barton is PRed at 3000+ while the P4 runs at 3.06, 60 MHz faster than AMD's PR rating
     
  12. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,882
    Likes Received:
    89
    60Mhz will not make an awful difference in tests, its like when (I can't remember where) a reviewer said that there was a "whole" 73 3DMarks between the P4 3.06HT and the XP3000+... I mean, if you ran the test 8 times and got the same score every time, then this would matter... but its well within the error in the test.

    The price is due to the die size just falling outside AMDs manufacturing sweetspot (50-100mm^2) at 101mm^2 :)
     
  13. Cheese

    Cheese Doc

    Joined:
    6 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    4,609
    Likes Received:
    1
    That might make it more expensive for AMD, but I'm not convinced it's the reason it's more expensive to buy - I think everything above the XP2400+ is a little overpriced, and AMD set their prices based on the price of similar spec'd intel chips.

    Not saying they were wrong to do so, but in my mind that's why the prices are what they are.

    Rob.
     
  14. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,882
    Likes Received:
    89
    it's because its supporting the *new* 333Mhz FSB, prices should drop fairly soon on that note :)
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page