Duron 950 to Athlon XP 1.7+ in the test: AMD processor Roundup
- 1 Foreword
- 2 Overview
- 3 Technology
- True Performance Initiative
- 6 Requirement
- 7 Overclocking
- 8 Known bugs
- 9 Test system
- 19 Pricing
- 20 Conclusion
The limits that lie in the current processor architecture itself are con nte AMD put AMD even higher, but the Palomino will hardly achieve much more than the current 1.66 GHz with the Athlon 2000+.
True Performance Initiative
As already mentioned in the last section, AMD has the problem with the current seventh generation of the processor architecture that the clock rate is difficult, and if so only with sufficient cooling can be raised. However, since one was almost eliminated from the clock frequency race, other means had to be found that put the performance of the Athlon XP processors in the right light. The XP in the processor name stands for eXtra Performance and not for eXPerience, as is the case in the name of Windows XP.
As part of the True Performance Initiative, AMD has set itself the goal of offering its customers the benefits bring PC performance close. The True Performance Initiative (TPI, Initiative for realPerformance) therefore wants to define a new, more precise measurement method for determining the PC processor performance. When asked why end users need a new method of measuring performance, AMD answers the following sentence:
“End users who rely only on megahertz as an indicator of performance do not have a complete overview of PC processor performance and they may therefore be disappointed because they have false expectations. ”
This of course not only criticizes the end user, but also Intel, who, in their own opinion, misuse the term megahertz in the Pentium 4 for superficial buyers . You want to go beyond just looking at the PC processor frequency and see the actual performance of the processor in a wide range of applications.
AMD is part of this True Performance Initiative the Athlon XP reinstates the old performance rating that was last used on the K5. This step is justified by the fact that the Athlon XP, e.g. compared to the Pentium 4, can execute significantly more instructions per clock (Instructions per Clock, IPC) and can therefore still keep up with the performance of a Pentium 4 with a significantly lower clock rate. While AMD has tried to achieve a balanced ratio between processor clock and IPC, the Pentium 4 has to be operated with significantly higher clock rates due to its low IPC value compared to the Pentium III in order to surpass the performance of its predecessor. Quite a well-established marketing ploy by Intel engineers.
TheThe following table contains the current Athlon XP processors with their performance rating. So your model number and its associated clock.
Although the performance rating apparently suggests a comparison with a Pentium 4 with the same clock rate, according to AMD this rating refers to the superiority over an existing Athlon (Thunderbird) Processor.
“AMD names the AMD Athlon XP processor based on model names instead of megahertz clock rates. The model names are intended to identify the relative performance of the AMD Athlon processor and highlight its architectural superiority over existing AMD Athlon processors. The higher the model number, the better the performance. ”(Press release on the Athlon XP 1900+ introduction)
Our benchmarks determine whether, for example, an Athlon XP 1600+ is really faster than a similarly clocked Athlon with 1.4 GHz have to show. Incidentally, the performance rating can be calculated using the equation: 1.5 x processor clock - 500.
On the next page: Requirements