Athlon 1.4GHz and XP1600+

[6583]

Can someone please tell me what which one is better and why. Seems like Athlon 1.4GHz is still more expensive than XP1600+.

 

[Dufrane]

The Athlon XP is by far a better processor. It is newer technology. It runs significantly cooler too, and according to posts on anand it is quite overclockable.

 

[CrazySaint]

Its not uncommon for older CPUs to cost more than newer ones.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Both above statements are true. The Athlon 1.4 GHz runs on a 100 MHz FSB (double pumped to 200 MHz) and uses 133 MHz memory. The Athlon XP 1600+ also runs at 1.4 GHz, but it runs on a faster 133 MHZ FSB (double pumped to 266 MHz). It also uses 133 MHz memory. This FSB speed increase translates into a 5-15% speed increase for the Athlon XP 1600+ (roughly).

Both chips can be run in modern AMD Motherboards, and both CPU's can be run with either DDR memory or SDR memory (DDR being faster, of course). However, it is strongly recommended that you run an Athlon XP with DDR memory, whereas regular Athlons are a bit more forgiving to being paired with SDR memory - they don't get as much of a speed increase from using DDR as Athlon XP's do.

Altogether, an Athlon XP with DDR memory should run about 10-30% (estimated) faster than a same-speed Athlon with SDR memory.

The Athlon XP is better in every way - I'd recommend buying one of those given the choice between the two.

 

[JC]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Both above statements are true. The Athlon 1.4 GHz runs on a 100 MHz FSB (double pumped to 200 MHz) and uses 133 MHz memory. The Athlon XP 1600+ also runs at 1.4 GHz, but it runs on a faster 133 MHZ FSB (double pumped to 266 MHz). It also uses 133 MHz memory. This FSB speed increase translates into a 5-15% speed increase for the Athlon XP 1600+ (roughly).

Partially true. But 1400 Athlons came in both 200 and 266FSB flavors. The reason XPs are faster is due to differences in the core (like hardware branch prediction, IIRC).

The reason 1400 Athlons are more expensive now is because they're not current product. They're 'rare'.

JC

 

[rogue1979]

The XP is cheaper, overclocks better and runs way cooler.

 

[Duvie]

The xps are better cause they have: branch prediction, hardware prefecth, SSE encodings, slightly larger core for better heat transfer....

The 1600+xp is telling you with the amd pr rating that it is equivalent to a 1600mhz tbird...so amd is telling you this should be about 15 percent faster then the 1.4tbird (266fsb) or "c" chip....

 

[lRageATMl]

i have a 1.4ghz tbird...fsb at 136 (11.5 mul)....running at 1567MHz....not to shabby for overclocking an Athlon.

 

[Soulkeeper]

the tbird at 1.4 should also run a noticeable bit hotter too
that's enough for me
plus the changed packaging and sse n stuff

 

[VFAA]

XP man... new techno

 

[6583]

Thanks guys...really appreciated for all the info. At least now I have some ideas how to answer those questions. Just bought XP1700+ but I don't think I will overclock it since it's a lot faster than my old Celeron 633@950.

Good day!

6583

 

[MGMorden]

Originally posted by: Duvie
The xps are better cause they have: branch prediction, hardware prefecth, SSE encodings, slightly larger core for better heat transfer....

The 1600+xp is telling you with the amd pr rating that it is equivalent to a 1600mhz tbird...so amd is telling you this should be about 15 percent faster then the 1.4tbird (266fsb) or "c" chip....

Not true. The performance ratings of the XP chips are in no way to compare them to tbirds. They are meant to compare them to P4's. The Tbirds were faster than the P4's mhz for mhz and hence would be put on a performance rating themselves, but they were simply made before AMD adopted the practice (1.4ghz XP == XP1600; 1.4ghz T-bird would be around a TB1533 or TB1566 if they made such things).