1st---lets start with the Athlon 2200
This processor was originally due out this past winter, but it was the usual 6 months behind schedule. The Palimino ( XP ) processors were also way behind schedule also.
Keep in mind that this is the first speed increase of the Athlon processor line since January, and as with the past few speed increases, this is yet another minor 4% speed bump (from 1.733 GHz to 1.8 GHz). Overall, the Athlon processor line has only been cranked up from 1.4 to 1.8 GHz in the past year, well below past trends.
The thing that we were all wondering about this new .13 mircon core was if AMD could bump up their speed like Intel did with the P3 & P4. The answer turned out to be an overwhelming NO. It is only 3~5% faster, or roughly the same amount that the clock speed increased.
When Intel did their die shrink to .13micron that was not all that they did. They increased the cache from 256k to 512k. More recently on the P4 they have increased the FSB to 533mhz. Changes that resulted in faster memory access and fuction calls. AMD did nothing othere than a die shrink. Is that any way to compete?
One of the main advantages to going to a smaller transistor is that they require less power, therefore less heat. So much less that many people have found that they can run the new p4's with minimal cooling, unlike the Athlon, which goes into 3 mile island mode ( meltdown )if you run anything but a very expencive solid copper cooler. This is one of my main beef's with AMD. I for one think that a computer should be seen, not heard. People brag about having 4 case fans along with a screaming HSF unit on their processor. The whole thing sounds like a jet engine. And people are pround of that!
Another result of the less heat issue is that many of Intel's processors can be overclocked by 20, even 30%. From what I have read on Tom's Hardware and Anandtech is that they are getting about 1% overclock out of the 2200. This is below the 5% we saw on the 2000, and way, way below Intel's.
It's now obvious that AMD is ready to quit supporting the Socket A. Future processors ( the "Hammer") will use far more pins than the existing socket will allow. The 2200 missed the speed crown by a mile and AMD is no longer serious about keeping the Athlon in the race against the P4. The 2200 is very close to the end of its generation.
The problem behind "hammer"
People keep saying "hammer" in hushed tones thinking that it will be the P4 killer when it is introduced. Well, it is not due out until late 2002/early 2003. When it does come out is anyone out there willing to risk owning a "1st generation". So you wait yet another year ( 2004 ) for AMD to iron out the kinks. Hell, it took Intel 2 years to get the P4 up to speed....do ya think that AMD can intoduce a flawless chip on the first try? AMD went through a simmilar transition with the Athlon, going from slot to Socket.
Another problem that I see with the hammer is the 64bit architecture. While I agree that this is the definate future of computing, I also think that is will take at least 3 or 4 years before it really catches on big. Why? For the simple reason of support. Do you think that developers are going to support 64bit overnight? They wait for the chip to become popular....meaning that consumers have to be buying them.....but who going to buy one if very few developers are supporting them....visious cycle. It took 6 to 8 years to make the transition from 16bit to the 32bit that we are using today. So some day next year when the 64-bit processors go on sale, don't expect to just walk into a computer store on that day and buy a 64-bit PC at a very competitive price, bundle it with some 64-bit version of Windows XP, 64-bit Office, 64-bit Quake, and 64-bit everything else. Who gives a fuck about it being able to run 32-bit extensions also.....hell my current system does that just fine.
So....taking all that into consideration 2005 would be the earliest you would want to think about buying a hammer system. ( and thats being VERY optimistic ) Intel has been behind AMD in the speed catagory for about 3 years now.....now it looks like it is AMD's turn to take the backseat.
I know that now people are going to say "Wait for the Barton core, it will kick ass". Well, for those of you who are not familiar with "Barton" ( someone correct me if I am wrong on the name )
it is next Athlon due out, only difference being it will have a 512k L2 cache. If at the same time AMD increases the cache size they fix some memory timing issues this chip might be worth investigating. If they leave it "as is" expect a slight performance increase, nothing significant by any means.
Does any of you staunch AMD supporters ever wonder why Tier 1 OEM companies ( Dell, Gateway, Compac, ect ) refuse to get in on the AMD bandwagon? Could it maybe be because of constant product delays ( note the .13 chip & the palimino )? Some might say that they are in bed with Intel, which might be partially true, but do you think that the situation might be a little different if Intel could only produce a 1.8Ghz chip and AMD was producing a 2.8? I think everyone agree's that "clock speed is not everything", but performance is. Right now, for top end performance AMD does not even come close. The sad thing is is that AMD was very close to having teir 1 OEM support. There was a time when you could get a Gateway powered by AMD. A few delays later, Gateway says fuck this, stick with what we know works.
Some might say that it is not a fair comparason between the P4 & the Athlon. What other comparason's are there? They are both 7th generation x86 processors...Intel is still developing them & AMD is busy telling us how great things will be in 2003 with the "8th generation".