Hieronder nog een paar links naar wat Athlon reviews die vandaag op het net verschenen zijn:
[break]Gamers Depot reviewt de Athlon 750 voor ons.[/break]While we here at Gamers Depot are always glad to see progress in computer hardware, we are bummed out that seems while AMD may have taken one step forward, they took 1 1/2 steps backwards. This is definitely a chip that is totally targeted at the OEM, and more of a "bragging rights" chip over Intel, then it is a chip that will be targeted at the hardcore gamers.
Once AMD gets rolling with the 800Mhz with full speed L2 Cache, then we'll see something to get more excited about. In the mean time if you already own an Athlon, and have been thinking about upgrading, then wait a little longer. If you're on a budget, and looking for the best bang for the buck, then consider a slower Athlon like the 650 or 700.[break]Ace's Hardware heeft er eentje van de Athlon op 800MHz:[/break]The Athlon 800 does surprisingly well in most benchmarks. I personally expected that it would suffer more from the fact that the L2-cache only runs at 325 MHz and that the SDRAM runs 8 times slower. Nevertheless, the Athlon will never be able to show its true potential without an on-die L2-cache. A seventh generation CPU should not be limited by a sixth generation L2-cache.
The PIII 800 will show better performance in quite a few business applications, but our first impression is that the Athlon 800 packs a punch in the applications where CPU power really counts: CAD, Simulators, etc. We will do our best to give you more insight in those two CPU's later, it is too early to publish a final judgement.
Overclockers will appreciate the slower, but much cheaper brothers of the Athlon 800. I can tell you that there aren't many .18 µ CPU's out there that don't reach 750 MHz (are there any?), if you catch my drift. Now if only somebody would find a convenient way to use this overclocking potential.[break]The Tech Report heeft ook wat testjes gedaan met een Athlon 800:[/break]If there's a theme to these test results, it'd have to be "diminishing returns." We suspect that, as systems approach the magic 1GHz mark at a rather feverish pace (with Intel and AMD going great guns for the MHz title), upgraders will want to keep in mind that the rest of the components in their systems will have to get faster to feed their processors properly.
Hopefully, our attempts at overclocking the 800 will bear fruit later this week, as I'm anxious to see how the curve for the .4 divider chips extends as the speeds get higher. Overall, I'd have to say that the 800 looks to be a much stronger chip than the 750, since the increase in clock speed helps to offset the slower cache that made the difference between the 700 and 750 very small.
As far as purchasing an 800 with the hope of getting more out of it through the use of a "Golden Fingers" overclocking card, the jury is still out. I will say, based on my limited overclocking tests so far, that I wouldn't look for near the same kinds of gains as we've seen recently from a 500, for example. My 500 will do 700 MHz at stock voltage; when I tried to get the 800 to 900 MHz at stock voltage (the only combination I've tried so far), it wouldn't even boot Win98. As I said, I hope to have more information on overclocking later in the week, but I wanted to get these results out there for you. See you later in the week…