Why no Athlon 1.53Ghz MP review?

[TopQ]

I don't understand why Anandtech didn't review the new Athlon MP running at 1.53 Ghz. Since there is little known about the scalability of the MP athlon plataform, this would have been a good opportunity to explore it a little further.
If we consider that a review of the Athlon 1900+ (a 4.5% increase in clock speed) was ready the same day it was launched, you would think that an increase of almost 30% (actually 27.5 %) in clock speed would make the new MP a must review.
It almost would be like having an athlon XP 2.0 Ghz (27% over 1.6 GHz) without a review (well not as bad but you get the idea). Sure the MP is not as wildely used as the single processor computers but I am sure Anandtech's readers would be very intersted on reading it.

TopQ

 

[smp]

New MP? News to me! I'de like to see some dual MP action spanking some dual P4 action... it'd be like a big orgy of CPU fetishism.

 

[Athlon4all]

Here's why. In non-SMP, it's identical to the XP, and we allready know that the MP 1.2 Spanks the Xeon.

 

[TopQ]

I guess you missundertood my request. I was talking about a MULTIPROCESSOR test in a MULTIPROCESSOR motherboard. The only test I have seen here is the old 1.2 MP not the 1.53 GHz which is considerably higher in clock speed (~30 %) to warrant its own test.
I would really like to see how the AMD plataform SCALES UP in a multiprocessor enviroment since there is very litte data (at least in this site) about it.



TopQ

 

[John]

<< Here's why. In non-SMP, it's identical to the XP, and we allready know that the MP 1.2 Spanks the Xeon. >>



Unfortunately the MP is not exactly the same as the XP. The MP offers "smart MP technology" and is guaranteed to work in dual configurations.

 

[Rellik]

John, check the GamePC review. They are almost identical. Only difference is that the MP is not that hard to unlock because the bridges aren´t cut as the XP ones. The technical aspects: cache, features etc. are IDENTICAL. They even used XP and MP side by side.
worked fine. I was going to go for the MP´s, but over here they are very hard to get and cost up to twice what the XP costs so there is no way I am wasting that much cash.

 

[John]

According to one of the senior techs @ the AMD Tech Tour I attended, the difference is what I described in the above post. All K7 cpu's should run in SMP config, but only the MP is quaranteed to do so. In addition, the keyword used here was exact, and with that in mind the MP is NOT identical to the XP.

 

[serialb]

<<

<< Here's why. In non-SMP, it's identical to the XP, and we allready know that the MP 1.2 Spanks the Xeon. >>



Unfortunately the MP is not exactly the same as the XP. The MP offers "smart MP technology" and is guaranteed to work in dual configurations. >>



John, you are still missing his most important point, he is talking about the difference between XP and MP in a non-SMP environment.

serialb

 

[John]

<< John, you are still missing his most important point, he is talking about the difference between XP and MP in a non-SMP environment.

serialb >>



That's irrelevant. My original post was to clarify what Athlon4all added to the conversation. They may perform the same, but they are NOT an identical cpu. In addition, topQ clearly stated I was talking about a MULTIPROCESSOR test in a MULTIPROCESSOR motherboard.

 

[serialb]

Of course they aren't identical, I understand that. If so, why would they even bother making it different? AFAIK, they ONLY difference between XP and MP is SMP capability. I am not dead sure about it, that's why I searched for "Athlon MP" here in GH, hoping for an answer.

serialb

 

[John]

Actually the more I read Athlon4all's post, I am sure he was referring to the performance, not the design.

 

[Athlon4all]

I was talking about performance. Not just in non-SMP but in SMP also. We allready know that 2x 1.2 MP's spank 2x 1.7 Xeons, and prolly a 1.3 MP will spank 2x 2.0 Xeons