AMD Barton: much hype and few results
BB2K you'll have to change your sig again :)
Check results anywhere around the web. The Barton 3000+ more or less equals a TBred 2700+... And is totally smoked by a P4@3.06. Worse, its price: about $620. For $20 more you've got the far better P4@3.06. If its price drops (along with the overrated PR-rating) it will become interesting. Currently it's downed by the 'Geforce FX syndrome': tons of hype for a mediocre result... I think i'll get my hands on a *cheap* 2400+ very soon :p |
Go 2100+ ... they do the same as a 2400+ for less.
|
I think I'll still stick with Barton. I want the built-in 333 FSP, and the 512 kb cache.
I don't know which review you saw, but I've seen both sides, where Barton smokes a P4, and P4 3.06 smokes a Barton 3000+:shrug: |
What i've seen is:
Pro-AMD sites give either Barton as a winner, or as a close call to the p4 Neutral & pro-intel show p4 way ahead. 3D software and FPU intensive apps are killing the AMD proc. On other tests they're more or less on equal grounds, but that's nothing new since the 2700+.... Tests at Anandtech are seaking for themselves. The conclusion at anand is laughable, as most of their benchs show a neat lead from the p4. airspirit: how can they do the same, the 2100+ is in 0.18µ (palomino) whereas the 2400+ is in 0.13µ (tbred) ?? And i doubt a core clocked @1716 can overclock as well as a core clocked @2000... am i wrong here ? Did i miss something ? (edit) bb2k: my TBird (1st gen) has "built-in" 200FSB :D (=400MHz DDR). Works like a charm. I still don't see the need of a "stock" 333FSB, apart from artificially raising prices... (edit2) i AM pro-AMD, but i admit that the Barton priced like a p4 is a mistake. At $350 it would have been a killer, and more in the line of AMD pricing habits. |
there are signs of tbredB's coming in at even 1700+ grades (rare). Newegg seems to have had the same stepping in 2100+ as 2400+ on the same tbredB manufacturing process. consequently they went approx as high as 2400+.
in belgium however i have been roaming shops and fares in search of these elusive B'z and in the end i just bought a 2400+ because i was tired of the countless phonecalls. |
|
I'm talking 2100+ TBredB chips. You can get them for under $100, and they perform just as well as 2400+ chips. Did you miss that news? The 2100+ chips are the hottest thing AMD has going right now in the enthusiast market (naturally, though, this is open for debate by the 1700+ JUIHB crowd!).
As far as sheer performance goes, though, on the Barton 3000+, how many people are going to spend $600+ on them and run them stock? I mean c'mon now ... there are sites reporting that they can be clocked at stock voltage on the retail (read: sh!t) heatsink to over 2400 Mhz. One of these watercooled to around 2600 Mhz would be a killer chip all around. The problem is that for an extra 6-7% over a regular TBredB that can clock the same, wouldn't you be better off buying other peripheral gear that can make the same amount of difference? That price difference would buy you a 9700 Pro, another gig of PC3500 RAM, and a 8RDA+. I'd rather do that than just bump my CPU a bit, and I'd get better gains in speed. |
not so sure.....
Well i must say that i do think that Barton does live up to the hype before the release.
As if you look at the links that are provided be BB2K you see that the 3000+ offers a good performance and is a good condtender to the P4´s offering 3,06Ghz. Sometimes the one is faster then the other but that is all up to what program is running. But allround i would call it a draw. One thing that does amaze me is still the fact that @ 2/3 of the clock speed AMD can put of nummbers so close and above to the P4 :) But as i see it.. if i need RDRAM ($$$$) inn my computer to get the max performance with the P4 i´ll go back to using a AMD again inn my new computer... ;) but as a little side note.. Barton won´t save then since the P4 3.2 with 200 buss is going to be released inn April i think.. so is time for the Athlon 64/Hammer core!!!! PLEASE!!! -P- |
Quote:
|
Quote:
3D software and SSE2 intensive apps are killing the AMD proc. I think that a good sse2 implementation in hammer is a key to it's success. Until that , AMD will always look bad on "some" benchmarks. |
Newegg lists the stepping and CPU ID. There are a few other resellers that are doing the same. Check OC-Forums for a list of who promises them (some promise steppings and dates as well). 2100+ chips are THE hot topic over there.
edit: I understand NE doesn't ship internationally, but some of the others do. There are many europeans that are getting these online at set steppings/dates. |
Mhh i don't have time right now. Any special / good stepping of 2400+ ? :p The 2100+ sound too much like a lottery for me (and ordering a $90 CPU in the US, to pay about $50 for shipping... lets be serious). And the 2400+ is falling at a rate of $10 a week... (and the Barton is out of question - i found a B 2800+ for 580€, eek)
|
Go to the stepping lists on OC-Forums. I believe the AIUHB 030X is on top (unless that changed very recently).
|
Well...
I'm sticking with Anandtech.
|
Here's a roundup of test results:
[H]ard: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDI2 mobo: A7N8X ram: 2 x 256MB Kingston HyperX PC3500 VC: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro Business Winstone 2001: 87 Business Winstone 2002: 39.3 Content Creation Winstone 2002: 45.8 Content Creation Winstone 2003: 39.3 BapCo SysMark 2002: Office: 211 Content creation: 335 Quake3 (v 1.17, 640 x 480 Normal) : 335 3DMark 2001: 15500 Star Wars Jedi Knight (v 1.02, 640 x 480 normal): 138 Serious Sam (max quality, 32 bit color, 640 x 480): 204 Comanche: 56.3 UT2K3: 247 Max OC: 2526 MHz Sudhian: http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=324 mobo: ASUS A7N8X Deluxe ram: 512 Meg Corsair XMS3200 VC: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro Business Winstone 2001: 84 Content Creation 2001: 117 Content Creation 2002: 47 Sysmark 2001 Content Creation: 264 Sysmark 2001 Office : 260 SiSoft Sandra 2003 : CPU: ALU: 3283 SiSoft Sandra 2003 : CPU: FPU: 8085 SiSoft Sandra 2003 : Memory: Int: 2590 SiSoft Sandra 2003 : Memory: Float: 2650 3DMark 2001SE: 15617 Comanche 4: 56 Quake 3 Arena (Normal): 449 Serious Sam: 224 Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast: 176 (many more tests) Max OC: 2600 MHz Anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1783 mobo: ASUS A7N8X ram: 2 x 256MB DDR400 CAS2 Corsair XMS3200 VC: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro (Points out that the internal core of the Barton runs slower than a TBred, so a 2800+ can beat a 3000+ on some tests) Content Creation Winstone 2003: 40.9 SYSMark 2002 Content Creation: 334 Business Winstone 2002: 39.9 SYSMark 2002 Office: 215 UT2K3: 214.9 3DMark 2001SE: 15243 Quake 3: 305.9 Star Wars Jedi Knight 168.2 Comanche 4: 55.5 (many more tests) AMDWorld (UK): http://www.amdworld.co.uk/bar3000.htm mobo: Asus A7N8X, Abit NF7S, Gigabyte GA-7VAXP, ram: Corsair XMS3200 2 * 256 MB VC: ATI Radeon 9000 Pro (was kind enough to remind us that mobo BIOS updates are available) SiSoft Sandra 2003: 8138 CPU rightmark: 253 Ziff Davis content Winstone 2003: 40.9 PcMark 2002: 6675 3DMark 2001SE: 8412 Quake3 (arena1, 1024 x 768, no AA): 194 X-bitlabs: http://www.xbitlabs.com/cpu/athlonxp-3000/ mobo: EPoX EP-8RDA ram: Crucial XMS3200 CL2 DDR SDRAM, 2x256MB VC: ATI RADEON 9700 Pro Business Winstone 2002: 35.4 Content Creation Winstone 2003: 39.4 PCMark 2002 : CPU : 6693 PCMark 2002 : Memory : 5921 3DMark 2001SE: 15858 UT2K3: 70.69 (many more tests) HotHardware: http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/..._axp_3k+.shtml mobo: Asus A7N8X ram: Corsair PC3200 DDR RAM @ CAS2 (2 x 256MB) VC: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro Sandra 2002: CPU: Dhrystone: 8082 MIPS CPU: Whetstone: 3281 MFLOPS MultiMedia: Int: 11963 it/s MultiMedia: float: 12682 it/s Memory: Int : 2510 MB/s Memory: Float : 2350 MB/s FutureMark PCMark2002 : CPU: 6645 FutureMark PCMark2002 : Memory: 5733 Business Winstone 2002: 34.8 Content Creation Winstone 2002: 49.7 FutureMark 3DMark 2001: 15616 Comanche 4: 55.25 Quake 3: 262 Ace's hardware: http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000364 mobo: ASUS A7N8x Deluxe ram: 2x256 MB Corsair PC3200 XMS running at 333 MHz CAS 2 (2-3-3-6) VC: MSI Geforce Ti4600 (AGP 4x) 128 MB Comanche: 50.9 fps UT2K3: 80.6 (many more tests, but none of the major ones) No OC Bit-Tech: http://www.bit-tech.net/review/180/ mobo: Asus 87N8X :rolleyes: ram: 512MB Corsair XMS 3200 VC: Connect 3D Radeon 9500 SiSoft Sandra 2003: CPU: Arithmetic : FPU: 3269 CPU: Arithmetic : ALU: 8157 MultiMedia: Int: 12032 MultiMedia: float: 12739 it/s Memory: Int : 2355 MB/s Memory: Float : 2472 MB/s FutureMark PCMark 2002 memory: 876 CPU: 6613 UT2K3 (1280x960, flyby): 160 UT2K3 (1280x960, botmatch): 84 UT2K3 (640x480, flyby): 222 UT2K3 (640x480, botmatch): 84 3DMark (640 x 480): 18098 3DMark (1024 x 768): 15776 No OC ExtremeTech: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...,873603,00.asp mobo: Asus A7N8X Deluxe ram: 2 x 256MB Kingston HyperX PC3500 modules (run at DDR333, CAS2-2-2, "aggressive" timings; sync mode) VC: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro (DirectX 9, Catalyst 3.0 Drivers) Business Winstone 2002: 36 Content Creation Winstone 2003: 38.7 PCMark 2002 : CPU: 6576 PCMark 2002 : Memory: 5486 3DMark 2001SE (640 x 480 x 16, soft. T&L): 6660 3DMark 2001SE (1024 x 768 x 32): 14907 UT2K3 (640 x 480 x 32): 82.11 UT2K3 (1024 x 768 x 32): 81.97 Comanche 4: 52.26 Jedi Knight II (640 x 480 x 16): 167.1 Jedi Knight II (1024 x 768 x 32): 143.5 Serious Sam (512 x 384 x 16): 118.8 Serious Sam (1024 x 768 x 32): 83.3 (many more tests) No OC The Tech Report: http://tech-report.com/reviews/2003q...0/index.x?pg=1 mobo: Asus A7N8X Deluxe ram: Corsair XMS3200 PC2700 (2 DIMMs) VC: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128MB (Catalyst 7.81.021218 drivers) Sandra 2003: Memory : Alu: 2438 Sandra 2003: Memory : FPU: 2328 Business Winstone 2002: 37.8 Content Creation Winstone 2001: 110.6 Content Creation Winstone 2002: 47.1 Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2003: 39.0 3DMark2001 SE: 15238 UT2K3 (1024 x 768 x 32, Flyby): 212.9 UT2K3 (1024 x 768 x 32, botmatch): 73.3 Comanche 4: 52.49 Quake 3 (1024 x 768 x 32): 324.8 Serious Sam: 121.0 (many more tests, including memory latency) Max OC: 2340 MHz Hardware Zone: http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles...?cid=2&aid=628 mobo: ASUS A7N8X (BIOS version 1001E) ram: 2 x 256MB DDR400 Corsair (set to sync with FSB at 333MHz) VC: MSI GeForce4 Ti 4200 128MB SYSmark 2002 Content creation: 330 SYSmark 2002 Office: 202 Business Winstone 2002: 37.6 Content creation Winstone 2003: 45.9 3DMark 2001SE (800 x 600, 16 bit): 14276 3DMark 2001SE (800 x 600, 32 bit): 13400 3DMark 2001SE (1024 x 768, 16 bit): 12072 3DMark 2001SE (1024 x 768, 32 bit): 11281 3DMark 2001SE (1280 x 1024, 16 bit): 9588 3DMark 2001SE (1280 x 1024, 32 bit): 8636 3DMark 2001SE (1600 x 1200, 16 bit): 7502 3DMark 2001SE (1600 x 1200, 32 bit): 6526 UT2K3 (botmatch): 66.42 UT2K3 (flyby): 162.11 Jedi Knight 2 (800 x 600 x 32): 130.5 Jedi Knight 2 (1024 x 768 x 32): 130 Jedi Knight 2 (1280 x 1024 x 32): 108 No OC 3DVelocity: http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/barton/3000plus.htm mobo: ASUS A7N8X ram: Dual Corsair XMS 3200, 512MB Total VC: ATi Radeon 9700Pro, Catalyst 3 WHQL Sandra 2003: Memory : Int: 2553 MB/s Memory : Float: 2434 MB/s CPU: Arithmetic : Dhrystone ALU: 7962 MIPS CPU: Arithmetic : Whetstone FPU: 3245 MFLOPS CPU multimedia: Int: 11937 it/s CPU multimedia: Float: 12559 it/s PCMark2002 PRO CPU: 6582 Memory: 5609 3DMark 2001SE: 15503 (many more tests, but most are odd/obscure ones) Max OC: 2310 MHz Hexus: http://www.hexus.net/review.php?review=500 mobo: Asus A7N8X ram: 512MB Corsair XMS DDR3500 CAS2 Ram (2 Sticks in Dual Mode) VC: Sapphire Radeon 9700 Pro Sisoft Sandra 2003: CPU: Dhrystone: 8033 Sisoft Sandra 2003: CPU: Whetstone: 3238 Sisoft Sandra 2003: Multimedia: Int: 11928 Sisoft Sandra 2003: Multimedia: Float: 12447 PC Mark 2002 : CPU: 6640 PC Mark 2002 : Memory: 5853 3DMark SE 2001 (1024 x 768 x 32): 15755 UT2K3 (flyby): 219.91 UT2K3 (botmatch): 80.69 Serious Sam: 92.00 Quake 3: 314.8 No OC Deviant PC: http://www.deviantpc.com/reviews/barton3000/index.shtml mobo: Asus A7N8X ram: 2 x 256MB Corsair XMS3200 VC: ATi Radeon 9700 Pro Sisoft Sandra 2003: CPU : Int: 8190 Sisoft Sandra 2003: CPU : Float: 3310 3Dmark2001SE: 15175 Comanche 4 (1024 x 768): 55.57 UT2K3 (Antalus, 1024 x 768): 177.6 Business Winstone 2002: 34.4 Max OC: 2500 MHz SimHQ: http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/hardware...00/index.shtml mobo: ASUS A7N8X ram: 512MB of Corsair PC2700 DDR RAM CAS 2-2-2 :rolleyes: VC: ATI Radeon 9700 PRO 128MB SiSoft Sandra 2002 CPU: Arithmetic : Dhrystone ALU: 5967 MIPS CPU: Arithmetic : Whetstone FPU: 2967 MFLOPS Memory : Int: 2600 MB/s Memory : Float: 2480 MB/s CPU : Multimedia : Int: 11965 it/s CPU : Multimedia : Float: 13226 it/s SysMark 2002 Content creation: 329 Office: 213 PCMark 2002 CPU: 6643 Memory: 5973 3DMark 2001 (Second Edition) 1024 x 768 x 32: 13685 1280 x 1024 x 32: 11764 1600 x 1200 x 32: 10180 Comanche 4 1024 x 768 x 32: 54.07 1280 x 1024 x 32: 53.37 1600 x 1200 x 32: 51.30 No OC LostCircuits: http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_xp3000+/ mobo: ASUS A7N8X Deluxe ram: 2 x 256 MB Mushkin PC3200 DDR VC: Tyan Tachyon G9700 Pro Business Winstone2001: 85.1 Business Winstone2002: 38.3 Content Creation Winstone2002: 47.4 Content Creation Winstone2003: 40.5 UT2K3 (1280 x 960 x 32 bpp, flyby): 172 UT2K3 (1280 x 960 x 32 bpp, botmatch): 71.21 Comanche 4: 54.83 (some more tests) Max OC: 2420 MHz MotherBoards.org: http://www.motherboards.org/articles...ws/1232_1.html mobo: ASUS A7N8X ram: 2x 256Mb, Corsair PC3200 VC: Crucial RADEON 9700 Pro 400MHz DAC 3Dmark2001SE: 15448 SysMark 2001: 295 SysMark 2002: 250 Quake 3: 234.1 UT2K3 (1024 x 768): 206.100 Winstone: 60.400 (some more tests) No OC (from Doc overclock!) NOTE: some of these tests are run with different parameters, and may not be comparable site-to-site. |
Overall I think that regardless of Nforce2 with 2x DDR400 and Barton 3000+ or SIS655 with 2x DDR400 and HT 3.06ghz you're paying to damned much for the product anyway.
I beleive the 3.06ghz P4 still deserves the crown, espeically teamed with an SIS655 |
Yep that was my initial point. If you consider performance / price ratio, AMD have lost the crown they held since about 3 years (for this generation of CPUs, ie Barton vs P4).
TBreds remain fantastic CPUs though :p |
my 5 mhz.
Given the information available, you can make a few assumptions.
I've been told that the "good" factory (Dresden) is fully occupied with the Hammer , and its set on hold because microsoft is far from having its 64bit OS out... so having a 64bit processor it's a waste of money by todays standards. In the best case scenario, a low version of the hammer would come out. I dont really think so. Having known that, it's a good assumption to say that the other factorys arent really cutting it. It's obvious that they are having problems with the manufacture of the AmdXP Tbred B 2800+ and up, and it shows. You dont see them around much, the 2800+ are rare, very. The Barton, being a slightly modified Tbred B with that extra cache... is probably having the same problems. A 2800+ goes at 2.25, and the barton isnt. Its clocked at 2.167 wich is probably the best they could get out of that . Else, it would have a higher clock, 2.25 by my guess. They're out with this clock because there was a time factor. In a few weeks, or a couple of month's, 3100+ or 3200+, 2.25Ghz or more, but i think this is only to maintain Amd in the race until the Hammer/A64 comes out... It wont be that "super duper" processor everyone expected, besides, most people dont actually buy top processors. Most of them want a working, cheap machine that can play a few games (like the Sims ;) , office and internet. That's your average computer Joe (no offence Joe). The power user market is smaller one. Not everyone has a gf4ti4600 or a 9700pro with a 2400+ and a gazillion Gb hdd space. Not even close. Only the enthusiasts have some notion of whats going on, and who's doing what to who and why we werent invited. Another point is, like Pritorian said... you're still making a comparison with a p4 that has 33% more clock speed, ss2 and hyperthreading. So ... a amd that goes head to head with that... its pretty good in my book. No looser there. In the bottom line , price will win the game. Dunno about prices yet, but if it's cheaper than a p4 3.06 or a 3.2 , then we just might have a winner. |
Re: my 5 mhz.
Quote:
The current problem for AMD is the p4 3.06 is at about the same price than their Barton 3000+. If i was about to buy a $600+ CPU i'd choose the p4. The cause may be a problem of yield for AMD, they need to solve it quick. Because Intel aren't waiting for them and are spitting uber frequencies CPUs every 2 months now. Besides why did they boost the PR rating that high, that's total BS. The Barton 3000+ should have been labelled 2800+. (disclaimer) i still maintain that TBred B's are killer machines |
The real reason behind the Hammer delay is the problems they are having with SOI: the chips aren't reaching the desired speeds. AMD is using Microsoft as the fall guy, and it will turn around and bite them in the ass, mark my words.
The Barton 3000+ has been OC'd to 2.4 Ghz with the stock (read: sh!t) cooler at one of the reviewing sites. From reports, it clocks as well as the newest 2100+/2400+ chips. The issue isn't overclocking, it is whether the 6-7% improvement is worth 600% the cost: it isn't. The reason they dropped the speed down is a puzzle, but I would suspect it gives them headroom to release higher rated and more expensive chips in the future without tipping their hand too early. If that is the case, then they have really fuxored teh goat this time: enthusiasts want high benchmarks for those top-end chips, and AMD helped hamstring themselves in their eyes. It was bad marketing. |
>AMD is using Microsoft as the fall guy
Might be, but what's the use for a 64bit processor if you can't use it properly ? Even if they had the hammer ready for shipment , then what ? Would you buy one? i wouldnt. |
I would. While there would be a big performance boost on a 64bit OS from MS, there would be the same thing from one in 64 bit Linux. While waiting for XP x86-64, I'd dual boot XP 32 with "Linux 64", run my web services off of it, and screw around with it in XP when I wanted to do some gaming, though it wouldn't be my primary gaming box until XP x86-64 came out. It would give me a chance to get a feel for the characteristics and potential of the chip ... and if I liked it, I would throw 90 nm ones in my other boxes next spring.
I was going to build a hammer box in May knowing that 64 bit Windows wasn't on the horizon yet, and the only thing that would make me pause would be if there was a dually clawhammer board on the horizon. It is unknown if this will happen since the clawhammers are strictly single processor chips, but I imagine someone will figure it out eventually ... if I was rich I would just pick up a dual opteron system for the extra HT bandwidth. |
But...
My point was more broad that that. Most people dont do linux/unix. Some dont even know how to work with the dos command line . Most just want a working windows. I dont use linux for a simple reason. I can do everything i want in w2k. Just that. The hassle of moving or even working with both OS just doesnt pay. So, I wouldnt buy it. Doesnt mean someone else wont, but thats not the point.
After said that, and saying again, that the average Joe doesnt really care about "complicated stuff", and the really high end dual and small server markets still ruled by a large margin by Intel, the target market for the Hammer is extremely small without proper windows and application support . If in fact they had the hammer ready, it wouldnt be profitable to get it out yet. |
I would argue that it would be more profitable now than to let them collect dust in a warehouse and depreciate in real value. Processors are not wine: they don't get better with age. AMD needs something that can command high values, however exclusive the market may be. Even if they released only 50K of them, they would all be sold quickly and at high prices -- just the shot in the arm they need.
|
>I would argue that it would be more profitable now than to let
>them collect dust in a warehouse and depreciate in real value That depends. Lets say they wait a few months, have more hammers ready, have mobo's for them, a flood the market at a relative good price. With both hammer cores. Combined with a 64bit OS, it'd be a killer. But that's the best case scenario. Now they'd sell some (dunno about 50k but im no sales expert) , but never with a large impact. And you need motherboards for them, probably with DDR-II to take advantage of the built in memory controller and built in NB. You need a manufacturer to make those mobos... and DDR-II wont come out till the end of this year. And the problems can go on. Just to say its not that linear. And well ... AMD stated that they are no longer trying to top Intel at every processor. They'll be releasing the processors "when its done". At least they have a sense of humor. Anyway, if the hammer could be shipped, i think we might have seen a few around. Assuming it cant, then amd (and us) are stuck with barton for the next few month. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(C) 2005 ProCooling.com If we in some way offend you, insult you or your people, screw your mom, beat up your dad, or poop on your porch... we're sorry... we were probably really drunk... Oh and dont steal our content bitches! Don't give us a reason to pee in your open car window this summer...