Silver
01-12-02, 12:42 PM
Alright, spent a few hours and gathered reams of paper to come up with the following (of course from the source).:)
The Athlon 1.4 was used as the base line for the xp series of processors as far as performance testing goes. This is to say that the 1.4 Athlon was considered 100%. Each successive xp was designed to increase performance from here by approximately three percent. The xp1500 operating at 1.33 Ghz actually outperformed the 1.4 Athlon at stock settings by about 1%. An additional 3.5% was dependant on the inclusion of Windows media encoder version 7.0 (which enabled 3DNow) for a total of 1.045% over the Athlon 1.4. After this initial step each successive Xp resulted in an increase of 3% including 3DNow utilization. This of course is why my xp1600 shows it has 3dNow as well as SSE.
This also explains why CPU testing as reported by Sisoft and all others testing during reviews show the following.
CPU Dhrystone Whetstone
Athlon 1.0 2746 1363
Athlon 1.2 3295 1636
Athlon 1.33 3750 1848
Athlon 1.4 3904 1887 Baseline 100%
XP1500 Don't Have Yet (1.330 GHz)
Athlon xp1600 3872 1940 (1.400)
XP1700 Don't Have Yet (1.467)
XP1800 4240 2124 (1.533)
xp1900 Don't Have Yet
xp2000 Don't Have Yet
Athlon 1.53 4274 2066 Overclocked
Total speed increase between xp1800 and Athlon 1.4 is reported by AMD (source) at 13.5% (October 5, 2001). This was in "overall Desktop Performance". It is very obvious that the enhancements in the core effected the xp processors but inordinately so due to the implementation of the version 7.0 Microsoft Windows Media Encoder.
Fundamentally Cpu Power is the amount of work done (ICPs)x speed at which it is done (MHz). This explains why Pentiums don't due much work but do it at a rapid speed (higher Mhz). The Athlons and the XPs do more work but at a lower speed. End result, The guy with the big bucket does less but moves more water than the guy with the can going like H......in the same period of time.
To wit, "the AMD Athlon xp processor 1800+ outperforms the Intel Pentium 4 processor 1.8 GHz by up to 50% on an industry standard entertainment application." AMD 10/5/01
Without the use of the Microsoft encoder (7.0) the xp1800 is only 8.5% faster than the T-Bird at 1.4.
Now it is easy to see why processor power on the T-Bird could be overclocked to attain these levels without much trouble as the processing power of the cpus was not that dramatically changed in relation to the Baseline T-Bird 1.4. A 114% increase in processing power over its present rating would put it squarely in xp1800 territory (1.6GHz). Yes, this is faster than the xp1800 at 1.53GHz but it has a slightly bigger bucket. BTW at 115% of the T-Bird 1.4 (1.61GHz) the T-Bird would exceed the xp1800 at stock speed (as indicated by xp1800 max speed-Amd). The important thing to remember here is that the performance of the T-Bird 1.4 was the base line used by AMD for all of the XP ratings and that all revisions were to go up by approximately 3%. Wonder why they dropped the original name "Palomino" used during testing and adopted the Athlon XP system.
Some notes,
" The Athlon XP2000+ is faster than the Pentium 4 2.0GHz by 12% in overall desktop performance" AMD
Testing by AMD showed the XP1800 to be 127% (1.53) faster than a Pentium 4 (1.5GHz) in overall performance testing. This data is possible being misinterpreted by some as anything that is not an xp cpu. Amd most assuredly will not tell you that a T-Bird 1.4 would have to run at 1820 when it recognizes the xps advantage to be only 13%. At 1.582GHz the T-bird catches up.
Athlon 1.4 and all XP1500s to xp1800s were tested on the Gigabyte GA-7DX (rev 4.0) for DDR testing. AMD
Athlon 1.4 and all xp1500s to xp1800s were tested on the
Asus A7V133 (rev 1.05) SDRAM. AMD
Intel processors used on a Intel D850GB mobo. Ram used PC-800 RDRAM.
Ram of the respective type for each AMD board was used from Micron.
Give you the model number if you really want it.
AMD testers are really into testing when they throw Sound Blaster Live cards on all of the test boards. AMD
Conclusion:
Don't let anyone tell you that at this time you are lying about your Sisoft Scores or that you need to overclock your T-Bird to 2.5 GHz just to catch up with their XP1600. I have one and I assure you that an overclocked t-bird at 1.7 will leave the XP1600 looking for an Intel. Lets see xp2000 at 1.663 (stock). T-bird 1400x1.2=1680 ....hmm 1.77GHz ought to cover it.
:)
The Athlon 1.4 was used as the base line for the xp series of processors as far as performance testing goes. This is to say that the 1.4 Athlon was considered 100%. Each successive xp was designed to increase performance from here by approximately three percent. The xp1500 operating at 1.33 Ghz actually outperformed the 1.4 Athlon at stock settings by about 1%. An additional 3.5% was dependant on the inclusion of Windows media encoder version 7.0 (which enabled 3DNow) for a total of 1.045% over the Athlon 1.4. After this initial step each successive Xp resulted in an increase of 3% including 3DNow utilization. This of course is why my xp1600 shows it has 3dNow as well as SSE.
This also explains why CPU testing as reported by Sisoft and all others testing during reviews show the following.
CPU Dhrystone Whetstone
Athlon 1.0 2746 1363
Athlon 1.2 3295 1636
Athlon 1.33 3750 1848
Athlon 1.4 3904 1887 Baseline 100%
XP1500 Don't Have Yet (1.330 GHz)
Athlon xp1600 3872 1940 (1.400)
XP1700 Don't Have Yet (1.467)
XP1800 4240 2124 (1.533)
xp1900 Don't Have Yet
xp2000 Don't Have Yet
Athlon 1.53 4274 2066 Overclocked
Total speed increase between xp1800 and Athlon 1.4 is reported by AMD (source) at 13.5% (October 5, 2001). This was in "overall Desktop Performance". It is very obvious that the enhancements in the core effected the xp processors but inordinately so due to the implementation of the version 7.0 Microsoft Windows Media Encoder.
Fundamentally Cpu Power is the amount of work done (ICPs)x speed at which it is done (MHz). This explains why Pentiums don't due much work but do it at a rapid speed (higher Mhz). The Athlons and the XPs do more work but at a lower speed. End result, The guy with the big bucket does less but moves more water than the guy with the can going like H......in the same period of time.
To wit, "the AMD Athlon xp processor 1800+ outperforms the Intel Pentium 4 processor 1.8 GHz by up to 50% on an industry standard entertainment application." AMD 10/5/01
Without the use of the Microsoft encoder (7.0) the xp1800 is only 8.5% faster than the T-Bird at 1.4.
Now it is easy to see why processor power on the T-Bird could be overclocked to attain these levels without much trouble as the processing power of the cpus was not that dramatically changed in relation to the Baseline T-Bird 1.4. A 114% increase in processing power over its present rating would put it squarely in xp1800 territory (1.6GHz). Yes, this is faster than the xp1800 at 1.53GHz but it has a slightly bigger bucket. BTW at 115% of the T-Bird 1.4 (1.61GHz) the T-Bird would exceed the xp1800 at stock speed (as indicated by xp1800 max speed-Amd). The important thing to remember here is that the performance of the T-Bird 1.4 was the base line used by AMD for all of the XP ratings and that all revisions were to go up by approximately 3%. Wonder why they dropped the original name "Palomino" used during testing and adopted the Athlon XP system.
Some notes,
" The Athlon XP2000+ is faster than the Pentium 4 2.0GHz by 12% in overall desktop performance" AMD
Testing by AMD showed the XP1800 to be 127% (1.53) faster than a Pentium 4 (1.5GHz) in overall performance testing. This data is possible being misinterpreted by some as anything that is not an xp cpu. Amd most assuredly will not tell you that a T-Bird 1.4 would have to run at 1820 when it recognizes the xps advantage to be only 13%. At 1.582GHz the T-bird catches up.
Athlon 1.4 and all XP1500s to xp1800s were tested on the Gigabyte GA-7DX (rev 4.0) for DDR testing. AMD
Athlon 1.4 and all xp1500s to xp1800s were tested on the
Asus A7V133 (rev 1.05) SDRAM. AMD
Intel processors used on a Intel D850GB mobo. Ram used PC-800 RDRAM.
Ram of the respective type for each AMD board was used from Micron.
Give you the model number if you really want it.
AMD testers are really into testing when they throw Sound Blaster Live cards on all of the test boards. AMD
Conclusion:
Don't let anyone tell you that at this time you are lying about your Sisoft Scores or that you need to overclock your T-Bird to 2.5 GHz just to catch up with their XP1600. I have one and I assure you that an overclocked t-bird at 1.7 will leave the XP1600 looking for an Intel. Lets see xp2000 at 1.663 (stock). T-bird 1400x1.2=1680 ....hmm 1.77GHz ought to cover it.
:)