Athlon XP 3100?

I

insaneshell

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
363
Ok i bought that HP to use for personal use, its not a 3000+ though its identied in everest as an Athlon XP 3100 @ 2.1ghz 400mhz FSB. Anyone ever heard of an AXP 3100 i just found it odd. And the odd part is it has 512k L2 not 256k so its not a Thorton, a search online reveals no Barton XP 3100, they say a 400mhz FSB @ 2.1 with 512k is a 3000+ but this has the same excat thing and says 3100, just thought id share a little oddity
 
pretty sure some OEMs got them only. its the barton core? 512kb l2 cache?
 
I think there were 2 AXP 3100s in OEM machines. I know eMachines got the 2.2GHz 3100 with 256K L2, which came as a Tbred B and Thorton, and I think HP/Compaq got the 2.1GHz 3100 with 512K L2, which is just an underclocked Barton 3200.

EDIT: It was known as a 3100, because it was to follow the OEM-centric naming used before on the XP 2900+ that was built specifically for SystemMax, which is 133MHz slower than the Tbred/Barton 2800+.
The 2900+, 3100+ and 3300+ were used only on OEM versions of the Athlon XP before they became Semprons.
 
Last edited:
its an HP just funny as AMD released a retail AXP 3000 that ran on a 400mhz FSB and sat at 2.1ghz lol.

I do remember AXP being faster than this my first serious comp was an AXP 2600 with 512mb DDR2700, and a Radeon 7200, running Windows XP, it was faster i swear this thing lags a bit
 
insaneshell said:
its an HP just funny as AMD released a retail AXP 3000 that ran on a 400mhz FSB and sat at 2.1ghz lol.

I do remember AXP being faster than this my first serious comp was an AXP 2600 with 512mb DDR2700, and a Radeon 7200, running Windows XP, it was faster i swear this thing lags a bit
Click to expand...
Yeah, the 400FSB Barton chips were originally going to use the same naming convention as the OEM chips, the whole +100 thing.

The Tbred/Thorton models would've had even numbers and Bartons would've had odd numbers, but gladly, some smart person at AMD put an end to that.
 
still though why is AXP slower than I remember lol. Its the same thing with this Pentium 133 ive got 98 on with 64mb of ram, almost a clone of my first PC just with a 6gb instead of a 3gb HD, but it runs like a dog, not butter smooth, isnt nostagia great as long as you dont try to relive it lmao
 
insaneshell said:
its an HP just funny as AMD released a retail AXP 3000 that ran on a 400mhz FSB and sat at 2.1ghz lol.

I do remember AXP being faster than this my first serious comp was an AXP 2600 with 512mb DDR2700, and a Radeon 7200, running Windows XP, it was faster i swear this thing lags a bit
Click to expand...

I assume Windows XP? If so, the Service Packs slowed performance noticeably on older machines, at least in my experience.
 
yea its XP SP3 Home, used one of my CD copies I keep for work and used the key HP provided on the machine as the disk that came with it, is XP Home SP1 and I dont want to spend a day updating the machine lmao.

Have SP3, Firefox4, Microsoft Security Essentials, Flash 10.4, Adobe Reader, and Office 2007 Pro installed on it. Right now Downloading Java lol
 
Yeah, my garage computer is an XP (Barton I think) running at 2.5GHz. I noticed a slowdown going from vanilla XP through the patching process. I'll take that for the increased security. Besides, all it's used for is music, recorded TV and looking up schematics and datasheets.
 
this is a data server and backup, gotta get the programs installed on it to do my data backups, and my SATA controller card for my 4x2tb SATA drives that are mounted externally on a rack, above it, right now the card is still in the P4 im gonna pull it out, and retire the old 1.6 Willamate.
 
JMccovery said:
The Barton 3100+ was an OEM-only product, it was later released as the 400FSB, 2.1GHz 3000+, which it was originally going to be called a 3100+, since they already had the 333FSB 2.167GHz 3000+.

The 400MHz bus models were going to be 100 points higher than the 333MHz bus, even if the 400FSB models were 133-166MHz slower. But someone smart at AMD decided not to go through with it.
Click to expand...

you say smart and a computer company's marketing department in the same sentence are you tring to make my head explode?
 
insaneshell said:
you say smart and a computer company's marketing department in the same sentence are you tring to make my head explode?
Click to expand...
Not intentionally... The saving grace is that there used to be someone smart in AMD's marketing department.
 
insaneshell said:
lol, if that was true we would never have had the PR rating lol
Click to expand...
True, but then the average computer would have been like: "This computer sucks, because it has less gigahertz! That Pentium 4 computer is better, because it runs at 3.06GHz, while this one only runs at 2.1GHz!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top