was anyone else disappointed with the XP2600+ benchmarks?

[Jmmsbnd007]

It's 700 mhz slower than a 2.8 P4, yet it was on par/over in most of the benchmarks...

 

[DeschutesCore]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
DeschutesCore: I don't want to start a flame, but my whole point here is that this has ALLWAYS been their stand (AMD). No, I don't have the text to copy from their site, because I can't find it anymore, but I remember it as if it was yesterday. PLEASE believe me that this was exactly their stance at the time. Their whole idea, was the "megahertz is not all", and they wanted to try to even the scales, and even today are trying to get a "CPU performance rating system" that is standard among all processors.

Edit: I don't suppose there is anybody out there that was anal enough to copy their white paper or text from their site when they first started this rating system ?? If so, PLEASE post it here to stop this argument once and for all.

Not interested in a flame war, conversation is the substance I feed on. If the general consensus is that this was always AMD's intention, then I was informed incorrectly. I can't fault the world for having different data, and with this many people insisting it's true, I have no choice but to accept it as fact.

Thanks for not flaming me in return.

DC

 

[Markfw]

DeschutesCore: You are welcome, and what a pleasant change from some of the a$$ hole people that are not constructive. And Cool, 2 XP's and 2 t-birds in your farm. (close to as many as me, but I'm not married and can get away with it)

But on-topic, I really think they are pretty close. I wonder which OEM's are getting all the CPU's ? (per the Ace hardware review) If they deliver retail enduser distribution by the end of September (hopefully sooner) at a competative price, we all win !! (Intel lovers and AMD) I hope the war lasts forever, and I will never have to pay $500 for a CPU ever again. (I paid $500 in 1991 or 1992 for a 486 DX2-66)

 

[newbiepcuser]

Never been disappointed in their prices 😀

Esp. when building systems/mini upgrade for budget consicous friends.

 

[Gstanfor]

Taken from the Hardocp conclusion.

Comparing a Pentium 4 2.53 DDR333 system to a DDR333 AthlonXP 2600+ box, it's pretty obvious that the AthlonXP lives up to and beyond its "2600" rating. Moving onto RDRAM boxes of the 16-bit and 32-bit variety, the "2600" does not so obviously earn its stripes. Then again, most of you folks are not buying RDRAM even when you're investing in Pentium 4 systems, so it's damn near a moot point to even bring an RDRAM system into the equation. RDRAM boxes will soon be gone from the desktop segment anyway, so for argument purposes, let's focus on DDR platforms.

The only way anyone could be dissapointed in the rating is if your are comparing to an RDRAM system. I'd also add that AMD probably was targetting the 400mhz FSB P4's, not the 533's. Anyone who still wants to argue the RDRAM/533FSB P4 is still better needs to take pricing into account also.

Greg

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: DeschutesCore

Originally posted by: Markfw900
OK. One more time, a quote from Tomshardware review , and which I remember from AMD's site when the XP rating started:

Quote from Tomshardware review of Xp2600+:
With the launch of the Athlon XP with the Palomino core, AMD also introduced its new model number system, called P-rating. The idea behind this was to create a direct comparison to arch-rival Intel, which markets its CPUs using "real" megahertz figures. This is a language that the less tech-savvy customers can understand: megahertz and gigabyte. As we've already determined in numerous articles, a processor's performance capabilities cannot be analyzed in terms of pure clock rate numbers.

Did he really say gigabyte or did the translator screw up AGAIN? Either way, I think I'll trust AMD over Tom on this one.

DC

with all due respect dude I think you're wrong... from what I remember back when the first XP was launched, the PR rating compares to its rivals, ie P4...

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: Vespasian
I'm disappointed that it doesn't have a 166MHz DDR FSB.

that was my main beef with it, but as Anand said in his review, the 2600+ just doesn't need that much memory bandwidth yet and 133mhz is still fast enough for it... But as clock speeds ramp up and as the hammer comes out I think AMD would be very wise to shift to 166mhz or even 200mhz FSBs... I mean Intel's already at a theoretical 533mhz whereas even with a whoppin 200mhz AMD would still only have 400mhz theoritical...

 

[RSMemphis]

I was rather impressed though. Seems AMD got a decent processor out - question is what will the price be?

If it's 10% less performance (compared to a 2.6 on average) for 40% less price, then it is a very viable option.

 

[BlvdKing]

I am very impressed by the new TBred 'B'. I think the 2400+ model is the real winner though. It's probably a downgraded 2600+, and I bet that with decent cooling it could run at an FSB of close to 166 MHz.

 

[DFO]

Why do I not believe the 2.53 intel will be below 200$?

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: RSMemphis
I was rather impressed though. Seems AMD got a decent processor out - question is what will the price be?

If it's 10% less performance (compared to a 2.6 on average) for 40% less price, then it is a very viable option.

from what i could draw it will be around 20% cheaper, even after the upcoming price cuts

 

[RSMemphis]

Originally posted by: franguinho

Originally posted by: RSMemphis
I was rather impressed though. Seems AMD got a decent processor out - question is what will the price be?

If it's 10% less performance (compared to a 2.6 on average) for 40% less price, then it is a very viable option.

from what i could draw it will be around 20% cheaper, even after the upcoming price cuts

Possibly. Haven't seen any good sources for prices yet.

What I meant to say is the closer the price difference will be to something like 40%, the more viable it is as an option.
20% will do for some, not for others.

 

[Alex]

true... i am amd zlot all the way tho! 😛

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: franguinho

Originally posted by: RSMemphis
I was rather impressed though. Seems AMD got a decent processor out - question is what will the price be?

If it's 10% less performance (compared to a 2.6 on average) for 40% less price, then it is a very viable option.

from what i could draw it will be around 20% cheaper, even after the upcoming price cuts

AMD unveils new chips, cuts prices

The two new Athlon chips will list for $297 and $193, respectively. And given a new round of price cuts, the 2400+ chip will list for only slightly more than the 2200+, which was lowered 20 percent from $230 to $183.

AMD also reduced prices by between 3 percent and 12 percent on the rest of its desktop Athlon XP models. It cut the price of the 2100+ chip from $180 to $174; the 2000+ chip from $163 to $155; the 1900+ chip from $150 to $139; the 1800+ from $142 to $130; and the 1700+ from $130 to $114.

 

[Mavrick007]

I think alot of people were expecting the 2400+ to be around 1.93Ghz and the 2600+ to be 2.03Ghz cause that would be the logical progression to their speeds, but according to this, the same extra frequency is not getting the overall speed increase(it should have been 2500+ for 2Ghz and 2700+ for the 2.13Ghz if calculated on the old formula).

I was a bit disappointed in the actual performance increase, but I still think it's a step in the right direction. They need to release something faster and the next jump after this should be alot sooner than what it has been taking them to release a new chip. I think that this would have been a good time to stop using the "PR" cause they have broken the 2Ghz barrier and that's not too bad of a speed to be touting now. Plus they could be focusing on the performance that the get from a chip that is 400Mhz less in frequency but is still giving the P4 a run for its money.

I think that it will always be someone one upping the other in this race but it's nice to see that AMD has taken steps to keep it alive right now considering they refined the whole process. I really can't wait for Barton and then Hammer later. If they're smart, they will test out the 166fsb and the 512k cache on the Barton and then really blow away competition with the Hammer as long as their intro is a fast enough processor (ie. not 800Mhz Hammer but one of the "over 2Ghz" Hammers alluded to).