The first desktop CPU's using AMD's 'Quantispeed' architecture. Otherwise said: we are dealing with a 'Palomino' core.

AMD claims the AMD Athlon XP is faster per MHz comparing with the regular AMD Athlon 'Thunderbird'. The AMD Athlon XP at 1400MHz has model number 1600+ and should be as fast as an AMD Athlon 'Thunderbird' at 1600MHz. Unfortunatly I don't have an 1400MHz Athlon to compare but by looking at the 1000MHz Athlon I can say the Athlon XP is faster per MHz. Some benchmarks are quite a lot faster but the fact that the Athlon 'Thunderbird' doesn't have SSE plays a role, too. Besides being faster the AMD Athlon XP runs cooler as well. A 1733MHz AMD Athlon XP 2100+ will consume almost exact as much energy as the 1400MHz AMD Athlon 'Thunderbird'.

The CPU on the picture shows some discoloration. The previous owner probably ran it in a hot environment or didn't use much cooling. Luckily the AMD Athlon XP is known to run very well in hot conditions so I'm sure the CPU didn't suffer a lot . > Read more

Pretty much like the 1600+ model but 66MHz (100+) faster. > Read more

My first AMD Athlon XP! I bought it along with an EPoX 8RDA and one 512MB DDR333 RAM module back in May 2003. Back then it wasn't the fastest setup money could buy but I selected the hardware for overclocking. The Athlon XP 1700+ ran at 2GHz+ within the first hour I got it. After a while I got it (with watercooling which I bought about a year later I guess) up to 2400MHz and it's max was 2605MHz (unstable, though). Until this very day the CPU never ran on it's original clockfrequency which is 1466MHz.

Because the nForce2 didn't allow me to reach multipliers higher than 12,5x I modified some of the bridges on the CPU. On the picture you can see some damage near the L3-bridges. I tried to cut it using a knife but afterwards it was quite a dangerous procedure because I never did it before and didn't know how deep to cut. For the rest of the L-bridges I used an old AT power supply with needles in the +5V and GND. Put both needles at each end of the bridge and the bridge is open. Much easier and safer .

I used this CPU until february 2005. At that time I replaced it with a second hand Athlon XP 1800+ which did 2533MHz in 24/7 situations and 2,7GHz in a suicide run on watercooling.

> Read more

An overclocking genuis! This CPU once booted (highly unstable, though) at 2300MHz with only 1,5V and did 2,7GHz using watercooling. My other Athlon XP 'Thoroughbred' CPU's archieve this so easily. Only my Duron 1800 did 2,7GHz as well but doesn't have an unlocked multiplier.

This Athlon XP 1800+ ran for many years (24/7) at 2GHz, with air-cooling and a low core voltage to preserve energy. It was not until mid-September when it got replaced by an Athlon64 3200+ system that uses almost the same energy consumption. The Athlon64 was installed because it had a Zalman CNPS7000B-Cu (copper) cooler that allows it to run passive when idle. The Athlon XP could not run with the Zalman cooler because the heatsink didn't fit on the motherboard.
> Read more

The 1900+ was launched in November 2001 and was clearly one of the fastest x86 CPU's at it's time. The 1800+ is clearly ahead on the Pentium 4 2000 (Willamette) and so is the 1900+, too.

Technically it's pretty much like the 1600+ model but a tad faster.

> Read more

This 2100+ is the fastest Athlon XP that is based on the Palomino core. The 2200+ with Thoroughbred core, which is made using 130nm technology and thus cooler and cheaper to manufacture, was launched on June 10th of 2002. At the time this 2100+ was build (31th week of 2002) the Thoroughbred just hit the shelves. > Read more

The first kind of Thoroughbred processors from AMD. The Thoroughbred is the successor of the Palomino core and uses a 130nm manufacturing process. It's a few weeks newer than this 2100+ Palomino.

A while before the launch of the Thoroughbred CPU people were interested in it's overclockability. Rumors were going on that someone was able to overclock it to 2,6GHz or 2,7GHz which sounded surrealistic so some stated that it would rather be 2600+ or 2700+ (which a lower clock frequency). Later turned out that the Thoroughbred didn't overclock to 2,6GHz and was rather a disappointment as overclocker. It was not until early 2003 when the Thoroughbred B (improved version of the Thoroughbred) started to hit 2,7GHz frequencies and eventually more than 3GHz using LN2 cooling. > Read more

The 2500+ was the slowest Barton CPU when the new Barton cores were released. Barton is technically a Thoroughbred B core with 512KB L2-cache in total.

Because of the extra L2-cache AMD gave the Barton CPU's a higher rating. The Athlon XP 2600+ with 256KB L2 and 166MHz (DDR333) FSB runs at 2083MHz and the Barton model with 512KB L2 runs at 1917MHz. That's a difference of 166MHz and I don't think the extra L2-cache can compensate for that 166MHz. In some cases the bigger L2-cache doesn't even show any performance jumps compared to 256KB L2 . In my opinion the 2500+ should've had 1917MHz and the 2600+
1983MHz . > Read more

Just like the 2500+ but one step faster.

The slower Athlon XP's that were made in the end of 2002 had an unlocked multiplier. This meant that overclockers could overclock/tweak more easily. This Barton CPU doesn't have an unlocked multiplier anymore because AMD didn't want people to sell a 3000+ (for example) that originally was a 2500+. The multiplier lock was introduced around week 40 of 2003.

Despite the multiplier lock people could still overclock the CPU's by raising the FSB. In case of the 2500+ it was often possible to raise the FSB to 200MHz (DDR400) instead of the original 166MHz (DDR333) which would give you an Athlon XP 3200+. > Read more

The second fastest 133MHz (DDR266) FSB-based CPU for socket 462. The fastest is the 2600+ but it's quite rare and not the best CPU out there. The 2400+ is doing quite well, though.

AMD uses a rating system for their Athlon XP processors. Back in the old days an Athlon XP 1500+ would be as fast as an Athlon (Thunderbird) at 1500MHz. In practical situations this was true but eventually it depends on which application you use. As the Athlon XP got faster the given rating went up with 100+ for each 66MHz it got faster. For games this rating system works quite well untill somewhere around the 2200+ or 2400+. If you use the 2600+ with the Thoroughbred core it will give you a huge jump ahead on the 2400+ despite the rating difference is only 200+. This is because the front side bus is increased to 166MHz (DDR333) which will speed up the whole system. The 2600+ with 133MHz (DDR266) FSB doesn't have this 'extra' and won't be that much faster than the 2400+.

In practical terms a CPU needs a front side bus that sort of suits the CPU. Once I tested an Athlon XP at 2533MHz (real clock frequency) with a 133MHz (DDR266) FSB. A ridiculous FSB ~ clock ratio combination which was clearly visible in performance because the 2533/133 combination was actually slower than an Athlon XP 2600+ with 2083MHz and a 166MHz (DDR333) FSB! > Read more