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 » Overclocking AMD 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 7th 03, 09:55 PM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MP/XP chip speeds table...

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. Sorry.


Why use many of the words in the English language when they have more than 4
letters, yes! "****", the most useful word on a planet: e.g.:

noun: "You ****".
adjective: "****ing thing"

If you hurt yourself, yell "****!"
It's a synonym for broken, drunk and the past tense of having sex: "****ed"

Yes, there are thousands of words in the English language, but don't worry
about subtlety of meaning or any of that, just use the multipurpose word
"****" in all of it's tenses past "****ed", present "****ing" and future
"****". Make way for more interesting things in your brain than long words
with complicated meanings.

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!".


His first point was that "You'd be more likely to get a useful response".
Those three responses were not useful to you. They certainly didn't answer
your question...

Next... I found the relevant info I needed faster on google which,
admitedly, I should have done in the first place.


Indeed. It ain't a hard thing to do.

But I wanted to see how many people look down on AMD naming
system as I do. Its simply stupid. Sorry.


Oh THATS what you were trying to do. It's not what you said you were trying
to do.

Next...Upset? Did I sound upset? Annoyed would be the word. 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.


Oh yes, cos we're in GHz now and 1000MHz it's not at all comparable with
1GHz is it?

AMD made it clear from the start what they were attempting to do. They
reprimanded* people who incorrectly tried to sell an athlon XP 1700 as a
1.7GHz processor. It really isn't that difficult to grasp, but then,
neither is a dictionary and long words, are they?

I don't think you seem to have made any point actually. It's so
illogically** argued that quite frankly it makes no real sense.

Quite how you can get so "angry" over a naming convention is beyond me. Yes
the Renault 5 must have a 5 litre engine. The Rover 416 must have a 416
litre engine. Or are they 5cc and 416cc engines respectively***? The
logitech Z-680 speakers must be 680 Watts, My Sony G400 monitor must be
400Inches across, my Nokia 6310i must work on the 6310MHz band, my size 9
shoes must be 9 inches long, my GXP120 hard disk must be 120Gigs, My DDR400
RAM must run at 400MHz... the list goes on...

Quite simply, just don't assume the numnber means anything, least of all in
any terms of units, si or otherwise.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a string...

* http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...&q=reprimanded
** http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=illogically
*** http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=respectively

Yes, I'm more bored than you can imagine.

:-P


  #2  
Old August 7th 03, 10:09 PM
BoroLad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Killer, just a killer Ben! [turn 'abuse of' into 'use of'] language -
that is.

BoroLad

In article ,
says...
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. Sorry.


Why use many of the words in the English language when they have more than 4
letters, yes! "****", the most useful word on a planet: e.g.:

noun: "You ****".
adjective: "****ing thing"

If you hurt yourself, yell "****!"
It's a synonym for broken, drunk and the past tense of having sex: "****ed"

Yes, there are thousands of words in the English language, but don't worry
about subtlety of meaning or any of that, just use the multipurpose word
"****" in all of it's tenses past "****ed", present "****ing" and future
"****". Make way for more interesting things in your brain than long words
with complicated meanings.

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!".


His first point was that "You'd be more likely to get a useful response".
Those three responses were not useful to you. They certainly didn't answer
your question...

Next... I found the relevant info I needed faster on google which,
admitedly, I should have done in the first place.


Indeed. It ain't a hard thing to do.

But I wanted to see how many people look down on AMD naming
system as I do. Its simply stupid. Sorry.


Oh THATS what you were trying to do. It's not what you said you were trying
to do.

Next...Upset? Did I sound upset? Annoyed would be the word. 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

  #3  
Old August 7th 03, 10:15 PM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

BoroLad wrote:
Killer, just a killer Ben! [turn 'abuse of' into 'use of'] language -
that is.

BoroLad


I'm just bored... I'm waiting for my RAM, Hard drive, PSU, HSF and some
fans to turn up. Then I can build me my new machine. At that point I'll
immerse myself in all the games that my Voodoo3 haven't been able to play.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a string...


  #4  
Old August 7th 03, 11:19 PM
Blaedmon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

And so it all falls so easily into my predicted pattern. Firsly, someone
asks a question - albeit tainted with abuse not directed at anyone on the
forum. Then someone takes it upon themslves to go get the stepladders and
climb to their little high-horse. Predicted.
Then someone comes in an attempts in, given, a bored response - which is
more like the response from the first post except their high-horse requires
a ladder. Predicted.
You people see how easy all this is? I must give a firm handshake, though,
to all participants for their lack of bad language. Its rare. If you were
here, I'd probably cuddle you.


  #6  
Old August 8th 03, 09:15 AM
J.Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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)
  #7  
Old August 8th 03, 09:18 AM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

BoroLad wrote:
90% of cooling/noise/vibration etc, and the associated
problems/benefits can be avoided by the often overlooked fundamental,
the hardly ever mentioned, the neglected building block of a new
system - the case
design.


Well I've got a Globalwin GAT-001, aluminium thing. I hope it's good! I
think cooling is reasonable in it.

Hope you get your stuff before the weekend, then let the build begin.
I notice someone on the ATi group managed to buy a "grandmar's" "red
L" 9500NP, cracking card with the capacity to 'softMOD' into a 9800
in mere seconds. I thought the pressure from ATi stopped
manufacturers making


these without a 'crippled' BIOS. If they are back on the market with
the capacity to re-open the unused x2 pipelines this board will be
worth keeping an eye on!



I still don;t think you can turn an R300 core into an R350 using software
alone...

I agree that if you're lucky, you might be able to get a 9500 to be an
overclocked 9700 that might perform similar to a 9800, but realistically you
still don't have support for some of the features a 9800 has.

Anyway, too late - I've already upset my bank manager, my Crucial 9800 Pro
is sitting in the case, plugged into the A7N8X Deluxe already...

Best of luck with your build mate, BoroLad


Cheers,

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a string...


  #8  
Old August 8th 03, 11:53 AM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Blaedmon wrote:
And so it all falls so easily into my predicted pattern. Firsly,
someone asks a question - albeit tainted with abuse not directed at
anyone on the forum. Then someone takes it upon themslves to go get
the stepladders and climb to their little high-horse. Predicted.
Then someone comes in an attempts in, given, a bored response - which
is more like the response from the first post except their high-horse
requires a ladder. Predicted.
You people see how easy all this is? I must give a firm handshake,
though, to all participants for their lack of bad language. Its rare.
If you were here, I'd probably cuddle you.


Congratulations on your excellent prediction from the future.

Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a string...


  #10  
Old August 8th 03, 10:31 PM
Ben Pope
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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...


 




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
3.4 or 3.6 Intel 775 Chip ? andyw General 3 September 17th 04 02:47 PM
P2 chip and fan Rich General 8 September 7th 04 08:15 PM
CPU speeds and bus speeds. half_pint General 17 April 23rd 04 03:54 AM
Prescott chip and motherboards.............. Intel, Pentium 4, Extreme, etc.. Joe Donaldson General 7 February 6th 04 07:24 AM
NIC BIOS chip programming €®ik General 5 October 22nd 03 09:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 AM.


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