Only a 5% overclock on the T-Bred?

[Matisaro]

you forget everything else connected to the AMD chip. You forget about the chipsets and the issues those have. You also forget that you can buy a 1.8ghz pentium 4 for $166 and overclock it to 2.4ghz+ where AMD's fastest cpu is about $250 and can only overclock 5%. Which is the better deal? I think we all can tell from the benchmarks that the 2.4ghz pentium 4 crushes AMD's fastest processor in most situations.

What about the 80 dollar 1700+ tbred which should hit 1.9ghz aircooled, thats 2300+ incase you didnt do the math in your head.

You cant compare midrange p4's with top end tbreds, even if they did overclock alot, that still wouldnt be fair.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[texas_techie]

Ummm.. i didnt say AMD was "low quality". Since when is a chips overclockability a metric of its quality? I thought stability and speed were the keys.
I didnt forget the price or the OC ability of the p1.8... Price-performance wasnt brought up in my discussion. But since you did, i shall comment. There is no doubt for the extreme users (like ourself) the P4 is the better buy. However, for the record, what precentage of the world overclocks?
So lets look at what the average Joe faces in the store. This from pricewatch:

Intel P4 2.5 gig.... $535
AMD XP 2100 ..... $177

But you say the 2.5 kicks the crap out of the 2100? Ok, the p4 2.3 and the XP2100 are fairly close in the benchmarks. Sometimes AMD wins, sometimes INtel does. The p4 2.3 costs $266. The XP $177. Is the $90 worth it? Maybe. Besides, if the salesperson told Average joe the P4 1.8 is great if ya OC it. joe is likely to say..whats that? Ya think that moron at Best buy knows how to explain how to overclock?
The stfu was a bit extreme. I apologize. I would appreciate the next time someone comments "the chip is too hot" to explain why/how that is a problem. Thats all.


"You forget about the chipsets and the issues those have."
your gonna have to be more specific. What issues? And exactly how are mobo issues AMD's fault?


Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.

 

[xxsk8er101xx]

As they say you pay a premium for the best thats out there. And i'll tell you right now the average consumer would rather pay the premium now and get the best they can get because chances thats gonna be the computer they will own for years.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>

 

[SammyBoy]

I'll give you a simple explaination for the poor OC ability of the T-Bred.

The K7 is on its last leg. It's an old core, soon to go the way of the K6 and K5.

It doesn't overclock well cause the core is too small for thermal transfer to occur at the level that it did with the Palomino.

The red vs green debate can be solved easily as well. Just like any other core that has come into existance, its safe to say that a few revisions have occured since the T-bred was initially built. Remember AXIA vs. AVIA (or whatever the "inferior" oc'er was)? The red CPUs might represent the initial batches the were run that operate at their speced speed. Just what they are supposed to do. There is nothing "wrong" with them, they are just a less refined version of the T-Bred core. T-Breds, regardless of reports, must have been running off the fab lines since January or earlier, so that AMD would have enough to fill the OEM channel and have some leftovers for the retail channels. But, the flip side is that there have been mobile versions since April or so, which run at lower clockspeeds, and theoretcially could be where the initial batches went.

AMD doesn't give a damn about the K7 anymore. It's budget, and they only have 2, maybe 3 speed bumps for the T-Bred and Barton before the K8 appears. After that, the K7 will be relegated to the budget/mainstream market, and after a few more months, will be retired completely when the clockspeed ceiling is reached for the budget line. A budget K8 will replace it, probably around the time of the .09 micron intro, and the wonderful K7 and Socket A will vanish from the minds of performance freaks. Why would AMD invest more capital and R&D into a dying core when they could be spending those man-hours revising the K8 into some uber-CPU, capable of ripping holes in the fabric of time? It makes no sense, either from an engineering perspective, or a sales/marketing perspective.

It's dying, prepare the memorial service, and give it a decent burial instead of saying what it should be or what it will be when you have a different colored packaging. Just give it up, guys. Spend your time working more hours to buy everything needed to get a Hammer or Prescott system.

-SammyBoy

 

[LED]

Id spend the extra 90$......for that you get peace of mind. An intel chipset, none more stable......can you even argue that? On chip thermal protection....I will still argue that XPs dont have any thermal protection.....technically they dont, its the motherboard that does. SSE2......Important now, no? So not only are you getting a great performance CPU, but you get peace of mind.

I sold my sig for $50.

 

[eden]

Yeah I mean personally, I could care less about the Tbred.
I mean really, the future is where Hammer is at. AMD is not gonna waste any more for K7, if K8 is the real deal. I'd like to see Ray's comments on the K8 performance benchmark results, where the 800MHZ tramples the 1.6 Willy, when it had 256K L2!



--
Meow

 

[eden]

Yeah I am with Mat here cuz I am open minded too. I can accept, like him, but what we want is green packaging proof.
Great to see more people being more open-minded after Mat's comment on this.
BTW since when has this place stopped being technical, Fat? I mean really, we're not just debating if Tbred is good or not, we're now interested in learning more about this clock issue!

Another thing also besides all this, is why are they testing out high-end chips? Since when do we go buy the top end chip and OC it? I thought we usually go for the budget priced one and OC the hell off it. I say THG should have tried the XP1700+ too, as it uses 1.5V. That would have maybe changed things.

Anyway I gotta go sleep now...
but this story ain't over, personally I like when conspiracies pop up and we go technical, a bit more interesting than just answering people's questions on what to buy no?

--
Meow

 

[texas_techie]

LED,
Can I argue the Intel is more stable? I can only go by my experience. I have a FIC-AD11 mobo. Reference AMD 762 Northbridge. Its been running for about 1.5 years. Having had a single lock-up or crash. I owned a Gigabyte before. Its crashed a lot. Guess why, Windows 98.. Had an MSI board too. It locked some too.. guess why? Bad video drivers. none of that had to do with the mobo or CPU.
Anywho, I really dont want or need Intels version of thermal protection. I would rather crash than throttle down. Personal preference, thats all.
My only true preference for AMD lays in the fact they are the only competition for Intel. Im really not keen on finding out how Intel performs if they become the only chip maker. As I see it, they have excelled as far as they have only because AMD is on their heels.


Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.

 

[LED]

You can only go by your own experience in this case because its convienient for you. Its no secret that Via chipsets, the most common AMD coupled chipsets, are plagued w/ incompatability issues. You're talking about a reference board that "avg Joe", the victim in your argument, will never get their hands on.

Intel has "excelled" acording to Moore's law, if not slightly below the curve. With or without competition, chip improvements will continue. If anything, the real motivation is me, the buyer, and certain high tech industries, demanding faster procs and technologies. AMD influences Intels prices more than performance.

I sold my sig for $50.

 

[texas_techie]

I HIGHLY doubt Intel would continue its current innovation if AMD were not in the picture. There would be no reason to. Why not wait until you saturate the market and then introduce the next chip. The speeds of current CPU can handle everything thrown at them and then some. So I dont think the demand (in the mainstream market) would be there for faster stuff.
The incompatibilty you speak of is between the VIA southbridge and creative labs products. And no, its no secret the via southbridge is a complete piece of crap. Ironically though, my FIC has a via southbridge and a creative labs sound card.. no probs at all. And luckily there are 15+ other mobo options for people besides Via. Also if your going to claim that Via is the "most coupled" could ya gimme some links?
Look, I started to "argue" with everyone because some ditz said AMD was "low quality". I dont think AMDs T-bred is indicative of low quality. Its just the core hitting the end. Just like the Williamette and every core under the sun eventually does.
I do think Intel is a quality chip on a quality chipset, but I find it simply amazing a new chip from AMD doesnt overclock and people are freaking out. Its not the end of the world or AMD.

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.

 

[Corona999]

If Intel was the only chip maker we'd all be paying $5000-$10000 for a computer system. I probably wouldn't have become a computer enthusiast if it wasn't for AMD and I'd probably be out having fun at parties rather than debating about chip wars on forums.

 

[texas_techie]

Amen Corona.. if it werent for cheap computer parts I might actually have a life too. And I wouldnt have just spent $200 on PC speakers :\

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.

 

[dhlucke]

This is not really a packaging issue. AMD rearranged the components on their core. It is now rectangular. Why did they do this? So they could fit on some more cache with the Barton without having to redesign the core again, making it square again as a Barton. What does this mean? The T-Bred is not necessarily optimized for best performance as it currently exists. It is optimized for upgradability to the Barton.

AMD does not have the resources to redesign their cores for an optimal layout every time they release a new version.

-Raystonn

For someone who knows very little about AMD, could you please post links to your source of information?

<font color=red>I have a computer and it does weird stuff. please help.</font color=red>

 

[Matisaro]

for that you get peace of mind. An intel chipset, none more stable......can you even argue that?

Seems to me the most stable you can get is stable, and there are several athlon chipsets which are as stable as intel chipsets, buying intel for its "magical stability" is like buying a p4 cause it clocks higher.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[Matisaro]

Fat? I mean really, we're not just debating if Tbred is good or not, we're now interested in learning more about this clock issue!

EXACTLY, my main concern is WHY this has happened, as I said it would be months ago, if these results are true(and they probably are btw) then there is some physical reason this is happening, be it timing, gatelengths etc, and I want to deduce why.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[Matisaro]

Its no secret that Via chipsets, the most common AMD coupled chipsets

But not the only chipset, you cannot say amd as a whole is less stable because some of their motherboards arent stable, its ludicrious.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[LED]

"But not the only chipset, you cannot say amd as a whole is less stable because some of their motherboards arent stable, its ludicrious."
Techie was arguing for "Joe Avg.". And, most likely, Joe avg will be getting a Via chipset w/ his AMD Processor. I never said AMD as a whole was unstable, I said the chipsets.

I sold my sig for $50.

 

[LED]

"EXACTLY, my main concern is WHY this has happened, as I said it would be months ago, if these results are true(and they probably are btw) then there is some physical reason this is happening, be it timing, gatelengths etc, and I want to deduce why."'

It was just your opinion and the opinion of other AMD fans that it would clock high, and run cooler. I Said you would see 66mhz incriments and you may see 2ghz......Those were my expectations, and my opinion. That's what happened, so Im totally ok w/ the performance and OCability of the t-bred. No shockers for me. You guys built it up to compete w/ 3ghz NW's......That aint gonna happen.

I sold my sig for $50.

 

[Matisaro]

It was just your opinion and the opinion of other AMD fans that it would clock high, and run cooler. I

If you recall the discussion, and I dont think you do, it was not just my "oppinion" magically pulled from my ass, but a comparitive study of all the .13 micron shifts made, Time and again I asked for anyones input on to why it wouldnt have the same overhead gain as the tuallatin, and no one offered anything other than the vague "I just dont think so" in 2 months of debate not one logical cause was brought up which would lead me to believe anything other than what I predicted, and now that the prediction is wrong, there HAS to be a cause.

Be it core limitations(which I doubt) timing issues, gate issues, whatever, there is a reason, a specific thing holding the tbred back.



The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[LED]

Ok, can we call it an educated guess? But still not fact? "I just dont think so" proved to be better than your educated guess.....G'mornin btw.

I sold my sig for $50.

 

[bront]

If you're looking for a better OCing chip, check out the low end T-breads and see how far they can go, don't look at the top of the line.

If a t-bread 1700+ can hit the same top speed as a 2200+ when OCed, or even better, then you've got a great chip on your hands.

So, don't compair how the Low end P4 NW OCs so well while the high end T-bread doesn't, compair low to low or high to high.

"Search your feelings you know it to be true, I am your... twin sister" - Darth Vader

 

[bront]

Unfortunately, that's not how most people think. Most people try to spend as little as posable, often sacrificing a long term goal to get something now. Instant gratification.

Fortunately, most people are fine with a P3 600 or better for what they do, so it's not a big deal now in the computer market. However, it could be interesting with Longhorn if it realy needs a good 3D card to run.

"Search your feelings you know it to be true, I am your... twin sister" - Darth Vader

 

[Smokey]

I'm sorry guys but your color theories are ALL wrong. The truth: you thought AMD's brilliant marketing analysts were all out of tricks after the "XP" naming and the Intel equivalent CPU speed label...wrong. Seasons greetings boys, AMD will dominate Christmas 2002 computer sales! Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha...Take that, Blue Man Group!

Life's a hole...dig it. - Joe Dirt

 

[buddry]

AMD will not dominate the Christmas buying season. IF hammer is released by then, I doubt it will be in large enough quantities that it will totally dominate anything.

That is a nice <b><font color=green>Garbage Can</font color=green></b> you have there!

 

[Smokey]

Value Question...

Consider this comparison with these guides:
1. You're overclocking the chip as far as possible stably.
2. You're not taking full system price into account, JUST CPU price.

Under these circumstances, which CPU grants the higher performance/price ratio? I've seen the benches, but can an OC'd 2.53 P4 honestly beat an XP 2200 in this ratio with Intel's "latest 'n greatest" pricing penalty? Or even a 2.26? (not comparing CPU speeds, just benching performance)

Life's a hole...dig it. - Joe Dirt