T-bred 2500+ (2.0 Ghz)

[BDSM]

Check this link out..

Swiss computer dealer

It seems like the rumours about the T-bred not making it to 2 ghz may not be entirely true after all. I believe this chip will give AMD the performance crown back.

I am going to get me one of these and pair it with an Abit kx333 running 166 mhz bus. At 13*166=2166 mhz it is bound to outperform even a 3 Ghz+ Northwood. (In my own humble opinion that is) Anyway.. 2166 mhz is about an 8% overclock.. Should be easy.. And who knows.. Maybe it will go to 2333 mhz.. or even 2500 mhz! *drooool*

 

[DivideBYZero]

That is nothing. reports are coming in of 2.7Ghz from the 2200+

Linkage:

Tbred @ 2.7Ghz - Go on, junk your 1.6A's

 

[BDSM]

WOW man!!! I hadn't seen that! thanx!!

*droooooool*

166*16=2666 mhz.. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmhhz

*drooooooooooooooool*

It would take a pretty fast p4 to compete with that!!!

 

[FIFO]

Now all we need is confirmation as to which mobos will support the t-bred.

AMD took the .18 process from 600Mhz to 1733Mhz. That is quite impressive. Even if the K7 design on .13 can only get half of that increase, it would still put it at nearly 1.5 times the current speed. That would be 2600Mhz. The total clock speed range on .18 afforded a 2.9 times increase. That would be 4850Mhz

Now I certainly don't believe that the t-bred will get anywheres near 4Ghz, but consider the following. The Palomino design is supposed to be the best and from what we are hearing the second-last k7 design. It has allowed the highest speeds with the .18 process. We are told that the t-bred is ONLY a die shrink and even if that is so, it still means that the palomino design will be given a very good starting point.

If we play hypothesize one more time, there is a shrink of 30% from Pal to t-bred. If that were to only translate to a 30% oc with air cooling from the first batches of silicon, that is still an oc from 1733Mhz to 2250Mhz. I would love to see what water cooling would do considering that Toms HW got an axp 1900+ from 1733Mhz to 1918Mhz and that the average oc on overclockers.com for an axp 2100+ is 1957Mhz.

A truly amazing day that will be like coal on the fire for the AMD vs. Intel debates and competitions.

Jason.

 

[BDSM]

Fifo.. I agree.. this is truly exciting stuff!! Hopefully this will make for a real pricewar during summer and autumn!!

 

[BDSM]

Btw.. The KT400 seems to be coming pretty soon. If it has the correct divisor (/6) it will be an overclockers dream!!

T-bred @ 2.6 Ghz on a 200 mhz bus using high quality ram running at agressive timings at 200 mhz. This should make for some incredible performance!

I am using a celeron 2 1200 now.. It works.. I said to myself I will change when there is a cpu that is twice as fast or better.. Soon it will be!!

 

[JFL]

AMD would get a lot more performance out of there cpu's if they just raised the FBS from 133mhz to 166mhz. Getting performance is not just about raising cpu mhz.

 

[BarMan]

All I'm thinking about is the PRICE of this T-Bred....

Currency conversion results
Date: 04 Jun 2002
642 in Swiss francs equals: 0.6427 (1.5559)
Exchange rate: 412.62 US dollars (noon)

$413... pretty steep you guys.

I'd also wish it was 166fsb... would definately help the performance. I hope the price will fall immediately to around the $200-$250 range making the crown ever sweeter!

I also hope AMD will start back leaving there processors factory unlocked for overclockers ease or at least make an OCer's processor.... label it the 2200 Pro or something, lol. Make it easy on us we want MHZ too!!!

 

[FIFO]

No, but unfortunately sales are gotten that way.

As has been stated many times in the past, we enthusiasts are a VERY slim percentage of all the PC customers. Just because WE love or hate a product, does not mean that Intel or AMD will not be successful selling it to "Joe six-pack" (taken from overclockers.com).

I hate it as much as the next guy who understands what Mhz is all about, but the undeniable fact is that Intel has a more attractive widget for the masses. As I read somewhere, AMD was all giddy and quick to point out that it was the first to 1Ghz, but now they are all "But Mhz is not the end all be all".

Even if the extra performance does not impress the enthusiast, the Mhz will impress the market and that will help AMD sell product and stay alive to give us another cool product.

 

[BarMan]

you are quite right on that FIFO, I just hope AMD does it right for those 'masses' to raise sales. Give them the pretty little number they like to see so we enthusiast can have great products in the future!

Hmm... with this T-bred... who do you think will hit 3Ghz first??

 

[Soulkeeper]

hahaha
intel will hit 3ghz first for sure
your comparing apples and oranges remember that a 2ghz athlon is not a 2ghz P4
take the processor's ipc and other design factors into account

 

[FIFO]

Check the content of the last few posts first there Mr. Soulkeeper. We are talking about marketing.

Joe six-pack only understands Mhz and if we enthusiasts want to see our beloved AMD survive to fight another day, they have to fight fire with fire. There is no point in trying to try and educate the masses on why IPC is the REAL benchmark that matters.

You are talking about North Americans (The reason that I single us out is because we buy the most stuff). We have been so over exposed to big block V-8 cars that no matter what you try to say, you can never convince the majority of the populous that the Porche or Ferrari with the V-6 can kick the a$$ off a Corvette or Mustang. 80% or more of the general populous are lemmings. They will go anywheres that the TV tells them to or buy whatever they are told to. The problem is that there are too many lemmings that are in positions of power that only see the Mhz and not the IPC. They only see $$$.

 

[Mikewarrior2]

well, remember that the micro-sized contact surface + very minimal voltage drop on the CPu results in tbred 2200+'s not being all that much lighter than a palomino counterpart, and the high wattage/sq mm of contact surface makes it much more difficult to cool.

yes, for the top tier heatsinks it shouldn't be an issue, but many people use middle grade to poorer grade heatsinks with questionable base quality... with those heatsinks, the smaller contact surface will definately effect cooling.


Mike

 

[mordrid52]

You are talking about North Americans (The reason that I single us out is because we buy the most stuff). We have been so over exposed to big block V-8 cars that no matter what you try to say, you can never convince the majority of the populous that the Porche or Ferrari with the V-6 can kick the a$$ off a Corvette or Mustang.

This is definately off topic, but if you're going to make an analogy, try not to be completely clueless about it. First off, Ferraris have V-8s and Porches have H-6s (not V-6s). Second, a 2002 Corvette Z06 can easily keep up with a Porche 911 Turbo or a Ferrari 360. The 2003 Mustang Cobra is within spitting distance of both cars and is more than a match for a regular non-turbo 911.

Oh wait, I must be one of those North American lemmings. My bad.

 

[Mingon]

a 2002 Corvette Z06 can easily keep up with a Porche 911 Turbo or a Ferrari 360. The 2003 Mustang Cobra is within spitting distance of both cars and is more than a match for a regular non-turbo 911.

Sounds like you need to learn your cars no corvette can keep up with either of those cars, and thats before you hit some corner.as for the cobra I would love to see one keep up with a 911rs LOL.

 

[mordrid52]

Sounds like you need to learn your cars no corvette can keep up with either of those cars, and thats before you hit some corner.as for the cobra I would love to see one keep up with a 911rs LOL.[/quote]

You don't even know what a Corvette Z06 or the new Cobra is, do you? Z06, 911 Turbo, and 360 Modena all can run about 4 seconds 0-60 and 1/4 mile in low 12 seconds. The '03 Cobra runs around 4.5 seconds 0-60 and 12.5 seconds in the 1/4 mile while a normal 911 Carrera is 5 seconds 0-60 and about 13 seconds 1/4 mile.

On a road course, a Z06 can keep up with either European car (although the Mustang would be out of its league). The Z06 might not beat the Ferrari, but it would still be breathing down the Modenas neck (which is pretty good for a car costing 1/3 as much).

 

[FIFO]

Blah blah there mordrid52...

As you are the only one to notice the errors that I put in that post, I congratulate you...

On missing the point. Almost no one in NA knows what you just made comment to in regards to the specs of the engines. The sheer fact that you believe for one instant that the vette and the mustang can even dream of competeing with most true exotics proves that you are what you said.

I guess that I should have made reference to the displacement of the engines instead. That way you could not refute that it is quite possible to do more with less and less with more. The problem is that a lot of people only care about cylinders or displacement and not timing, compression, fuel/air mixtures/ratios, exhaust flow/backpressure, etc...

The total package is what can't be very easily taught. That is why mareting is a necessary evil...

P.S. -- Thanks for jumping in Mingon.

 

[SSXeon5]

Originally posted by: Mingon

a 2002 Corvette Z06 can easily keep up with a Porche 911 Turbo or a Ferrari 360. The 2003 Mustang Cobra is within spitting distance of both cars and is more than a match for a regular non-turbo 911.

Sounds like you need to learn your cars no corvette can keep up with either of those cars, and thats before you hit some corner.as for the cobra I would love to see one keep up with a 911rs LOL.

Um for $50k i can get a 2002 corvette Zo6 405HP-400lbs/tq and does 0-60 in 3.9secs and 1/4mile 12.4. The 360 has 400HP-275lbs/tq is about $180k does 0-60 4.5sec 1/4 mile 12.6. The 2003 Mustang Cobra has 390HP-390lbs/tq is about $45k dows 0-60 4.6secs 1/4 mile 12.9secs.

As for that FAKE TBred .... aahahahah you all think its real. Explain the 384k L2 .... the TBred has 256k L2. And the 2500+ is the last TBred to be released accordingto AMDs offical roadmap They wont release the last one first I cant believe all of you think this is real LMFAO

SSXeon

 

[BDSM]

Ssxeon.. you are a stupid mofo aren't u? They are ofcourse referring to the total on die cache which is 384 KB

 

[SSXeon5]

Originally posted by: BDSM
Ssxeon.. you are a stupid mofo aren't u? They are ofcourse referring to the total on die cache which is 384 KB

Hey dumba$$ it says 384k L2 ..... athlon has 128k L1 256k L2 So whos the stupid mofo?

SSXeon

 

[dew042]

can't we all just get along?

dew.

 

[mordrid52]

Originally posted by: FIFO
Blah blah there mordrid52...

As you are the only one to notice the errors that I put in that post, I congratulate you...

On missing the point. Almost no one in NA knows what you just made comment to in regards to the specs of the engines. The sheer fact that you believe for one instant that the vette and the mustang can even dream of competeing with most true exotics proves that you are what you said.

Bugatti Veyrons, McLaren F1s, Lamborghinis, Pagani Zondas, and Saleen S7s are true exotics. Ferraris 360s and Porsche Turbos are just nice sportscars.

I guess that I should have made reference to the displacement of the engines instead. That way you could not refute that it is quite possible to do more with less and less with more.

I'll save you the trouble. 360 Modena - 3.6 Liter V-8. 911 Turbo - 3.6 Liter Twin-Turbo H-6.

The problem is that a lot of people only care about cylinders or displacement and not timing, compression, fuel/air mixtures/ratios, exhaust flow/backpressure, etc...

Personally, I'd take the Porsche 911 Turbo over an overpriced Ferrari or crappy Chevy. However, you're bashing of the Z06 simply because it is an American car with a high-displacement, older-technology V-8 that provides way more torque than the Ferrari (and not a European car with a high-revving or turbo-charged engine) seems to indicate you're failing to look at the "big picture" (actual performance) and are every bit as much a lemming as the people you're decrying so much. You simply belong to the opposing camp of lemmings.

The total package is what can't be very easily taught. That is why mareting is a necessary evil...

To bring this vaguely back on topic, AMD processors don't have a better "total package" vs. Intel processors (unless you count cost). High IPC and low clock speed (AMD) isn't any better than low IPC and high clock speed (Intel). Both are perfectly valid engineering techniques for increasing processor performance. But, as long as Intel thinks they can charge a 200% premium on their processors simply because they are Intel, I'll stick with AMD and get the same performace for less (which is, ironically, the exact same situation with a $50,000 Z06 vs a $120,000+ Porsche or a $150,000+ Ferrari, although I'd still take the Porsche anyways).

 

[SSXeon5]

Originally posted by: mordrid52

Originally posted by: FIFO
Blah blah there mordrid52...

As you are the only one to notice the errors that I put in that post, I congratulate you...

On missing the point. Almost no one in NA knows what you just made comment to in regards to the specs of the engines. The sheer fact that you believe for one instant that the vette and the mustang can even dream of competeing with most true exotics proves that you are what you said.

Bugatti Veyrons, McLaren F1s, Lamborghinis, Pagani Zondas, and Saleen S7s are true exotics. Ferraris 360s and Porsche Turbos are just nice sportscars.

I guess that I should have made reference to the displacement of the engines instead. That way you could not refute that it is quite possible to do more with less and less with more.

I'll save you the trouble. 360 Modena - 3.6 Liter V-8. 911 Turbo - 3.6 Liter Twin-Turbo H-6.

The problem is that a lot of people only care about cylinders or displacement and not timing, compression, fuel/air mixtures/ratios, exhaust flow/backpressure, etc...

Personally, I'd take the Porsche 911 Turbo over an overpriced Ferrari or crappy Chevy. However, you're bashing of the Z06 simply because it is an American car with a high-displacement, older-technology V-8 that provides way more torque than the Ferrari (and not a European car with a high-revving or turbo-charged engine) seems to indicate you're failing to look at the "big picture" (actual performance) and are every bit as much a lemming as the people you're decrying so much. You simply belong to the opposing camp of lemmings.

The total package is what can't be very easily taught. That is why mareting is a necessary evil...

To bring this vaguely back on topic, AMD processors don't have a better "total package" vs. Intel processors (unless you count cost). High IPC and low clock speed (AMD) isn't any better than low IPC and high clock speed (Intel). Both are perfectly valid engineering techniques for increasing processor performance. But, as long as Intel thinks they can charge a 200% premium on their processors simply because they are Intel, I'll stick with AMD and get the same performace for less (which is, ironically, the exact same situation with a $50,000 Z06 vs a $120,000+ Porsche or a $150,000+ Ferrari, although I'd still take the Porsche anyways).

Hey mordrid52,

You sure know your sh*t ... other then the other retards BTW get your $120k porsche and leme get my z06 and 725HP lingenfelter mods Total is about $90k for everything including Z06, testion, and a 9.2sec 1/4mile But Im with you ... I want a GT2 soooooo bad. Too bad the $180k price tag Anyways ....

SSXeon

 

[BDSM]

Xeon... If you look around the net you will find that they state the l2 as 384 KB in many places. I tried to explain to you that it is the total on die cache they are talking about. I guess it didn't work.

 

[MadRat]

XEON thrives on FUD.