View Full Version : Athlon XP 2500-

Pages : [1] 2

08-21-02, 09:35 PM
AMD needs to reconsider their PR ratings, the xp2600+ looks more like a xp2500- because it can't even touch the pentium 4 2.53 ghz

AMD needs a faster bus, but 166mhz is not enough, a 200mhz looks more promising.

Seeing various KT400 mobos I've seen that some of them support a 200mhz FSB, so maybe there is hope.

08-21-02, 09:45 PM
i think they did reconsider their Performance Ratings with the tbred B CPUs :p

anyway, there's definitely some touching going on. just because it gets blown away in Quake 3 doesn't mean all that much

08-21-02, 09:56 PM
take a look at tom's review in almost all benchmarks the p4 defeats the athlon xp by a good margin.

08-21-02, 10:08 PM
Recall that the PR ratings are not in relation to Intel's chips, rather they are simply in relation to the Thunderbird core.

08-21-02, 10:18 PM
Quake 3: -18%, -11%
Quake3 NV15: -6%, -6%
3dmark 2000: +4%
3dmark 2001: +0%
Commanche 4: -1%
MP3 encoding: +9%, -21%
MPEG4 encoding: -1%
MPEG2 encoding: -6%
Sandra CPU: -5%, +12%
Sandra Multimedia: +18%, +4%
Sandra Memory: P4 <-- gratuitous benchmark, % is useless
Pcmark 2002: +1%
Pcmark Memory: P4 <-- again, worthless result
Sysmark 2002: -20%
Winace 2.12: -15%
Lightwave -36%
Cinema: +15%
3dsmax: -6%
SPEC DRV08: -5%
SPEC DX07: +62%
SPEC Light0505: +6%
SPEC PROE01: -13%
UGS01: +1%

note: all +%'s are the percentage that a 2600+ outscored P4. all -%'s are the percentage that a 2.53GHz outscored Athlon

Total P4: 15 Athlon: 11

looks pretty even to me

08-21-02, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by netviper13
Recall that the PR ratings are not in relation to Intel's chips, rather they are simply in relation to the Thunderbird core.

So says AMD, but do you really believe that?

08-22-02, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Cotita

So says AMD, but do you really believe that?

we all know it's meant to give Athlons a marketable number that corresponds to Pentium 4 frequencies.

08-22-02, 02:31 AM
Bah! Stop your bitchin :D
If the P4 beats the Athlon it beats it. IMO it has more to do with the entire system and OS rather than cpu alone. Of course the cpu would impact by a very large amount. If the P4 beats the AthlonXP in 1 review it doesn't in every. I have seen benchmarks in Q3 showing the Athlon kicking the P4 and vice versa all using the same map. Bah! Silly reviews. Just because something is supposed to do something doesn't mean it will as well.

StealthHawk: It doesn't matter if Tom has a P4 that can kick the Athlon's butt in nearly every benchmark. I don't play any games that get benched the most. Goodness knows what Tom could have done to those numbers. For all I know he could be pulling numbers out of his ass and giving Intel a good review so they can send him free goods.

08-22-02, 05:06 AM
the point was that the P4 doesn't win in every benchmark :D

i don't think an Athlon could beat a P4 in Q3 though, unless the P4 was using SDRAM, and the Athlon was using hyper mega ultra fast telekenetic ram ;)

08-22-02, 07:47 AM
well of course it can beat the P4 in Q3.
Just increase resolution.
I know people are saying - more resolution depends more on vga card but look if it is the same card for instance a GF4Ti4600 than i really don't care why there are any differences maybe due to better driver optimization or whatever.

If you compare a DDR P4 system to a 2600+ DDR System you can bench as much games as you would like of course in standard 1024*768 resolution. The Athlon XP will be definetly superiour and the system is cheaper.

Forget that stupid THG review. Everyone knows that THG prefers Intel.
You can see that through all his reviews of CPUs.
He mentions about 15 to 20 System configurations in his tests but not even one P4 DDR System or SDR System?
On the other hand he mentions a Athlon 800 MHZ (where is the P3 800 MHZ so that i can laugh about that too?), slow VIA Memory performance (again where is a nForce configuration and the P4 DDR and SDR Systems?). I do not think that he even considers a nForce2 plattform when they appear.

Bottom line is THG wants Intel too look good - period.
Thats all what his reviews are about.
The majority of people just reads those benchies and thinks "whow how fast the P4 is" and then they go to a store and by a crappy P4 DDR or SDR System.

The PR rating is definetly OK and again i don't care about game performance in resolutions which nobody plays.

08-22-02, 08:47 AM
I'd have to say that the P4 blasts the T-Bred in memory bandwidth intensive stuff, but that's always been the case. Other than those, I agree with StealthHawk, they're pretty even. When you consider the clock differences, it's actually pretty impressive.

Taking the cost of each into account, I'd say it should be a no-brainer which one is the better, unless you just happen to need Q3 to run at over a billion frames per second. In that case, get the P4 and run it at 320x240x16bits, all details off, and you'll be a happy camper. For most of the rest of us, it's the same deal it's been for a while now- AMD competes on practically level ground, but for a significantly lower cost, and we'll stick with 'em. In fact, once nForce2 comes out, I plan to evaluate it for my next upgrade. That may help those cranky memory benches a bit.

Oh, and I saw a review comparing the new processor to a P4 using DDR RAM yesterday. Other than the memory bandwidth benches, which admittedly Intel's controller seems to still lead in, the P4 got beat six ways to Sunday. The review made a remark about RDRAM and the fact that Intel's moving more and more to DDR for its mainstream use with P4, while RDRAM (though getting cheaper all the time) is headed for the high-end niches. In the majority of P4 systems vs. the majority of T-Bred systems, the T-Bred's gonna kill.. Just my opinion. ;)

druga runda
08-22-02, 12:22 PM
If you take AMD MB review for example, P4 barely makes a win :D. and on Hard OCP it is pretty even, so it is surely even, and when you take that PC1066 Rdram from PIV it is even more in favour of AMD, so, well... apart from that I don't think we can compare the system costs either for non overclockeres. Still even for those who overclock regularly 2400+ shows great promice (esp if the core will be for 2200, 2000+ CPU's as well.)

08-22-02, 02:22 PM
The thing is that AMD spoiled us when the Athlon XP was first released.

My XP1700+ beats the p41.7ghz I use at work in almost every test, and by a wide margin. As clock speeds increased though, the margin got smaller. The xp2000+ did still beat the p4 2ghz but not by much.

As intel moved to a .13 process and 533mhz bus, the performance difference turned around. Now the Athlon XP can barely keep up with the P4.

As I said before AMD needs a faster bus to turn the table again.

One fact remains though.

AMD has the best bang for the buck. And for me that alone makes the difference.

08-22-02, 08:16 PM
Intel has a temporary counter to the IPC issue with their massive FSB. If AMD can release a 333 FSB processor that can finally take advantage of the bandwidth of DDR 333, then they will have a winner.

08-22-02, 08:41 PM
well, i personally disagree with your assessment that TH favors Intel. if you read the conclusions on just about every CPU review over there it goes something like this.

for new AMD CPU: AMD has done a great job in taking the performance crown from Intel

for new Intel CPU: Intel has the fastest chip on the block, but AMD offers a much better value and comes close to its performance

comparing a high end CPU with mainstream memory, and not a configuration that gives top performance is silly. no one in their right mind is going to buy a 2.53GHz P4 and pair it with SDRAM. no one in their right mind would even buy a P4 with SDRAM now, given that DDR is supported and is more or less the same price. i will concede that DDR333 or DDR400 scores should have been included though, i can see that as a viable pairing.

08-28-02, 12:00 AM
I don't buy the Athlon XP PR rating being compared to a Thunderbird. The differnce between the Thunderbird and XP core is like 3-5%. And IF It was indeed there to compare to a Thunderbird core, why would it need to be altered in the higher speed versions? (2600 and 2400 use a differnt scale)

2133 + 5% = 2239

so 2133 + 22% = 2600. There is no way in hell, the XP core was EVER even close to 22% faster then a equally clocked Thunderbird.


Edit: I think everyone knows a Thunderbird clocked at 2600 Mhz Would stomp all over a Athlon XP 2600+, and the P4's as well. Of course the Tbird core is not capapble of reaching such speeds.

08-28-02, 03:10 AM
larger TLBs, SSE support and a Data prefetch Unit is more than 5 %. I think the advantage is near the 10% range.

In the end i dont care to which CPU the rating is compared too.
The 2600 is superiour to the P4 2,53 GHZ in those applications i use with DDR RAM of course.

And i do not use Sysmark at home :)

08-28-02, 03:48 PM
Even if it was 10%, which I suppose would be possible in certain situations, but most definatly not a solid 10% all the time. It will still only be an Athlon XP 2350, not 2600+

The PR is clearly there to compare to the P4.


EDIT: if you dig around you can find some reviews of the orginal Athlon XP's that pit it against the old Thunderbird core, I remeber reading them, the differnce was marginal.

08-31-02, 03:41 PM
Compairing Rambus to DDR is not right! Expensive PC1066 Vs PC2100 lmao heck even PC3200 can't beat PC1066!

09-01-02, 08:17 PM
Essense: Yes, it can. The B cores can reach 2.6GHz with either a 133MHz FSB or a 166MHz FSB. (133x20=2660, 166x16=2600). I think somebody even got a 2.88GHz clock with a supercooler.

The B core has a LOT of clock potential. I think that once AMD makes an Athlon with a 333MHz FSB AND once VIA fixes their DDR400 memory woes and gives us a decent platform, THEN the Athlon will be on even ground with the P4, even though it almost is, IMO.

09-02-02, 10:44 PM
Read my post again silly, I said Tbird Core. Not Thoughbred.

There's Thunderbird, Palamino, Thorughbred and now Thorughbred B.


09-03-02, 06:02 PM
it is compared to the T-bird core, officially anyway....

if you recall the original P4 (256kb) 1.4Ghz was smashed up by the 1.4ghz T-bird

if you compare the XP1700+ to the P4 256kb 1.7ghz it should have roughly the same performance increase in proportion to the above set up (*i think if i recall correctly*)

09-04-02, 12:04 AM
Even if AMD did state that it was officially a comparison to the Old Tbird Core's, it's obvious that it is there to compare to the Pentium 4. And there statement is nothing more then marketing to keep them from looking bad. The numbers don't lie.


09-04-02, 04:14 AM
took me bloody ages to find it btu here

stuff (http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/Benchmarking_Methodology2_v2.5.pdf)

read down to the graph part....

09-05-02, 12:54 AM
That graph only strengthens my theory that the XP PR rating system is there to compare to the Pentium 4 and Not the Orginal Athlon Thunderbird. In the first graph we see the Athlon XP Core outperforming the Orginal Thunderbird core by 6%.

1.4 Ghz Orginal Thunderbird Vs 1.4 Ghz Athlon XP. 6% is the differnce.

That would mean the PR Rating would be 1.4 Ghz + 6%. Which would mean it would take a 1484 Mhz Orginal Thunderbird to equel the same speed as a 1.4 ghz Athlon XP. Which would Yield a performance Rating of Athlon XP 1.484 not Athlon XP 1500+

As the Mhz ramp out the differnce margin becomes much more.

If we take an Athlon Xp 2200+(1.8 Ghz) and add 6% we would get a PR rating of 1908. Which means it would take an Original Athlon 1908 Mhz to equal an Athlon XP at 1800. It's blatantly obvious the Rating is for the P4.


P.s for those of you also wondering if you should upgrade processors. The differnce between a 1.4 Ghz Thunderbird and a 1.8 Ghz Athlon XP 2200+ is only 23% according to the information in the PDF shown above. If you overclock your chip it's even less.