A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » AMD Thunderbird Processors
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

MP/XP chip speeds table...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 8th 03, 09:15 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.thunderbird
J.Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 59
Default 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  
Old August 8th 03, 10:31 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.thunderbird
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default 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  
Old August 8th 03, 10:43 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.thunderbird
gARY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default 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  
Old August 8th 03, 10:47 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.thunderbird
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default 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  
Old August 8th 03, 11:00 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.thunderbird
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default 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  
Old August 9th 03, 12:55 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.amd.thunderbird
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.