View Full Version : Athlon 2600+ Lives

08-21-02, 12:18 AM
very impressive, AMD has redesigned the tbred and increased clockspeed to an actual 2GHz(2400) and 2133MHz respectively. they are back in the running for performance king :) still no sign of the 166FSB though :(

at least now we know AMD won't be left in the dust until Hammer, they will fight Intel all the way!

druga runda
08-21-02, 04:04 AM
Atually 2700+ should be with 333FSB acording to the Inquirer today ;)

08-21-02, 07:03 AM
ah yes, the good old reliable Inquirer :rolleyes: :o :p

druga runda
08-21-02, 12:59 PM
And it is due to be out in October :D

We shall see as they say.

08-21-02, 01:06 PM
I am excited about the future AMD cpu's but seriously when is AMD going to improve there heat problem. I mean they had to change their cpu fan requirements to copper base for these 2 cpu's. AAAAAAH, oh well at least the performance is great and the price is right or at least cheaper than the P4's.

08-21-02, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by druga runda
Atually 2700+ should be with 333FSB acording to the Inquirer today ;)

I've heard it was supposed to be 2800+, never heard of 2700+

08-21-02, 02:12 PM
yeah, AMD is skipping odd numbers it seems now...

08-21-02, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Matthyahuw
yeah, AMD is skipping odd numbers it seems now...

Following in Intel's footsteps in that lack of odd numbers. I too think that this is an impressive response by AMD to the complaints against the Thoroughbred core. I suppose this may help silence the doubts about Hammer's using the process, eh?

08-21-02, 10:21 PM
They are OC'ing them real close to 3GHz with water cooling...

08-22-02, 01:00 AM
Is there anything about prices yet,I guess I no what I will get for my birthday now.Looking at the reviews they look like they will be better overclockers than the XP2200.

08-22-02, 06:12 AM
No prices available yet; streetprices.com ha sno entries whatsoever for the 2400+ or the 2600+.

As for a 166MHz FSB clock, since the 2600+ supposedly has OC headroom up to about 2.88GHz (with supercooling), I don't think it will croak with a 166MHz FSB: 166x15=2496, 2.49GHz. Wonderful :) :) :)

08-22-02, 08:14 AM
My normal upgrade cycle hits in the springtime, but thanks to both the new AMD processor releases and the soon-to-be-on-the-market nForce2's, I may try to convince the wife I need the motherboard / processor for a b-day present in late October / early November.

One thing's for sure, now that AMD's showing the true headroom that is available for the T-Bred's, even if I don't manage the upgrade this year, I'll most likely stick with a high-end overclockable T-Bred and skip hammer for a year or so, and let that processor and it's chipsets mature before I move up to it. (I WILL eventually move to Hammer, but I'd like it to be well-broken-in first).

Between these new processors and the R300/nV30, things are really looking good for us. :)

08-22-02, 08:32 AM
Now if VIA could just get rid of the bugs in their memory bus designs, Intel would be in 2nd place again, just like when AMD hit 1GHz first. IIRC, DDR400 memory performance on the KT400 sucks due to bugs in the northbridge (read OCWorkbench's review at www.ocworkbech.com (http://www.ocworkbench.com/2002/asus/a7v8x/a7v8xp1.htm) )

08-22-02, 08:31 PM
DDR400, and DDR300 for that matter, has "sucky" performance because the CPU makes little to no use of the extra bandwidth

edit: i was of course referring to Athlons, not P4s, sorry for any confusion :)

08-23-02, 12:18 PM
Agreed - so far only benchmarks can saturate the memory bandwidth of either platform. I haven't heard of anything else which can do that yet.

08-23-02, 01:09 PM
Actually, from the comparisons of P4/DDR to Athlons/DDR, it seems that the Athlon processors have a hard time taking advantage of the bandwidth the memory allows. The P4 results show that the bandwidth IS available with DDR though. (Look at Q3 results, much of which is due to P4 being able to better capitalize on the available memory bandwidth than the Athlon).

In any case, nothing I do requires such extreme performance in memory bandwidth intensive apps. (Q3, which I rarely play anyway, already gets outrageously high framerates WITHOUT the extra boost P4 adds, and I don't use most of the workstation class software that otherwise makes up the majority of that type of app). So I'll probably stick with the Athlons, primarily because of the bang-for-the-buck, since nearly everything I use it for is either competitive with the P4, or at least more than fast enough. (how much do I care about how fast word processes page formatting at this point?)

Edit: BTW, I expect that the Hammers, once fully optimized and with proper drivers, will fix the memory utilization issues, thanks to the onboard controller..

08-27-02, 11:46 PM
I feel the upgrade itch coming on myself. However I really have no reason to ugprade whatsoever. Im still runing on a 1.4 Ghz Thunderbird clocked at 1533 Mhz, 640 MB of ram and a TI 500. None of the games I play right now give me any issues as far as performance go's at 1280x1024. Have you guys seen the benchmarks in Tom's hardware guide with the Radeon 9700 on a Athlon XP 1800 (1.53 Ghz)? They are amazing. Yes the faster processors scale up better, but even the 1.53 Ghz system is much faster with a Radeon 9700 then with a Ti4600. In other words, 1.5 Ghz Athlons still have NO Problems driving Next gen video cards. You'd think you would only seen marginal increase in performance over a Ti4600, thinking it would be CPU bound, but the differnce is still huge. Anyways I don't see a reason to upgrade until Doom 3 and other games like it are released. By then we'll have 3.4 Ghz P4's and 3.0 Ghz Bartons, with NV30, posibly NV35, or R350.


08-28-02, 03:10 AM
try playing Tenebrae Quake and that situation will change. i can't even get 60fps at 640X480 with AF and FSAA off. if this is anything like the performance of Doom 3, then that will be a very good time to upgrade