AOA Forums AOA Forums AOA Forums Folding For Team 45 AOA Files Home Front Page Become an AOA Subscriber! UserCP Calendar Memberlist FAQ Search Forum Home


Go Back   AOA Forums > Hardware > AMD Motherboards & CPUs

AMD Motherboards & CPUs Questions or comments on AMD products?


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10th February, 2003, 04:53 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2002
Posts: 44

BARTON by the FAN Ratings

Barton 3000+ (2800+, 2500+) was introduced today, and you can pick your review based on how big an AMD fan the author is. Tom's Hardware found the existing 2800+ outperformed the new Barton 3000+ and complained loudly - with benchmarks - that the Barton Performance Ratings were not justified. He did, however, do the best overclocking analysis of the P4 and Barton and generated some of the more interesting graphs. What he failed to do was look at the t'bred "B" in his analysis - which DOES do the 200FSB he found "impossible" on Barton. You can see his review at http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/index.html

Kyle at [H]ardOCP is a huge Athlon fan and this is crystal-clear in his selection of benchmarks - mostly older - that we all know favor the Athlon anyway. Even when he finds the Barton won't overclock to 200 the way t'bred "B" does, he found a positive spin - and it is only in his conclusion that he in passing shares that 2800+ t'bred "B" beats Barton in many tests. As you can see at http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDI2LDE= he concludes that Barton is right there with the 3.06 and that 3000+ is the correct rating. He even calls Barton's 512k Cache as important as Intel's Hyperthreading.

Anand goes to 30 pages in his very balanced review. He seems to always back away a bit from saying what his numbers actually prove, but he clearly explains why the cache increase makes less difference on Barton than on Northwood. He also shows numbers that point to the t'bred "B" being the more accurate Performance Rating - but he doesn't actually say that. As usual the technical work is brilliant, but the analysis doesn't go far enough. If you prove a point, say it - not everyone sees the numbers speaking as Anand does. You can catch this at http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1783

The best I can digest from all the Fans, Skeptics, and Engineers is:
1) The t'bred "B" series is actually clocked at higher REAL speed than Barton at the same Performance Rating. The PR for t'bred B seems pretty accurate, while Barton may be optimistic - for Marketing reasons.
2) More important the 256k cache t'bred B right now runs at 200FSB and appears to overclock better at a cheaper price than Barton. After reading reviews it seems clear AMD could NOT produce a 512k cache Barton that would run reliably at 200FSB - and I believe that is the only reason Barton is now 166 instead of 200.
3) The 2800+ at 2.25GHZ has such rotten yields it will never see the light of day as a production CPU. The current t'bred B process is against a wall at about 2.2GHz real - which is why we are seeing 512k cache instead of higher real speed.
4) The best Athlon for "traditional" Athlon "VALUE" - low price and breathtaking overclocking - is the 2100+ T'Bred B at present. Any of the 2100+, 2400+, 2600+, and 2700+ can make it to about 2.3 to 2.4GHz with minimal effort. The 2400+ to 2700+ all OC about the same. It may take a tiny bit more voltage for the 2100+ to get to that same overclock - but hey it's $95. The 3000+ is $600 and won't overclock this far according to all reports except Tom's Hardware. The 2100+ B also runs at 200FSB and higher just fine in the Epox/FIC.
5) AMD will figure the 2100+ thing out real fast from orders. It will be interesting to see if they let it continue or find a way to "soften" the 2100+ which is killing sales of their expensive processors. It will be interesting to see.
6) Since the original 2800+ was too ambitious for the process, I suspect some work is going on to refine a little - and we may see the reincarnation of the 2800+ with 512k cache as a Barton 3200+. Frankly if AMD could deliver it now and take the Numbers lead - even if it's stretched a good bit - they would. Instead we are hearing 3rd quarter - another dribble if needed for the Hammer wait.
__________________

Last edited by Prometheus; 11th February, 2003 at 05:12 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10th February, 2003, 10:47 PM
cloasters's Avatar
Asst. BBS Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 21,956

There's also a link at Anand's to a Barton review at XbitLabs-- which uncharacteristically gives a conclusion that's less than spot on, IMHO. Anand has seemed very pro-Intel in previous years, I'm glad he took the time to make the Barton jump through many hoops. The gist seems to be that the Barton kicks booty in business benchmarks yet winds up behind the most expensive P4's in too many other BM's for comfort. The performance gap isn't horrific, but Barton just h'ain't got the moxie. Sigh.

Athlon XP's do remarkably well against much faster P4's. As Prometheus noted, the "shift" in the Barton's "PR Rating" isn't warranted. All the same, AMD has to wow the Barton to the moon, it has an otherwise empty display case--until the Sledgehammer, uuh, Opteron hits the shelves. I doubt many of us will be able to foot the bill for an Opteron, come the promised release date in April.

What we want is the Athlon XP 64. But we aren't getting that until September. Grr. The worst part about this for AMD fans is that the 800 Mhz FSB(is this "quad-pumped"??) P4 will be here shortly. AFAIK, it will make the fastest XP's, including the "Barton" look sickly. Of course, it'll cost a LOT more than Barton humble pie.
__________________
When the world will be better.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 10th February, 2003, 11:27 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2002
Posts: 44

Actually, people need to revive their old pricing thinking about Athlons being cheaper. ALL the higher Rated Athlon CPU's are now more expensive than the comparable P4's. AMD needs to seriously adjust some pricing, because being the better value was what made the Athlon. There are further Intel price drops on Feb. 23rd of 6 to 21%. The 800FSB CPU's will be introduced in April, and these are the quantity prices:

CPU model - 800MHz QPB-HyperThreading Support / 533MHz QPB-No HyperThreading Support
Pentium 4 3.2GHz - $637
Pentium 4 3GHz/3.06GHz - $417 / $401
Pentium 4 2.8GHz - $278 / $262
Pentium 4 2.6GHz/2.66GHz - $218 / $193
Pentium 4 2.4GHz - $178 / $163
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11th February, 2003, 01:10 AM
Royal Oaks's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: February 2003
Location: Tallahassee
Posts: 31
Send a message via AIM to Royal Oaks

Yea, well if you are buying top end AMD, then why are you getting AMD in the first place. The reason I go AMD is cuz of the lower end chips. Seriously, there is no reason to buy a 2800+ now a days when you can get a 2100+ B for under $100, that will 2.4GHz. AMD still holds a huge price lead in the middle to lower end chips, especially when you OC. The hottest CPU's now (AMD or Intel) are the 1700+B and 2100+B. The 1700+ goes for under $50 and the 2100+ goes under $100, and they both OC huge. A 2100+ at 2.3 or 2.4GHz is just as fast (if not faster) than a P4 2.66 and 2.8. I am not here to try and say AMD ownz or anything like that, but right now these chips are hot hot hot. Intel still holds the performance crown, but for either one of the chips I mentioned, you make up serious ground when OC'ing.
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11th February, 2003, 05:11 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: December 2002
Posts: 44

Quote:
Originally posted by Royal Oaks
Yea, well if you are buying top end AMD, then why are you getting AMD in the first place. The reason I go AMD is cuz of the lower end chips. Seriously, there is no reason to buy a 2800+ now a days when you can get a 2100+ B for under $100, that will 2.4GHz. AMD still holds a huge price lead in the middle to lower end chips, especially when you OC. The hottest CPU's now (AMD or Intel) are the 1700+B and 2100+B. The 1700+ goes for under $50 and the 2100+ goes under $100, and they both OC huge. A 2100+ at 2.3 or 2.4GHz is just as fast (if not faster) than a P4 2.66 and 2.8. I am not here to try and say AMD ownz or anything like that, but right now these chips are hot hot hot. Intel still holds the performance crown, but for either one of the chips I mentioned, you make up serious ground when OC'ing.
I think I already said that in point 4) above:

b]4)[/b] The best Athlon for "traditional" Athlon "VALUE" - low price and breathtaking overclocking - is the 2100+ T'Bred B at present. Any of the 2100+, 2400+, 2600+, and 2700+ can make it to about 2.3 to 2.4GHz with minimal effort. The 2400+ to 2700+ all OC about the same. It may take a tiny bit more voltage for the 2100+ to get to that same overclock - but hey it's $95. The 3000+ is $600 and won't overclock this far according to all reports except Tom's Hardware. The 2100+ B also runs at 200FSB and higher just fine in the Epox/FIC.

As for your comment about the 2100+ being as fast as the 2.66 or 2.8 that's true - if you don't overclock the 2.66 or 2.8. Frankly my 2.66 does 3.3 just fine on air, and my 2.8 does 3.46. My 2100+ is fast, but not in the same ball park.
__________________

Last edited by Prometheus; 11th February, 2003 at 07:14 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 11th February, 2003, 06:47 AM
Member
 
Join Date: January 2003
Posts: 247

I still say the 1700+ is the best value. Half the price of the 2100+ and 87% of the performance (based on average overclocks with air cooling)
__________________
site link removed, use www button below sig.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11th February, 2003, 10:26 AM
Allan's Avatar
Member/Contributer
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,914

Quote:
Originally posted by k1114
I still say the 1700+ is the best value.
Right on!
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11th February, 2003, 08:47 PM
Royal Oaks's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: February 2003
Location: Tallahassee
Posts: 31
Send a message via AIM to Royal Oaks

Quote:
Originally posted by Prometheus
I think I already said that in point 4) above:

b]4)
The best Athlon for "traditional" Athlon "VALUE" - low price and breathtaking overclocking - is the 2100+ T'Bred B at present. Any of the 2100+, 2400+, 2600+, and 2700+ can make it to about 2.3 to 2.4GHz with minimal effort. The 2400+ to 2700+ all OC about the same. It may take a tiny bit more voltage for the 2100+ to get to that same overclock - but hey it's $95. The 3000+ is $600 and won't overclock this far according to all reports except Tom's Hardware. The 2100+ B also runs at 200FSB and higher just fine in the Epox/FIC.

As for your comment about the 2100+ being as fast as the 2.66 or 2.8 that's true - if you don't overclock the 2.66 or 2.8. Frankly my 2.66 does 3.3 just fine on air, and my 2.8 does 3.46. My 2100+ is fast, but not in the same ball park. [/B]
Well I have seen many people say and show benches of a 2.4GHz 2100+ being just as fast if not faster than 2.4B's OC'd to over 3GHz. Now I'm not trying to get into any AMD/Intel war since I am new here, but just about everyone I have talked to who is non-biased agrees it takes about 600-800MHz for a P4 to outpreform an AMD chip. Now I know I will probably get flamed for saying this, but I have talked to people about this, and they do agree. It's alright though, I post in this forum to learn more about OC'ing, and not get into debates about which is better (there is another forum for that). Basically I am just saying that even when you OC both chips you should be able to get about the same preformance from a 2.66GHz P4.

Also, I wouldn't trust Tom's Hardware for anything in the first place, and they barely tried to OC their chip at all. With Hard's review they pushed it pretty far and at only 1.8V. For serious OC'ers this is really conservative, and they still got a good OC out of it. On the contrary I think the 3000+ Barton will OC pretty well, however it is just way too much money right now. It has an even larger core than the T-Bred's and those chips run very cool (right now I'm at 30C at 2GHz on the 2100+ with air cooling). We will see though, it will be awhile before lots of people take the plunge on these things.

About the 1700+, yea it is a great chip. However, the reason many people still shy away from it is the fact that if you go with newegg, you are not gauranteed a B. They still are not advertising B's (except for the 2100+). For $50 yea its an incredible chip, but I think the thing with the 2100+'s, is you are gauranteed around 2.3GHz with any sort of decent setup. This was by far the easiest OC I have ever done. With the 1700+, some people can't even hit 2GHz, so I would say to be safe go with a 2100+. No doubt though, the 1700+ is an outstanding deal.
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 11th February, 2003, 11:10 PM
Daniel ~'s Avatar
Chief BBS Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Seattle Wa.
Posts: 45,606

just made front page Prometheus!
__________________
"Though all men live in ignorance before mystery,
they need not live in darkness...
Justice is foundation and Mercy ETERNAL
."
DKE

"All that we do is touched by Ocean
Yet we remain on the shore of what we know."
Richard Wilbur

[img]/forum/attachments/random-nonsense/16515-sigs-dan_drag.jpg[/img]
Subscribers! Ask Pitch about a Custom Sig Graphic

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 12th February, 2003, 03:40 AM
cloasters's Avatar
Asst. BBS Administrator
 
Join Date: September 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 21,956

Kudos, Prometheus. Your post deserves a spot on the Front Page!
__________________
When the world will be better.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hangover ratings. mookydooky Mookydooky's Just for laughs! 15 27th June, 2007 03:33 AM
AMD drops performance ratings Favu AMD Motherboards & CPUs 6 4th June, 2007 12:07 PM
Reseller Ratings is back up. Lionfish Random Nonsense! 1 12th March, 2002 10:24 PM
Storage Review does reliability ratings! Áedán General Hardware Discussion 2 25th October, 2001 06:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 PM.


Copyright ©2001 - 2010, AOA Forums
Don't Click Here Don't Click Here Either

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0