Intel to counter Athlon 3200+ with 3.2GHz P4

**endersgame21** · May 3rd, 2003, 10:06 PM

AMD will launch its anticipated 400MHz frontside bus Athlon XP processor later this month ahead of the official debut of further 800MHz FSB Pentium 4 parts from Intel.

The AMD's 400MHz FSB chip is based on the company's Barton core. AMD has yet to announce the part, but as we've reported before, company staffers have alluded to and mobo companies have effectively pre-announced.

Some roadmaps detailed by Japanese Web site PC Watch suggested back in March that the 400MHz FSB Athlon would ship in a late-April to mid-May timeframe, and recent reports from CNET and DigiTimes cite sources confirming the latter date.

The initial roadmap report pointed at a 400MHz FSB Athlon XP 3200+. Later reports confirm that rating, and claim that AMD will release a 3000+ version too. The current Athlon XP 3000+, which supports a 333MHz FSB, is priced at $325, so we'd expect the new parts to come in at that price-point or just above it. They are unlikely to be more expensive than the $690 Opteron 242. We'd estimate a price of around $600 for the 3200+.

Intel's plan to introduce 2.4, 2.6 and 2.8GHz Pentium 4s supporting the quad-pumped 200MHz FSB - for an effective 800MHz frequency - has been known for some time. The chip giant will ship its Springdale chipset at the same time.

However, while earlier reports claimed Intel would ship a 3.2GHz clock, 800MHz FSB P4 toward the end of the current quarter, DigiTimes' mobo-maker sources claim that the part will debut on 21 May too.

The chips' introductory prices are expected to be $278 for the 2.8GHz P4C, $218 for the 2.6GHz P4 and $178 for the 2.4GHz P4C. The 'C' indicates 800MHz bus support when there's already a 533MHz FSB chip at that clock speed. The 3.2GHz P4 is expected to be priced at $637.

The 21 May launch will be prefaced by price cuts to the current 533MHz FSB P4 line-up on 11 May.

**isus** · May 27th, 2003, 06:43 PM

we've seen 400x over that amd's cpus can beat intel's.

an xp 2400 could beat a p4 2.53... ya know, whatever the chip, i think amd has the advantage for now.

intel is just crapping bricks right now, bc they know they aren't gonna be able to keep up to amd.

**hawkburn** · May 27th, 2003, 06:56 PM

I'm going to have to say that since all of my past computers (Packard Bell - Pentium I, Compaq Presario Pentium III, and now HP Pavilion Pentium IV, not including Apple II E) have all worked VERY well and I am satified, so I will continue to stick with my modded, brand-named Intel based systems in the future.

Thank you thank you Planet ZP!

**chipperrox** · May 27th, 2003, 07:01 PM

lol amd is def not better than intel! They are made cheaply (quality wise) and overheat too easily. Intel has less bottlenecks in their new chip and chipset and they will continue to dominate amd

**d.crowley** · May 27th, 2003, 07:20 PM

if intel makes all of their new >3GHz cpus include hyperthreading technology (as some of their current 3,06 models), AMD will be in serious trouble...

THG noticed performance differences up to 50% in multitasking environments, compared to non-HT-systems... and if you use apps enabling multithreading (photoshop, cinema 4d etc.), you'll get another 15-25% plus... now that's nice, u know

**isus** · May 30th, 2003, 06:06 AM

i love intel personally... i just think they need something a little better...

amd is cheaper and faster...

but i agree, they really need to do something about the whole "if you leave our cpu without a hsf for 2 seconds during startup, the thing will go nuclear and you will not be using it anymore".

a friend of mine had his amd cpu fry bc he was using a variable speed fan on the heatsink... and the temp probe spun the fan up for a few seconds, then the fan slowed down...

err?

but amd has the better 64-bit cpu for now.

and intel will break the 4ghz mark...

**Aaron73153** · June 2nd, 2003, 08:46 PM

With Springdale and Canterwood Intel has such a higher bus speed than AMD that the new 3.0 ghz should trounce the 3200.

Also the new Intel has faster memory, how fast a computer actually runs has alot less to do with just clock speed than most people realize.

**Mel_Smiley** · June 2nd, 2003, 09:12 PM

I love my Athlon 1.333G with 640M of ram, its like a rock and never has had heat issues. But those new P4's are looking so tasty and will most likely be my next choice, soon I hope. Would like to try the ATI Radeon 9800 pro too. Im stuck with 7500 right now (overclocked)but it runs sweet. I guess its always something else

**phalkon30** · June 2nd, 2003, 09:40 PM

I have a feeling this thread will soon turn into a "my dick is bigger than yours" type of thread

Intel is flashing numbers at people, and thats what the people want. If you had 2 Dells, and one had bigger numbers for the same price, it wouldn't matter which is the faster machine, the one has bigger numbers!!

I've heard that the P4 chips work better in every day situations when the hyperthreading is turned OFF, that won't be the case for all programs, but for the average to moderate user, you wouldn't notice the differenc with it on or off, a program has to be programmed specificly to take advantage of it (sorta like a dual processor system is NOT twice as fast)

Also, RAM speed, sure, RDRAM is a lot "faster", but does that really help when it can only handle half the data of DDR?

Basicly, they're going to be pretty close performance wise, the two companys just do it different ways. Maybe someday the Pentium will wipe AMD's ass, but I'll keep using AMD till that day comes, I don't like to throw money away

**Mel_Smiley** · June 2nd, 2003, 09:47 PM

Also, my wang is bigger than your wang.

**d.crowley** · June 3rd, 2003, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by phalkon30
I've heard that the P4 chips work better in every day situations when the hyperthreading is turned OFF, that won't be the case for all programs, but for the average to moderate user, you wouldn't notice the differenc with it on or off, a program has to be programmed specificly to take advantage of it (sorta like a dual processor system is NOT twice as fast)

not correct... don't mix up multitasking with multithreading: for the latter, you need specifically optimized programs. like the latest adobe & microsoft versions etc.

performance enhancements in multitasking environments (play games while burning a cd, render a video while working on presentations, having a bunch of p2p tools run in the background while you work......) up to 50% are possible with existing, non-optimized programs.

more information on that here: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2002...eading-02.html

anybody interested in the subject, i strongly recommend checking out this comparison video:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2002..._306ht-22.html

it's a 3,0Ghz HT P4 against an overclocked 3,6GHz without HT... should give you a small impression of possible speed enhancements...

Intel is flashing numbers at people, and thats what the people want. If you had 2 Dells, and one had bigger numbers for the same price, it wouldn't matter which is the faster machine, the one has bigger numbers!!

huh? it's amd who's using higher numbers than their actual clock rate would suggest...

**chipperrox** · June 3rd, 2003, 01:09 PM

i agree with the last post. If your talking numbers, its amd that is flashing the ##'s. speaking of a dicksize battle, thats like saying your 2.7 ghz dick is a 3.0 ghz dick. Those numbers arent the true reflections of bus speed but they still are pretty comparable. Intel is releasing the 4 ghz later this year :)

**oogle** · June 3rd, 2003, 01:35 PM

amd uses copper wires and intel doesnt , now who is cheap? thats y AMD processors fry sumtimes but thats usually the consumers fault, i hate intel , p4 = total waste