Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built
-
@scottalanmiller said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
It's really a testament to how much spare CPU we have and how little we really need. It's memory and storage that hold us back most of the time.
I have been saying this for years... CPU's have been faster then an average person needs for a long time.
-
AMD's best processor series ever. I had quite a few Athlon XP PCs back in the day.
-
@aaronstuder said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@scottalanmiller said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
It's really a testament to how much spare CPU we have and how little we really need. It's memory and storage that hold us back most of the time.
I have been saying this for years... CPU's have been faster then an average person needs for a long time.
With SSD and enough memory, you could run half decently off of a Pentium IIIs if you had to.
-
I installed Win10 last night as i walked out the door. Everything works except the sound card. Ill probably try to get that working today, just because it's Friday before 3 day holyday.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@Dashrender said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
Is it really about spare CPU versus just how fast they can get something done? I don't understand the difference?
To quote a doctor that pissed me off once - "I want sub second responses" and to that I agree.
All CPUs are millions of times faster than what a doctor's eye can perceive. The speed of the CPU isn't very important there. Having the CPU be overloaded is what matters. So yes, spare cycles is pretty much all that matters.
The CPU architecture goes hand in hand with speed though, right? I always interpreted it that way. I guess you are saying it's fast enough at that earlier generation though.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@scottalanmiller said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@Dashrender said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
Is it really about spare CPU versus just how fast they can get something done? I don't understand the difference?
To quote a doctor that pissed me off once - "I want sub second responses" and to that I agree.
All CPUs are millions of times faster than what a doctor's eye can perceive. The speed of the CPU isn't very important there. Having the CPU be overloaded is what matters. So yes, spare cycles is pretty much all that matters.
The CPU architecture goes hand in hand with speed though, right? I always interpreted it that way. I guess you are saying it's fast enough at that earlier generation though.
Architecture plays a huge rule, bigger than clock speed. But all modern procs are super fast.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@wirestyle22 said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@scottalanmiller said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@Dashrender said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
Is it really about spare CPU versus just how fast they can get something done? I don't understand the difference?
To quote a doctor that pissed me off once - "I want sub second responses" and to that I agree.
All CPUs are millions of times faster than what a doctor's eye can perceive. The speed of the CPU isn't very important there. Having the CPU be overloaded is what matters. So yes, spare cycles is pretty much all that matters.
The CPU architecture goes hand in hand with speed though, right? I always interpreted it that way. I guess you are saying it's fast enough at that earlier generation though.
Architecture plays a huge rule, bigger than clock speed. But all modern procs are super fast.
To the point where they aren't competing a speed anymore. For the most part they are trying to compete at threads/core and cores/cpu.
-
@coliver said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@scottalanmiller said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@wirestyle22 said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@scottalanmiller said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@Dashrender said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
Is it really about spare CPU versus just how fast they can get something done? I don't understand the difference?
To quote a doctor that pissed me off once - "I want sub second responses" and to that I agree.
All CPUs are millions of times faster than what a doctor's eye can perceive. The speed of the CPU isn't very important there. Having the CPU be overloaded is what matters. So yes, spare cycles is pretty much all that matters.
The CPU architecture goes hand in hand with speed though, right? I always interpreted it that way. I guess you are saying it's fast enough at that earlier generation though.
Architecture plays a huge rule, bigger than clock speed. But all modern procs are super fast.
To the point where they aren't competing a speed anymore. For the most part they are trying to compete at threads/core and cores/cpu.
Those mostly only matter to servers, too.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@coliver said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@scottalanmiller said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@wirestyle22 said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@scottalanmiller said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@Dashrender said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
Is it really about spare CPU versus just how fast they can get something done? I don't understand the difference?
To quote a doctor that pissed me off once - "I want sub second responses" and to that I agree.
All CPUs are millions of times faster than what a doctor's eye can perceive. The speed of the CPU isn't very important there. Having the CPU be overloaded is what matters. So yes, spare cycles is pretty much all that matters.
The CPU architecture goes hand in hand with speed though, right? I always interpreted it that way. I guess you are saying it's fast enough at that earlier generation though.
Architecture plays a huge rule, bigger than clock speed. But all modern procs are super fast.
To the point where they aren't competing a speed anymore. For the most part they are trying to compete at threads/core and cores/cpu.
Those mostly only matter to servers, too.
Yep. I think the most innovation is coming in the ARM sector but I don't follow it enough to have a real opinion.
-
Low power and GPU is where the interesting stuff is happening.
-
Has AMD done anything good recently? I don't keep up with hardware like I used too. The rule of thumb for me as of late has been i5 or i7.
-
@IRJ From what I've seen of the benchmarks, Intel is killing it. There is a market for AMD with budget gaming builds etc though.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@IRJ From what I've seen of the benchmarks, Intel is killing it. There is a market for AMD with budget gaming builds etc though.
I think the Athlon XP processor was the last time AMD actually beat Intel for a brief period of time when you consider overall value.
-
@IRJ said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@wirestyle22 said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@IRJ From what I've seen of the benchmarks, Intel is killing it. There is a market for AMD with budget gaming builds etc though.
I think the Athlon XP processor was the last time AMD actually beat Intel for a brief period of time when you consider overall value.
Oh no. The first several generations of Opterons were the real winners. The XP wasn't even in the same class. it was the Opteron that put AMD in the lead for several years. AMD owned the decade of 2000.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@IRJ said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@wirestyle22 said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@IRJ From what I've seen of the benchmarks, Intel is killing it. There is a market for AMD with budget gaming builds etc though.
I think the Athlon XP processor was the last time AMD actually beat Intel for a brief period of time when you consider overall value.
Oh no. The first several generations of Opterons were the real winners. The XP wasn't even in the same class. it was the Opteron that put AMD in the lead for several years. AMD owned the decade of 2000.
Athlon XP Processors weren't top of the line, but they offered more VALUE for typical PCs.
-
@IRJ said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@scottalanmiller said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@IRJ said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@wirestyle22 said in Today i decommissioned an Athlon Xp 2200+ machine I may have built:
@IRJ From what I've seen of the benchmarks, Intel is killing it. There is a market for AMD with budget gaming builds etc though.
I think the Athlon XP processor was the last time AMD actually beat Intel for a brief period of time when you consider overall value.
Oh no. The first several generations of Opterons were the real winners. The XP wasn't even in the same class. it was the Opteron that put AMD in the lead for several years. AMD owned the decade of 2000.
Athlon XP Processors weren't top of the line, but they offered more VALUE for typical PCs.
And the Opteron offered even more comparative value. Nothing came close.
