Sealed AMD Athlon XP 2000+ CPU stands the test of time — 22-year-old single-core "Thoroughbred" relic has never been turned on outside the factory

News
By
published

Put that thing in a museum!

AMD Athlon XP 2000+ Packaging
(Image credit: Bits And Chips)

Back in 2002, when CPU process nodes were measured in Microns, and processors used a 32-bit word size, AMD launched the Athlon XP 2000+ in an attempt to take down Intel's Northwood-based Pentium 4 chips. Today, almost 22 years later, we've come across a packaged, sealed, and untouched Athlon XP 2000+ by Bits And Chips over at X; truly a relic of a bygone era.

The AMD Athlon XP 2000+ was fabricated using a 0.13-micron process node equivalent to 130nm. It offered a slow base clock of 133 MHz, but even that's over 33% faster than the Pentium 4 2.2 (Northwood). The CPU featured just a single core and a single thread, which wasn't uncommon back then.

While the Pentium was almost 2x larger in terms of die size, the Athlon's overly bulky package size shadowed the Pentium since AMD's at-the-time incumbent Socket 462 had a much larger footprint than Intel's Socket 478. Moreover, AMD fine wine wasn't as robust as it is now because the XP 2000+ lacked SSE2 support, which would later cripple compatibility.

AMD Athlon XP 2000+ Packaging

(Image credit: Bits And Chips)

The box shows how much we've improved in the packaging department over the past two decades. But alas, there's a hint of simplicity and reassurance since you see the CPU up close, side by side with the stock cooler. Also, if you're wondering, the XP suffix was intended to highlight support for Microsoft's Windows XP while referring to "Extended Performance."

The Athlon XP 2000+ ran at a relatively high voltage of 1.65V and had a base TDP of 60W. Despite a lower wattage than the Pentium 4, the XP 2000+ was notorious for running significantly hotter. As for pricing, AMD launched the XP 2000+ at $339 or $588 when adjusted for inflation in 2024. The Pentium 4 2.2 costs 65% more at $562 or $976 now - comparable to an entry-level workstation/server CPU.

Many today would pay a pretty penny to get their hands on that XP 2000+. However, the user has established an "old hardware" museum at the school where they teach to stash away blasts from the past.

See more CPUs News
Hassam Nasir
Hassam Nasir
Contributing Writer

Hassam Nasir is a die-hard hardware enthusiast with years of experience as a tech editor and writer, focusing on detailed CPU comparisons and general hardware news. When he’s not working, you’ll find him bending tubes for his ever-evolving custom water-loop gaming rig or benchmarking the latest CPUs and GPUs just for fun.

30 Comments Comment from the forums
  • abufrejoval
    These devices were meant to be used!

    If they were not, that's a failure!

    And of course, that CPU was turned on various times during production: that's needed for QA and binning!

    Bringing some kind of virginity cult to IT is just very bad anthropomorphisation and best not done.

    And the idiocity of collectors assigning value to things that simply got rare by design or accident does not need reenforcement.
    Reply
  • Thunder64
    "It offered a slow base clock of 133 MHz, but even that's over 33% faster than the Pentium 4 2.2 (Northwood)."

    This is poorly worded at best. There was no "base clock" back then. The FSB was 133MHz. And it was "double pumped" so 266MT/s.
    Reply
  • toffty
    abufrejoval said:
    These devices were meant to be used!

    If they were not, that's a failure!

    And of course, that CPU was turned on various times during production: that's needed for QA and binning!

    Bringing some kind of virginity cult to IT is just very bad anthropomorphisation and best not done.

    And the idiocity of collectors assigning value to things that simply got rare by design or accident does not need reenforcement.
    I think you're taking this way to the extreme.
    If your points were in regards to virtual things (bitcoins for instance) I'd agree; but anything physical can be valued and it's up to the market (buyer) to decide it's worth.
    Reply
  • baculum
    I never thought I'd do this, but I signed up to whine about how bad this article is.

    Lack of SSE2 was never a problem at this time given it was just recently introduced.

    There was no concept of 'base' or 'boost' -- these constructs wouldn't be introduced for another two (?) generations.

    The socket was called 'Socket A' and no one referred to it by how many pins it had (462).

    And as noted by the previous poster, 133 Mhz was the FSB, which is the clock of the chipset and has nothing to do with the clock of the CPU. It's funny because this still does exist, but the author just doesn't seem to understand how computers work.

    This article should also be a case-study in why over-reliance on AI makes you look stupid.

    And one last thought: 2.2? 2.2 what? This article should be deleted.
    Reply
  • chaz_music
    Let's hope it has not suffered from ELDRS radiation damage. Over time, the CMOS threshold voltage goes down until the enhancement CMOS devices start to behave like depletion mode parts. i.e., they are on with 0V on the gate. That 'tis a bummer, especially with power MOSFETs. :)

    Wiki article on radiation hardening with a quick mention on ELDRS:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening
    Reply
  • HideOut
    baculum said:
    I never thought I'd do this, but I signed up to whine about how bad this article is.

    Lack of SSE2 was never a problem at this time given it was just recently introduced.

    There was no concept of 'base' or 'boost' -- these constructs wouldn't be introduced for another two (?) generations.

    The socket was called 'Socket A' and no one referred to it by how many pins it had (462).

    And as noted by the previous poster, 133 Mhz was the FSB, which is the clock of the chipset and has nothing to do with the clock of the CPU. It's funny because this still does exist, but the author just doesn't seem to understand how computers work.

    This article should also be a case-study in why over-reliance on AI makes you look stupid.

    And one last thought: 2.2? 2.2 what? This article should be deleted.

    Well I'm glad you signed up. THG "aint what she used to be" for sure. Its mostly manufacturer data posted as a story, with a link that gives them a kickback. ChatGPT stories are seemingly common these days too for those that do not provide a kickback. Its kinda sad :(
    Reply
  • Pemalite
    The Author needs to stop writing articles on what they struggle to comprehend.
    The Athlon XP 2000+ had a clock of 1667Mhz verses the Northwoods 2200Mhz.

    Not a "base clock" of 133Mhz verses the Northwood 2.2. - That comparison is nonsensical.
    The Athlon XP 2000+ had a FSB of 133Mhz that was double-pumped to 266Mhz.
    The Pentium 4 Northwood often employed a 100Mhz/133Mhz/200Mhz/266Mhz quad-pumped FSB. (400/533/800/1066Mhz respectively.)
    Reply
  • Thunder64
    Pemalite said:
    The Author needs to stop writing articles on what they struggle to comprehend.
    The Athlon XP 2000+ had a clock of 1667Mhz verses the Northwoods 2200Mhz.

    Not a "base clock" of 133Mhz verses the Northwood 2.2. - That comparison is nonsensical.
    The Athlon XP 2000+ had a FSB of 133Mhz that was double-pumped to 266Mhz.
    The Pentium 4 Northwood often employed a 100Mhz/133Mhz/200Mhz/266Mhz quad-pumped FSB. (400/533/800/1066Mhz respectively.)

    This article is hot garbage. I wonder if the author was even alive when these came out. I had an Athlon XP 2000+ (Palomino) and it kicked ass becuse it had a strong FPU while the P4 depended on SSE2 which wasn't widely used until years later.

    Also XP was for "Experience" not "Extended Performance". A quick google search could've told you that. What a crap article.
    Reply
  • sfjuocekr
    Base clock means front side bus, that is the clock before the (locked) multiplier.

    Today's CPU's all run at 100MHz.
    Reply
  • Thunder64
    sfjuocekr said:
    Base clock means front side bus, that is the clock before the (locked) multiplier.

    Today's CPU's all run at 100MHz.

    There is no FSB today. Hasn't been for a long time. Base clock might now mean 100MHz, but that is really just for convenience. Base clock has meant the guaranteed minimum a CPU will run at for a long time.

    Back then the FSB was how fast the CPU could communicate with everything else. And since the memory controller was off die, that was important.
    Reply