If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
MP/XP chip speeds table...
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 06:24:36 +1000
"Blaedmon" wrote: Hey Hey! Easy on the big words! Instead of using 'scatological' why didnt you simply say 'poo-like'? People shouldnt scan their minds for long words in vain attempts to sound clever because, quite frankly, they merely end up sounding like dicks. What makes you think that I need to "scan my mind for long words"? If _your_ vocabulary is limited you should do something about it. Sorry. Anyhoo - I got like 3 emails regarding my post, all asking whether I'd figured it out. Some dude asked what his 2400+ actually was, also. So in striking down your first point in fiery amusement let me laugh in your direction... ahem... "AAAAAAAAHHAAHAHAHA!". So which of those emails was a "useful response"? Next... I found the relevant info I needed faster on google which, admitedly, I should have done in the first place. Yes, you should. If you don't want people to treat you like an idiot then you should at least _attempt_ to do your own research before posting questions on USENET. But I wanted to see how many people look down on AMD naming system as I do. Its simply stupid. Sorry. Then you should have said "I think the AMD naming system is stupid. Does anybody agree with me?" If you had done that then nobody would have wasted their time trying to steer you to the information you requested. Next...Upset? Did I sound upset? Annoyed would be the word. Excuse me. Most folks don't resort to profanity until they are well past "annoyed". My mistake. Company after company name their stuff incoherently. What the hell does an Intel Pentium 4 2.0ghz mean? Hmm.. lets see.. Its revision 4 architecture, its 2ghz! Incredible! That was real simple. Now, what the hell is an AMD Athlon XP 2800+? Ok.. Its made by AMD.. the chip is an Athlon... XP.. could be its made specifically for windowsXP? not sure. 2800+! Ah so it must run at 2800ghz! WOW! I going to get me one of those! Now, lets look at the sarcasm above and see that a point is made. Get it? I look forward to stupid replies. Why is clock speed so important to you? Overall performance is what counts. The AMD numbering system is designed so that a chip that gives higher performance will have a higher number--when they went to the first XP design they had a little problem--due to various improvements in the efficiency of the chip, an XP running at 1.33 GHz had a little more performance than a Thunderbird running 1.4. So what do they do, do they call it a 1333 and have people think that it's slower than an older 1400, or do they call it something else that reflects the true performance rather than the clock speed? How would _you_ have dealt with that situation? If you can think of a better way I'm sure that the AMD marketing department would be happy to hear about it. Cyrix gave the "P-rating" scheme a bad name a while back and I'm sure the AMD folks were aware of the risk they were taking by doing something similar, and would have done something less risky if they had been smart enough to figure out what that might be. Intel is running into the same issue now with the Centrino chips--they outperform desktop P4s at the same clock speed. It's going to be interesting to see how they handle it. And it's going to get worse with the 64-bit chips--the 1.8s are already benchmarking about the same as 2.8 GHz 32-bit chips with both running 32-bit code--running the same applications recompiled for 64-bit they are a good deal faster than that. So they've got two performance levels, neither of which is accurately indicated by the clock speed. Presumably the same is true to a lesser extent with the Itaniums, which don't run 32-bit code natively and so only have the 64-bit performance to contend with. As for "XP", does "Pentium" convey more information than "80586", "80686", "80786", etc? And how about this "Xeon" and "Centrino" and "Itanium" business--none of those mean anything until you read the documentation. I suspect that "XP" was a marketing ploy--the chips shipped about the same time as XP. In any case, "Pentium 4" is not revision 4 of anything. It's revision 11 of the 8086 architecture or revision 8 of the 80386 architecture (if you count the PPro and the Xeons as separate revisions--if not then it's revision 8 of the 8086 or 5 of the 80386). A truly consistent naming convention would call the P4 the"81186". When you have multiple, related product designs with different performance objectives then attempting to maintain a completely consistent naming convention gets very complicated very quickly. And the choice of "Pentium" instead of "80586" was done for legal, not technical reasons--about the time that the 80586 was due to ship Intel's lawyers found out that the courts weren't going to let them copyright a number, and they were concerned that others were also making chips that they called the "80586", some of which shipped before the Pentium, so they had to come up with a name for the new chip that was copyrightable--they name they came up with was "Pentium", which reflects the "5". The next level, if they maintained a consistent naming convention based on that root, would be the "Hexium" and I suspect that that's why they went with "Pentium II" instead. So you see how inconsistent even the Intel conventions that you use as a model really are? "J.Clarke" wrote in message ... On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:09:36 +1000 "Blaedmon" wrote: Is there a website which lists the actual speeds of these damn XP 2800's, MP 2200+'s, etc? Stupid retards should just NAME the damn chips for what they actually are. I know the ballpark figures, but I'd like to know the facts. So anyone know of a cpu speed table which removes the bull**** from AMD's ****house naming scheme? You'd be more likely to get a useful response if you left out the childish scatological references. As for your question, the information is available on the AMD site. You should be able to find it with little trouble on the data sheets in the technical documentation section. Why are you so upset about this anyway? -- -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) -- -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
MP/XP chip speeds table...
gARY wrote:
Why is there listed 2chips both 2800+......... Model Clock Speed L1/L2 Cache (681) XP2800+ (2250) 128/256 T'Bred B, 166*13.5 (68AO) XP2800+ (2083) 128/512 Barton, 166*12.5 How do 'I know' which I'm purchasing IF I'm only told it's a XP2800+ The Bartons have twice the L2 cache (512KB) - assume T'Bred B unless 512Kb L2 or Barton are stated. Just asking, as most UK suppliers have NO clue to what I'm asking which is this........ Both chips are a XP2800+ right? One has a lower "clock speed" but with a higher L2. 1/ Which is best and why? The T'bred is better at number crunching, the Barton better at memory intensive stuff. On average they're the same. I'd get the Barton. Ben -- I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a string... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
MP/XP chip speeds table...
gARY wrote:
Why is there listed 2chips both 2800+......... Model Clock Speed L1/L2 Cache (681) XP2800+ (2250) 128/256 T'Bred B, 166*13.5 (68AO) XP2800+ (2083) 128/512 Barton, 166*12.5 How do 'I know' which I'm purchasing IF I'm only told it's a XP2800+ The Bartons have twice the L2 cache (512KB) - assume T'Bred B unless 512Kb L2 or Barton are stated. Just asking, as most UK suppliers have NO clue to what I'm asking which is this........ Both chips are a XP2800+ right? One has a lower "clock speed" but with a higher L2. 1/ Which is best and why? The T'bred is better at number crunching, the Barton better at memory intensive stuff. On average they're the same. I'd get the Barton. Ben Now, you just hit the nail on the head Ben!!! I need that 'number crunching' chip, big-time! Is there a better one? So as I was going 4barton I now chase down a T'bred XP2800+ Does the M'board change (as in, the other thread)? Thank you, gARY |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
MP/XP chip speeds table...
gARY wrote:
The T'bred is better at number crunching, the Barton better at memory intensive stuff. On average they're the same. I'd get the Barton. Ben Now, you just hit the nail on the head Ben!!! I need that 'number crunching' chip, big-time! Is there a better one? Of course there's a better one! But I wouldn't bother with it. So as I was going 4barton I now chase down a T'bred XP2800+ Just clock the Barton the same as the T'Bred was gong to be... or clock it faster. Does the M'board change (as in, the other thread)? Any nForce will support either/both. Ben -- I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a string... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
MP/XP chip speeds table...
Ben Pope wrote:
Of course there's a better one! Actually... thats a lie. The T'Bred 2800+ is the fastest clocked AMD chip at 2.25GHz, as far as I know. The 3200+ (currently the highest "rated") is 200MHz*11, which is 2.2GHz. However, you have to realise that it's pretty rare (although not impossible) for a 2800+ to beat a 3200+. I would expect it only in a synthetic benchmark. Any nForce will support either/both. Thats nForce2... Ben -- I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a string... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
MP/XP chip speeds table...
Blaedmon wrote:
Dude, looks at the information being exchanged. Educate one person and they can exponencially class (woops, sorry - big word.. replace that with 'snowball') the AMD chip naming system to the logically minded. If you've nothing better to do, please on all accounts DO pick this post apart. I have better things to do, is all. I win. I am the master. I'll let your green-eyed personality come to the fore with a reply (Hopefully.. this is amusing.) yours sincerely, Chuck Norris. What? The only sentence that makes sense in that whole lot is "I win.", which I am sure is incorrect. The rest I can't make sense of. Ben -- I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a string... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Help! BIOS flash gone bad | XOffender | Asus Motherboards | 8 | December 15th 04 02:09 AM |
Legend 822 CDT 600 MotherBoard. | metronid | Packard Bell Computers | 8 | September 2nd 04 10:01 PM |
Bad news for ATI: Nvidia to 'own' ATI at CeBit - no pixel shader 3.0 support in R420 (long) | NV55 | Ati Videocards | 12 | February 24th 04 06:29 AM |
MP/XP chip speeds table... | Ben Pope | Overclocking AMD Processors | 18 | September 7th 03 10:03 AM |
MP/XP chip speeds table... | Ben Pope | AMD Thunderbird Processors | 8 | September 7th 03 10:03 AM |