NVIDIA MUST BE A GREAT AMD partner because once more it's spoken about the plans of its microprocessor buddy before Hector's even mentioned it. An Nvidia executive previously confirmed that AMD will launch new FSB 333 processors now called Thoroughbred B, and now the graphics firm has already started to talk about FSB 400 powered Athlons. At Comdex, Nvidia was demonstrating DDR 400 memory working with FSB 400 Athlons codenamed Bartons and we even heard that you might expect 15 to 20 performance boost from this combination.

The new Athlons will have 512KB of L2 cache making it more competitive with Intel Potato 4 and we assume that AMD will present these processors later this year or at the beginning of Q1 next year. As for the Nforce 2 boards, you can be sure that you will be able to run Athlons on these boards but we assume that a BIOS update might be needed. The FSB 400MHz is the last bus stop for the EV 6 Alpha design so don't expect to see any faster processors than that if AMD cannot tweak the limitations of Compaq/DEC/Intel Alpha marchitecture enough.

News source: The Inq

No need to worry though, since AMD has Athlon 64 horses to run, and hopefully rather sooner than later that will continue the race against Intel Prescott processors next year.

As for 32 bit Athlons, we need to give AMD credit since it drove the original core from 0.25µ (micron) to 0.13µ in just two years of existence and use the same marchitecture all the time with just two socket changes.



There are 21 additional comments
Advertisement
(1 reply) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #1 Posted by username on 24 Nov 2002 - 16:38
so i take it that Athlon 64 will HAVE to run on a 200mhz FSB (800mhz Hyper Transport)?
Quote this comment #1.1 Posted by alternadoxy on 25 Nov 2002 - 18:40
there is no such thing as a FSB with hammer...it's just a 800 Mhz link to the PCI bus and southbridge ..... memory is accesssed at the speed of the memory, synchronously.
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #2 Posted by SHoTTa35 on 24 Nov 2002 - 16:54
no, they prolly be on 333FSB first then to 400mhz later next year. I'll get a GF FX AMD Barton/Athlon 64 and a KT400A version of AT7 MAX ( i love this no legacy!!) I'm so glad i didn't get the AT7 MAX2 since that was Kt400! The A versions always blow away the older one! 40% increase from the KT266 to KT266a!
(1 reply) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #3 Posted by =NickJ= on 24 Nov 2002 - 17:46
So we have Athlon Thunderbird, Athlon Palomino, Athlon Thoroughbred A, Athlon Thoroughbred B (266 FSB) and Athlon Throroughbred B (333FSB) each with different performance. Wow if that aint gonna confuse some ppl....
Quote this comment #3.1 Posted by hardgiant on 24 Nov 2002 - 17:52
People are generally idiots anyways when it comes to computers and most of the core changes are still being called the Athlon XP, only the PR number has been changing.
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #4 Posted by hardgiant on 24 Nov 2002 - 17:47
2.5 ghz Barton with 512 L2 and dual channel DDR, that shouldn't be half bad..... with water cooling maybe overclock it to 3.5 Ghz....
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #5 Posted by DrOmango on 24 Nov 2002 - 17:49
hmm.. its good to see nvidia working with amd.. they would make killer stuff Intel + Microsoft VS AMD + Nvidia VS Ati
(2 replies) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #6 Posted by dismuter on 24 Nov 2002 - 18:00
[quote]and use the same marchitecture all the time with just two socket changes. [/quote] What socket changes? #5: ATi does not make CPUs Personnally, I think prices of the latest AMD CPUs do not compete with Intel CPUs, in Europe. Intel is cheaper at the moment. Besides, for the same speed and price I'd rather get a P4.
Quote this comment #6.1 Posted by DrOmango on 24 Nov 2002 - 18:10
i never said "ATi makes CPUs"
Quote this comment #6.2 Posted by Q25 on 25 Nov 2002 - 01:10
nah.. As I see it you still have to pay about 175-200$ more for an Intel system with the same performance as an AMD system. That is looking at the Athlon 2700+ (333) and 2,8GHz P4 (533). Those two are very closely matched looking at benchmarks. CPU+RAM are about that much more expensive for an Intel system.. If you want the fastest you can buy an Intel 3.06GHz. But that one is just outrageously expensive.
(1 reply) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #7 Posted by rastachops on 24 Nov 2002 - 19:37
mmm me thinks ill have buy lots of these "Intel Potatoes" they sound tasty.
Quote this comment #7.1 Posted by syscrash2k on 24 Nov 2002 - 20:37
mmm... Potatoes
(1 reply) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #8 Posted by Beast_4thHM on 24 Nov 2002 - 19:39
Intel Potato 4???? well this post isn't very objective
Quote this comment #8.1 Posted by Avian on 24 Nov 2002 - 19:53
Its not an objective post, its an objective copy and paste
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #9 Posted by InStyLz on 24 Nov 2002 - 21:33
lol
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #10 Posted by TheReaperMan on 24 Nov 2002 - 21:58
P4 my arse, now thats "Objective"
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #11 Posted by tHaCuBe on 25 Nov 2002 - 03:08
go amd!
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #12 Posted by abysal on 25 Nov 2002 - 07:11
w00t!
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #13 Posted by macster on 25 Nov 2002 - 07:46
I think competition is always good for us
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #14 Posted by Bant on 25 Nov 2002 - 07:51
potato 4 was funny! cought me off guard!!
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #15 Posted by ddrac on 25 Nov 2002 - 14:23
potato 4 eh? well then... if microprocessors are now VEGETABLES, then your aMD wannabe's are peanuts... even though they both grow the same way,... the potato is always larger.... its the genetic makup.. the peanut cannot outgrow the potato... and thats why amd sux... it has peanuts for brains...
[1]

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.


Scroll to the Top
....
My Preferences
....
Communicating with server
Loading
Please Wait...
....
Loading
 X 
....