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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:36:31 +0100, "Ben Pope"
wrote: I agree... but using MHz it's confusing. A DDR bus clocked at 200MHz is fine. Calling it a 400MHz bus is confusing... it is neither data rate (which would be in bits per second) nor the clock. It's about time that the marketing types got a clue. How many times have people come here and asked Well, it's going to be a confusing, for the lay person, forever. Do you think the average person has any idea of what synchronous memory transfers are, or what double-data-rate memory is? The average person knows they want to surf the net and play EverQuest. If someone really wants to understand what's going on inside a PC, they're going to have to do a lot of research. These are complex machines. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
chrisv wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:36:31 +0100, "Ben Pope" wrote: I agree... but using MHz it's confusing. A DDR bus clocked at 200MHz is fine. Calling it a 400MHz bus is confusing... it is neither data rate (which would be in bits per second) nor the clock. It's about time that the marketing types got a clue. How many times have people come here and asked Well, it's going to be a confusing, for the lay person, forever. Do you think the average person has any idea of what synchronous memory transfers are, or what double-data-rate memory is? The average person knows they want to surf the net and play EverQuest. If someone really wants to understand what's going on inside a PC, they're going to have to do a lot of research. These are complex machines. I don't see as that as an excuse to lie or misrepresent the truth. I think the average person can cope with double data rate means twice as fast. Ben -- I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:54:11 -0500, chrisv wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:10:23 GMT, "Wes Newell" wrote: Now the marketing idiots decided to define the bus by the data rate, but using the clock speed unit of measure (MHz) instead of the data rate unit of measure (Bps, bps). Why? Simple because it looks better, and the majority of the people don't know it's just BS. Clueless. What's that, your nickname? -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 10:23:53 GMT, "Wes Newell"
wrote: Both the P4 and Athlon now have a 200MHz FSB. Anything higher than that is overclocked. There's no 400MHz FSB and no 800MHz fsb. Effective? Compared to what? The P4 isn't an effective fsb of 800MHz if you compare it to the Athlon FSB now is it? It's only effective 400MHz. Just another reason the effective arguement is BS unless it's fully explained what it's compared to. Yeah, I know, you know, but believe me, 90% of the people don't. And that's why it's marketing BS. I think what you're missing here is not so much that 90% (probably more) of the people out there don't know, but rather that 90% of the people out there don't care. has been ok for the PC world since we've had 64-bit buses on every system for nearly 10 years now. 10 years? It only started with the Athlon and P4. Prior to that all x86 cpu's had only one data bit per clock cycle. Uhh, how does that change the fact that they were 64-bit buses? So the Pentium was a 64-bit processor, as are all current PC chips So if the P4 is a 64bit cpu, why won't it run a 64bit OS? Because it's not a damn 64-bit CPU! That's what I've been trying to get across the whole time! It's a 32-bit CPU that has a 64-bit data bus. I think you're confusing it's integrated memory controller with the hypertransport link. Which is your "data bus"? At best this is only slightly confusing in a single processor system, where you have memory requests coming over one bus and all other I/O going over a single hypertransport link. On multiprocessor systems, this gets MUCH worse, as your memory could be local (going over your own memory bus) or remote (going over a hypertransport link). You're right. It's the data bus that's 72bits wide on the A64, and 144bits on the Opteron/FX. Don't know what i was thinking. Face it, defining the bit-ness of a chip by the width of the data bus makes absolutely NO sense at all in this day and age! The Athlon64 and Opteron are 64-bit chips because: 1. They have 64-bit integer registers 2. They use 64-bit address pointers and address registers, program counter, etc. So why does the Opteron/FX cpu's blow away the A64's at the same clock speed if the data bus doesn't mean anything? That's the only difference between them. First off, the Opteron/Athlon64 FX don't "blow away" the Athlon64 at the same clock speed. They are usually faster, but typically by only 10% or thereabouts. And if that were all that matters, why does the P4, with it's 64-bit bus manage to match or beat the Opteron/Athlon64 FX in many tests, particularly if you're talking about the P4EE chip. I'm not saying that the data bus doesn't mean anything, just that it has no relevance as to whether the chip is a 32-bit chip or a 64-bit chip. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:00:11 +0100, "Ben Pope"
wrote: chrisv wrote: Well, it's going to be a confusing, for the lay person, forever. Do you think the average person has any idea of what synchronous memory transfers are, or what double-data-rate memory is? The average person knows they want to surf the net and play EverQuest. If someone really wants to understand what's going on inside a PC, they're going to have to do a lot of research. These are complex machines. I don't see as that as an excuse to lie or misrepresent the truth. I think the average person can cope with double data rate means twice as fast. You've never worked in retail sales, have you? Sure, plenty of people COULD cope with double data rate meaning twice as fast, but most simply don't care. Right or wrong, that's the way it is, and if you go around trying to force people to care about this sort of thing, they're just going to walk out of the store and go buy something else. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Tony Hill wrote:
You've never worked in retail sales, have you? Actually I have... And as long as you don't expect everybody to be stupid and explain it in simple terms, many actually want to know what it's all about. This is not true of everybody or all products, but with PCs a lot of people want to know what they are buying and make an effort to learn... it's a big purchase. Sure, plenty of people COULD cope with double data rate meaning twice as fast, but most simply don't care. Right or wrong, that's the way it is, and if you go around trying to force people to care about this sort of thing, they're just going to walk out of the store and go buy something else. There are those that want to understand and those that don't want to. Everybody is capable though. For those that don;t want to know, they're not gonna care whether it's 800MHz, 400MHz or 200MHz. SDR, DDR or QDR. They just want to know what they can do with it. Ben -- I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Um, duh, aside from the frequency of the bus what else do you think determines
the speed at which a processor can fetch/write data/instructions? The 8086, which featured a 16-bit databus was nearly twice as fast as an 8088 in real-world applications. Guess why? Sounds to me more like a question of people finally getting smacked over the head with a clue. Who the hell cares what the width of the data bus is? -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe you had better look at a datasheet of the ORIGINAL Pentium before you
open your mouth. The Pentium 60 had a 64-bit databus. has been ok for the PC world since we've had 64-bit buses on every system for nearly 10 years now. 10 years? It only started with the Athlon and P4. Prior to that all x86 cpu's had only one data bit per clock cycle. -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 06:48:35 +0000, Wblane wrote:
has been ok for the PC world since we've had 64-bit buses on every system for nearly 10 years now. 10 years? It only started with the Athlon and P4. Prior to that all x86 cpu's had only one data bit per clock cycle. Maybe you had better look at a datasheet of the ORIGINAL Pentium before you open your mouth. The Pentium 60 had a 64-bit databus. And I though it was obvious that I was commenting on multiply data rates per clock cycle here. You're in left field. -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:00:11 +0100, "Ben Pope"
wrote: chrisv wrote: On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:36:31 +0100, "Ben Pope" wrote: I agree... but using MHz it's confusing. A DDR bus clocked at 200MHz is fine. Calling it a 400MHz bus is confusing... it is neither data rate (which would be in bits per second) nor the clock. It's about time that the marketing types got a clue. How many times have people come here and asked Well, it's going to be a confusing, for the lay person, forever. Do you think the average person has any idea of what synchronous memory transfers are, or what double-data-rate memory is? The average person knows they want to surf the net and play EverQuest. If someone really wants to understand what's going on inside a PC, they're going to have to do a lot of research. These are complex machines. I don't see as that as an excuse to lie or misrepresent the truth. I have not seen you present evidence that anyone is lying or "misrepresenting the truth". About the closest example to that that I can think of is AMD's CPU naming. In any case, my point is that there inevitably be loss of detail when a ton of information (how PC's work) is compressed into an amount of information that the average consumer can absorb. I have zero problem with the way, for example, Intel is rating their front-side bus. I think the average person can cope with double data rate means twice as fast. Twice as fast as what? RDRAM? What if I have two channels and you have one? How wide are your channels? How many MB? What's the clock rate? How about latency? And this is only one small corner of the PC. Lossy compression is REQUIRED. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[7CIT] I Do Not Think That Anyone In Here Can Answer This; Albeit, | Ken Maltby | General | 17 | February 7th 05 12:00 AM |
[7CIT] I Do Not Think That Anyone In Here Can Answer This; Albeit, | Aaron Dinkin | Overclocking | 0 | February 7th 05 12:00 AM |
XP install hangs at Windows Setup with floppy light on - ANSWER | AFN | General | 0 | November 27th 04 05:49 AM |
need answer about ASUS motherboard | Mark | General | 14 | October 19th 04 07:01 PM |
Quick answer required Slaving IDE to SATA? | Miss Perspicacia Tick | General | 5 | June 19th 04 06:02 PM |