Review on Athlon XP 2600
- Thread starter alonso
- Start date
Interesting article.
Why it is that people continue to obsess about overclocking a 2 gig processor is beyond me. What, it's not freaking fast enough already?????!!!!
I think these are the same people who buy pills to enhance their penis size, or like to hunt ducks with AK-47's.
Why it is that people continue to obsess about overclocking a 2 gig processor is beyond me. What, it's not freaking fast enough already?????!!!!
I think these are the same people who buy pills to enhance their penis size, or like to hunt ducks with AK-47's.
Barometer
New member
Interesting, the fact that it comes from an AMD specific site makes me leary. You can twist a benchmark like any other statistic. And I so agree with RWhite, what the hell. I've got a dual Athlon 1.2 machine at home and it screams, I can't imagine needing to overclock a 2 GIG processor 
Actually you can check out the same processor reviewed at Extremetech, www.extremetech.com , unfortunately the benchmark goes the other way. At Tom's there's a different story. www.tomshardware.com
Benchmarking is actually the only way to check out differences in these kind of processors, real-world usage does not throw up as many differences.
IMO nowadays processors are fast approaching the limits of how much software can stress them, except a few applications. A move from a 5400 rpm hard disk to 7200 or 7200 to SCSI can make much more difference in overall system performance than moving from 1800 to 2400 or 2600 processor.
Some people seem to forget that a system is more than just a CPU. In our country (and, I would imagine in a large part of the world) a computer with (2.4) is assumed to be faster, better and therefore worth paying more for than a system with (1.9). Never mind that the former system has a dubious motherboard, a horrible hard disk and OEM parts, and the second is built from name brand parts with good overall subsystems.
Sang
Benchmarking is actually the only way to check out differences in these kind of processors, real-world usage does not throw up as many differences.
IMO nowadays processors are fast approaching the limits of how much software can stress them, except a few applications. A move from a 5400 rpm hard disk to 7200 or 7200 to SCSI can make much more difference in overall system performance than moving from 1800 to 2400 or 2600 processor.
Some people seem to forget that a system is more than just a CPU. In our country (and, I would imagine in a large part of the world) a computer with (2.4) is assumed to be faster, better and therefore worth paying more for than a system with (1.9). Never mind that the former system has a dubious motherboard, a horrible hard disk and OEM parts, and the second is built from name brand parts with good overall subsystems.
Sang
)Actually, for audio processing, I think we still have long way to go in terms of processor speed. Take for example the TimeWorks ReverbX plugin - this, to my mind, is the first software reverb I have heard that approaches the quality of a decent hardware unit. Now try running it on 96K 24bit audio with one of the room or hall algorithms. My PC, with dual AMD MP1600s, is not able to effectively run one instance of this in real time.
What I'm saying is that the primary reason that plugins, for the most part -especially reverb-, are not on par with the best digital hardware FX is because of the limited DSP available to them. Plugin algorithms have to be toned down so that they have a reasonable chance of running in real time.
So I'm eagerly looking forward to more advances in CPU speeds, as well as the coming shift to 64bit processors. Bring on the DSP please - I can never have enough.
Ben
What I'm saying is that the primary reason that plugins, for the most part -especially reverb-, are not on par with the best digital hardware FX is because of the limited DSP available to them. Plugin algorithms have to be toned down so that they have a reasonable chance of running in real time.
So I'm eagerly looking forward to more advances in CPU speeds, as well as the coming shift to 64bit processors. Bring on the DSP please - I can never have enough.
Ben
Yes there are a lot of notable exceptions like video and audio workstations where real-time effects is still a problem, more video than audio. I know of Animation as an example, at 320 x 240 we're not anywhere near real-time on animation rendering. You may not have to look that far actually some of the new games are getting CPU limited, like Comanche 4 which is proving that even the fastest CPUs can be bottlenecks.
I agree wholeheartedly with the need for more speed. I was reading over at another forum about insane 8 way and 16 way MP systems that do real time GPS tracking and workstations from Sun running Solaris that outperform any desktop unit a hundred times over, at 20 grand plus. Those will be able to peform anything in real time, AFAIK!
In terms of DAW, yes we still need further processing speed and the race for speed between Intel and AMD has done one thing: it has helped processors advance in technology and become chaper as well, which ultimately helps computers and consumers. Intel will launch 2800 and 3000 processors in a few weeks, and drop prices from their current 600 (volume, not street) for a 2.53 to an expected 300 or so where it can compete favourably with the 2600+. See, cheaper faster computing...
Anyway IMO for serious audio users DSP should be completely hardware based, no matter how good soft DSPs become there are still problems inherent because a PC is a very general purpose tool, just like guitar players prefer a hardware unit to a multi FX unit. A PC is a powerful tool, but not as good as a dedicated outboard unit.
I agree wholeheartedly with the need for more speed. I was reading over at another forum about insane 8 way and 16 way MP systems that do real time GPS tracking and workstations from Sun running Solaris that outperform any desktop unit a hundred times over, at 20 grand plus. Those will be able to peform anything in real time, AFAIK!
In terms of DAW, yes we still need further processing speed and the race for speed between Intel and AMD has done one thing: it has helped processors advance in technology and become chaper as well, which ultimately helps computers and consumers. Intel will launch 2800 and 3000 processors in a few weeks, and drop prices from their current 600 (volume, not street) for a 2.53 to an expected 300 or so where it can compete favourably with the 2600+. See, cheaper faster computing...
Anyway IMO for serious audio users DSP should be completely hardware based, no matter how good soft DSPs become there are still problems inherent because a PC is a very general purpose tool, just like guitar players prefer a hardware unit to a multi FX unit. A PC is a powerful tool, but not as good as a dedicated outboard unit.
too damn fast...
I read several reviews on the 2600+ yesterday in it always either matched or came close to the P4 2.53 overall (not in every catagory obviously). I can't imagine why the price difference between the high end XPs and P4s don't absolutely let AMD rule the amature performance enthusiast. save 100$ on an AMD processor and get a kickass videocard or something.
As for pushing the limits of processor power, i'm no expert, but i think we just havn;t thought of better ways to use the power. I imagine a housing have a small 'server' type box that regulates temperature, light, security systems, tv, telephones, appliances, and serves as an internet gateway. for audio is just real time real time and MORE real time potential.
someone check my logic on this.
if AMD goes to 333 FSB with the 2800+, will that be the single biggest performance gap between processors? (the small 333 bandwith boost and the 200+/133 Mhtz increase)? Cause i was thinking that could put the 2600+ at a really good price/performance ratio for that kinda speed. since it will be the highest of the 'old 266' processors.
i read at tomshardware they ice cooled the 2600+ and got 2.8 Ghz/3400+ or something. which is insane.
NOTE: i am writing this on a P2 466 with 320 megs of SD100 ram. I used a 486 two years ago.
SirRiff
I read several reviews on the 2600+ yesterday in it always either matched or came close to the P4 2.53 overall (not in every catagory obviously). I can't imagine why the price difference between the high end XPs and P4s don't absolutely let AMD rule the amature performance enthusiast. save 100$ on an AMD processor and get a kickass videocard or something.
As for pushing the limits of processor power, i'm no expert, but i think we just havn;t thought of better ways to use the power. I imagine a housing have a small 'server' type box that regulates temperature, light, security systems, tv, telephones, appliances, and serves as an internet gateway. for audio is just real time real time and MORE real time potential.
someone check my logic on this.
if AMD goes to 333 FSB with the 2800+, will that be the single biggest performance gap between processors? (the small 333 bandwith boost and the 200+/133 Mhtz increase)? Cause i was thinking that could put the 2600+ at a really good price/performance ratio for that kinda speed. since it will be the highest of the 'old 266' processors.
i read at tomshardware they ice cooled the 2600+ and got 2.8 Ghz/3400+ or something. which is insane.
NOTE: i am writing this on a P2 466 with 320 megs of SD100 ram. I used a 486 two years ago.
SirRiff
alonso
New member
This processor race/craze is really getting insane. Sure, we all appreciate more processing power and speed. And those of us who use PC for recording will surely appreciate more power and speed for running our recording applications and plug ins. But I think this is starting to become an obsession, think about it, if I were to buy a new processor right now I would be overwhelmed by the choices now, and I would wait till the faster ones come out, but then again, they always keep getting a faster one out in less than 6 months, so if you fall into their game, you´d never buy anything at all. But then again, every technology industry is like this
so if you fall into their game, you´d never buy anything at all. But then again, every technology industry is like this
HA- if you never buy anything, they'll go out of business - that's not their game. No matter when you buy, you end up with a better product. It is not a game, it is a genuine competition. Thank god for it - otherwise we would still be running crummy Commodore 64s.
The result of a digital calculation is the same regardless of whether it is performed by a specialized piece of hardware or by a piece of software running on a more 'general purpose' hardware platform. So there is no theoretical reason why you couldn't get exactly the same result from a plugin as from a piece of digital hardware - as long as they are running the same algorithm.
The main problem is real-time processing. Plugins have to be designed to be able to run in real time on a 'general purpose' PC processor. We are approaching the point where a good CPU will run fast enough to allow us to have plugins as good as the hardware - good news for all of us.
HA- if you never buy anything, they'll go out of business - that's not their game. No matter when you buy, you end up with a better product. It is not a game, it is a genuine competition. Thank god for it - otherwise we would still be running crummy Commodore 64s.
The result of a digital calculation is the same regardless of whether it is performed by a specialized piece of hardware or by a piece of software running on a more 'general purpose' hardware platform. So there is no theoretical reason why you couldn't get exactly the same result from a plugin as from a piece of digital hardware - as long as they are running the same algorithm.
The main problem is real-time processing. Plugins have to be designed to be able to run in real time on a 'general purpose' PC processor. We are approaching the point where a good CPU will run fast enough to allow us to have plugins as good as the hardware - good news for all of us.
wes480
New member
meh, wait until january when the 64bit AMD Clawhammer comes out.
I work at <gasp> Best Buy, and our AMD rep said we were going to have a deal where we get motherboard/processor when it comes out, for $199 bucks.
The motherboard will probably suck, so I probably won't do the deal...but, it will be the 3500+ 64bit Clawhammer Processor.
Wow....3500+...sounds amazing to me. I am running on a 700tbird right now...that will be my next upgrade.
5 times the MHZ...
I work at <gasp> Best Buy, and our AMD rep said we were going to have a deal where we get motherboard/processor when it comes out, for $199 bucks.
The motherboard will probably suck, so I probably won't do the deal...but, it will be the 3500+ 64bit Clawhammer Processor.
Wow....3500+...sounds amazing to me. I am running on a 700tbird right now...that will be my next upgrade.
5 times the MHZ...
bdemenil said:
That's a long way away yet from the desktop, but as I said those sytems are available if you've got the moolah, and someone to write the code for the DSP.
In a way it's like the old days when Graphics tricks were hardcoded into chips (remember 3DFx, any old farts like me will) and are now programmable through software APIs like DirectX.