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
|
|||
|
|||
2400+
I see a lot of sentences like this:
I own a A7M266 motherboard and it runs with an Athlon XP 2400+ . Does 2400+ mean a 2.4 GHz cpu, and 1200 means 1.2GHz.? It might be obvious to some, but the two nomenclatures seem more separate than a most synonmyous terms are, if indeed they are synonymous. Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
2400+
On 7/10/2011 9:54 AM, micky wrote:
I see a lot of sentences like this: I own a A7M266 motherboard and it runs with an Athlon XP 2400+ . Does 2400+ mean a 2.4 GHz cpu, and 1200 means 1.2GHz.? It might be obvious to some, but the two nomenclatures seem more separate than a most synonmyous terms are, if indeed they are synonymous. Thanks. IIRC, the "+" numbers were an AMD advertising ploy which were meant to suggest that, despite their slower clock speed, the processor would be as fast as some hypothetical number. Thus, despite running at 2gHz the XP 2400+ was supposed to run programs as quickly as a Pentium 4 running at an actual clock speed of 2.4gHz. I never found that their numbers were anywhere close to reality. What AMD did offer was a cheaper CPU with ran more slowly and consumed less power than the Intel CPU they were competing again. Nothing at all wrong with that, I just wish that they had been more realistic in their claims. And yes, when you see a number like 2400 related to speed you can figure they mean 2.4gHz and a number like 1200 can be related at 1.2gHz. But seeing the numbers does not mean that the clock rate is truly equal to that number. Comparing CPU/chipset/memory speeds is damned difficult but the best way to do it is to compare the numbers obtained from broad benchmarking tests. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
2400+
micky wrote:
I see a lot of sentences like this: I own a A7M266 motherboard and it runs with an Athlon XP 2400+ . Does 2400+ mean a 2.4 GHz cpu, and 1200 means 1.2GHz.? It might be obvious to some, but the two nomenclatures seem more separate than a most synonmyous terms are, if indeed they are synonymous. Thanks. Here is a partial mapping I used to provide. It was cribbed (copied) from the QDI site. I don't think they're in business any more. I added the "Mult" column for convenience. You can see the "core frequency", versus the Processor Rating. I used to run my Mobile processor at 2200MHz, making it a 3200+ processor (equiv. to the top entry in the chart). Family Core P.R. Pkg CPU Cache Mult Core Tmax Power Freq Clk Volts XP Model 10 2200 (3200+) OPGA 200 512 11x 1.65V 85oC 60.4W Barton 2100 (3000+) OPGA 200 512 10.5x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W XP Model 10 2167 (3000+) OPGA 166 512 13x 1.65V 85oC 58.4W Barton 2083 (2800+) OPGA 166 512 12.5x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W 1917 (2600+) OPGA 166 512 11.5x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W 1833 (2500+) OPGA 166 512 11x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W XP Model 8 2167 (2700+) OPGA 166 256 13x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W Thoroughbred 2083 (2600+) OPGA 166 256 12.5x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W XP Model 8 2133 (2600+) OPGA 133 256 16x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W Thoroughbred 2000 (2400+) OPGA 133 256 15x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W CPU ID 0681 1800 (2200+) OPGA 133 256 13.5x 1.60V 85oC 57.0W 1733 (2100+) OPGA 133 256 13x 1.60V 90oC 56.3W 1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.60V 90oC 55.7W 1533 (1800+) OPGA 133 256 11.5x 1.60V 90oC 55.7W 1467 (1700+) OPGA 133 256 11x 1.60V 90oC 55.7W XP Model 8 1800 (2200+) OPGA 133 256 13.5x 1.65V 85oC 61.7W Thoroughbred 1733 (2100+) OPGA 133 256 13x 1.60V 90oC 56.4W CPU ID 0680 1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.65V 90oC 54.7W 1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.60V 90oC 54.7W 1600 (1900+) OPGA 133 256 12x 1.50V 90oC 47.7W 1533 (1800+) OPGA 133 256 11.5x 1.50V 90oC 46.3W 1467 (1700+) OPGA 133 256 11x 1.50V 90oC 44.9W XP Model 6 1733 (2100+) OPGA 133 256 13x 1.75V 90oC 64.3W Palomino 1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.75V 90oC 62.5W 1600 (1900+) OPGA 133 256 12x 1.75V 90oC 60.7W 1533 (1800+) OPGA 133 256 11.5x 1.75V 90oC 59.2W 1467 (1700+) OPGA 133 256 11x 1.75V 90oC 57.4W 1400 (1600+) OPGA 133 256 10.5x 1.75V 90oC 56.3W 1333 (1500+) OPGA 133 256 10x 1.75V 90oC 53.8W Processors older than that, like original Athlon or Duron, are only known by their core frequency. They weren't assigned a P.R. rating. P.R. ratings came later, when AMD wished to relate the effectiveness of their clock speed, by measurement against the nearest Intel equivalent. For my 3200+, that would be comparable to a Pentium 4 3.2GHz. The comparison wasn't completely valid in my eyes, as I did own a Pentium 4 that happened to be running at 3.1GHz, and it felt just slightly faster than my AMD computer at the time. AMD's P.R. rating method is a weighted average of a number of benchmarks, so YMMV. The 2400+ you're referring to, is a Model 8 running at 2000MHz. At least, it's the only thing in the chart that matches. The Mobile processors are not listed in that chart, because QDI would never have considered them candidates for a desktop motherboard. But plenty of people bought Mobile processors and used them. I got one at retail, because my supplier happened to carry them for a year or so. On a motherboard which lacks good frequency, multiplier, or voltage controls, a mobile is a poor choice, because of the additional work needed to get it running at a decent speed. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
2400+
micky wrote:
I see a lot of sentences like this: I own a A7M266 motherboard and it runs with an Athlon XP 2400+ . Does 2400+ mean a 2.4 GHz cpu, and 1200 means 1.2GHz.? It might be obvious to some, but the two nomenclatures seem more separate than a most synonmyous terms are, if indeed they are synonymous. This was at a time when Intel was concentrating on squeezing ever higher computing power out of their processors by increasing the clock speed (strictly frequency). The processors were graded by the clock speed. OTOH, AMD took the approach of trying to utilise each clock cycle more efficiently. Thus, by most published independent benchmarks, an Athlon XP 2400+ running at 2 GHz was actually equal to or faster (hence the +) than a Pentium 4 at 2.4 GHz in many applications including gaming. There were exceptions, such as in movie rendering where the raw higher clock frequency of Intel CPUs had an advantage. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
2400+
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:22:43 -0400, Paul wrote:
micky wrote: I see a lot of sentences like this: I own a A7M266 motherboard and it runs with an Athlon XP 2400+ . Does 2400+ mean a 2.4 GHz cpu, and 1200 means 1.2GHz.? It might be obvious to some, but the two nomenclatures seem more separate than a most synonmyous terms are, if indeed they are synonymous. Thanks. Here is a partial mapping I used to provide. It was cribbed (copied) from the QDI site. I don't think they're in business any more. I added the "Mult" column for convenience. Thanks Paul and John And thanks John for your answre in the next thread. I'm still reading the stuff that follows. You can see the "core frequency", versus the Processor Rating. I used to run my Mobile processor at 2200MHz, making it a 3200+ processor (equiv. to the top entry in the chart). Family Core P.R. Pkg CPU Cache Mult Core Tmax Power Freq Clk Volts XP Model 10 2200 (3200+) OPGA 200 512 11x 1.65V 85oC 60.4W Barton 2100 (3000+) OPGA 200 512 10.5x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W XP Model 10 2167 (3000+) OPGA 166 512 13x 1.65V 85oC 58.4W Barton 2083 (2800+) OPGA 166 512 12.5x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W 1917 (2600+) OPGA 166 512 11.5x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W 1833 (2500+) OPGA 166 512 11x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W XP Model 8 2167 (2700+) OPGA 166 256 13x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W Thoroughbred 2083 (2600+) OPGA 166 256 12.5x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W XP Model 8 2133 (2600+) OPGA 133 256 16x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W Thoroughbred 2000 (2400+) OPGA 133 256 15x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W CPU ID 0681 1800 (2200+) OPGA 133 256 13.5x 1.60V 85oC 57.0W 1733 (2100+) OPGA 133 256 13x 1.60V 90oC 56.3W 1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.60V 90oC 55.7W 1533 (1800+) OPGA 133 256 11.5x 1.60V 90oC 55.7W 1467 (1700+) OPGA 133 256 11x 1.60V 90oC 55.7W XP Model 8 1800 (2200+) OPGA 133 256 13.5x 1.65V 85oC 61.7W Thoroughbred 1733 (2100+) OPGA 133 256 13x 1.60V 90oC 56.4W CPU ID 0680 1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.65V 90oC 54.7W 1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.60V 90oC 54.7W 1600 (1900+) OPGA 133 256 12x 1.50V 90oC 47.7W 1533 (1800+) OPGA 133 256 11.5x 1.50V 90oC 46.3W 1467 (1700+) OPGA 133 256 11x 1.50V 90oC 44.9W XP Model 6 1733 (2100+) OPGA 133 256 13x 1.75V 90oC 64.3W Palomino 1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.75V 90oC 62.5W 1600 (1900+) OPGA 133 256 12x 1.75V 90oC 60.7W 1533 (1800+) OPGA 133 256 11.5x 1.75V 90oC 59.2W 1467 (1700+) OPGA 133 256 11x 1.75V 90oC 57.4W 1400 (1600+) OPGA 133 256 10.5x 1.75V 90oC 56.3W 1333 (1500+) OPGA 133 256 10x 1.75V 90oC 53.8W Processors older than that, like original Athlon or Duron, are only known by their core frequency. They weren't assigned a P.R. rating. P.R. ratings came later, when AMD wished to relate the effectiveness of their clock speed, by measurement against the nearest Intel equivalent. For my 3200+, that would be comparable to a Pentium 4 3.2GHz. The comparison wasn't completely valid in my eyes, as I did own a Pentium 4 that happened to be running at 3.1GHz, and it felt just slightly faster than my AMD computer at the time. AMD's P.R. rating method is a weighted average of a number of benchmarks, so YMMV. The 2400+ you're referring to, is a Model 8 running at 2000MHz. At least, it's the only thing in the chart that matches. The Mobile processors are not listed in that chart, because QDI would never have considered them candidates for a desktop motherboard. But plenty of people bought Mobile processors and used them. I got one at retail, because my supplier happened to carry them for a year or so. On a motherboard which lacks good frequency, multiplier, or voltage controls, a mobile is a poor choice, because of the additional work needed to get it running at a decent speed. Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
2400+
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:36:31 +0530, "Pimpom"
wrote: micky wrote: I see a lot of sentences like this: I own a A7M266 motherboard and it runs with an Athlon XP 2400+ . Does 2400+ mean a 2.4 GHz cpu, and 1200 means 1.2GHz.? It might be obvious to some, but the two nomenclatures seem more separate than a most synonmyous terms are, if indeed they are synonymous. This was at a time when Intel was concentrating on squeezing ever higher computing power out of their processors by increasing the clock speed (strictly frequency). The processors were graded by the clock speed. OTOH, AMD took the approach of trying to utilise each clock cycle more efficiently. Thus, by most published independent benchmarks, an Athlon XP 2400+ running at 2 GHz was actually equal to or faster (hence the +) than a Pentium 4 at 2.4 GHz in many applications including gaming. There were exceptions, such as in movie rendering where the raw higher clock frequency of Intel CPUs had an advantage. Thanks, and thanks everyone. This makes sense to me now, and seems like a reaosnable compromise for AMD to use. Early on I had been led to believe that AMD was just lying when it said its speeds were higher than they looked, but I'm often easy to please and if they have a credible story, I'll accept it |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
2400+
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:53:38 -0400, micky
wrote: On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:36:31 +0530, "Pimpom" wrote: micky wrote: I see a lot of sentences like this: I own a A7M266 motherboard and it runs with an Athlon XP 2400+ . Does 2400+ mean a 2.4 GHz cpu, and 1200 means 1.2GHz.? It might be obvious to some, but the two nomenclatures seem more separate than a most synonmyous terms are, if indeed they are synonymous. This was at a time when Intel was concentrating on squeezing ever higher computing power out of their processors by increasing the clock speed (strictly frequency). The processors were graded by the clock speed. OTOH, AMD took the approach of trying to utilise each clock cycle more efficiently. Thus, by most published independent benchmarks, an Athlon XP 2400+ running at 2 GHz was actually equal to or faster (hence the +) than a Pentium 4 at 2.4 GHz in many applications including gaming. There were exceptions, such as in movie rendering where the raw higher clock frequency of Intel CPUs had an advantage. Inferior seating arrangement. Posted befoe I meant to. Thanks, and thanks everyone. This makes sense to me now, and seems like a reaosnable compromise for AMD to use. That is, they don't actually say 2.4 GHz, but they use a notation that reminds one of that. Early on I had been led to believe that AMD was just lying when it said its speeds were higher than they looked, but I'm often easy to please and if they have a credible story, I'll accept it I'm also swayed by the fact that ASUS, which iiuc is a high quality mobo builtder, at least some of the time uses only AMD cpus. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2400+ TB-b | XLR8R | Overclocking AMD Processors | 2 | May 27th 04 10:45 AM |
XP 2400+ Thouroughbred Vs. XP 2400 Palomino | Wes Newell | Overclocking AMD Processors | 3 | June 30th 03 07:53 AM |
XP 2400+ Thouroughbred Vs. XP 2400 Palomino | Wes Newell | AMD Thunderbird Processors | 1 | June 30th 03 07:53 AM |
XP 2400+ Thouroughbred Vs. XP 2400 Palomino | Wes Newell | AMD Thunderbird Processors | 0 | June 29th 03 12:29 PM |
XP 2400+ Thouroughbred Vs. XP 2400 Palomino | Wes Newell | AMD Thunderbird Processors | 0 | June 29th 03 12:29 PM |