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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:38:36 GMT, "Wes Newell"
wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:15:52 -0500, chrisv wrote: I have zero problem with the way, for example, Intel is rating their front-side bus. Bus speed is adressed in 2 ways, the clock speed, which is measured in Hz, and data rates which are measured in bps/Bps, more commonly called throughput. Throughput is the effective data rate. A term you might be more familiar with when talking about modems. Many people have called a 2400bps modem a 2400 baud modem incorrectly, using the throughput as the signal rate, when in fact the signal rate was 600 baud. But if you ever looked at the specs you would see that the box would say 2400bps, not 2400 baud. What Intel and AMD has done is taken the clock speed (MHz) and multiplied it by the data rate (bps) and used the result as MHz. If you can't see the error in this then you must be blind. I can't even tell what your point is. English your second language? It seems like your modem example argues for using terminology like "2400 baud" and "800 MHz FSB", which is my point. If you want to argue that a "2400 baud" modem should always be desribed "properly" as a "600 baud modem with quadrature amplitude modulation", then I'd say you're a freakin' nutcase. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
chrisv wrote:
Let me guess... You're an AMD FANatic. "AMD good. Intel bad." No, not at all. I've had about 4 Intel systems and have just purchased an AMD system. No major problems with each... why would I be an AMD FANatic for suggesting that the unit MHz should be used for clock rate and BPS for Bandwidth, I don't see your reasoning. And if you think that me mentioning Intels FSB as an example (when I also mentioned RAM) then you should stop being so damn defensive of Intel... I really didn;t mean any harm to the Intel architecture... merely the marketing BS. There's nothing wrong with the "800MHz FSB" abbreviation. I use it myself, and not to deceive, to communicate. It's a lot easier than saying "200MHz quad-data-rate" and then having to explain what the hell that means to someone who probably couldn't care less. Yeah, great bit of communication. Try setting the clock rate to 800MHz. Good luck. AMD's rating system, on the other hand, is quite shady. "No unit" bullsh*t. A unit is strongly implied. It's deceptive. It misrepresents the truth. Where do they imply the unit? If you want to stick a unit on their fine. Thats your problem. I'm looking at it from an engineering perspective. If you tell me the FSB is 800MHz and I design a motherboard and clock it at 800MHz, it ain't gonna work, now is it? Thats my point. And why won't it work? Explain to my why an 800MHz clock on an Intel system will not work, if the FSB of Intels is 800MHz. It really is that simple. Convince me. Please. Ben -- I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
chrisv wrote:
If you want to argue that a "2400 baud" modem should always be desribed "properly" as a "600 baud modem with quadrature amplitude modulation", then I'd say you're a freakin' nutcase. 2400bps would fine though, wouldn't it? If people use the correct units, there would be no confusion. It's the poeple that use incorrect units, incorrect terminology and incorrect reasoning that cause confusion. Ben -- I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String... |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:41:15 -0500, chrisv wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:38:36 GMT, "Wes Newell" wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:15:52 -0500, chrisv wrote: I have zero problem with the way, for example, Intel is rating their front-side bus. Bus speed is adressed in 2 ways, the clock speed, which is measured in Hz, and data rates which are measured in bps/Bps, more commonly called throughput. Throughput is the effective data rate. A term you might be more familiar with when talking about modems. Many people have called a 2400bps modem a 2400 baud modem incorrectly, using the throughput as the signal rate, when in fact the signal rate was 600 baud. But if you ever looked at the specs you would see that the box would say 2400bps, not 2400 baud. What Intel and AMD has done is taken the clock speed (MHz) and multiplied it by the data rate (bps) and used the result as MHz. If you can't see the error in this then you must be blind. I can't even tell what your point is. English your second language? No, but it must be your 3rd or 4th if you can't understand what's above. It seems like your modem example argues for using terminology like "2400 baud" and "800 MHz FSB", which is my point. You're hopeless. If you want to argue that a "2400 baud" modem should always be desribed "properly" as a "600 baud modem with quadrature amplitude modulation", then I'd say you're a freakin' nutcase. Well it appears that you can't read. It's a 2400bps modem as I clearly pointed out above. The last modem that used Baud was the 300 Baud/bps modem since its Baud rate and data rates were the same, 300. -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:32:46 -0500, chrisv
wrote: There's nothing wrong with the "800MHz FSB" abbreviation. I use it myself, and not to deceive, to communicate. It's a lot easier than saying "200MHz quad-data-rate" and then having to explain what the hell that means to someone who probably couldn't care less. In my experience doing sales, people who ask the question actually are somewhat interested in knowing and many do think about the new information. The problem is most people also never get to asking the question as they usually had already decided, it's a Pentium so it must be good, nevermind what numbers. Anyway, I'm getting quite confused by this thread to be honest. I had always thought the 800Mhz was the result of adding 2 channels, 4x data rate and 100Mhz clock. But you guys are giving me the impression it's 4x data rate, 200Mhz clock... the Intel spec sheet says the P4 blah blah processor 400Mhz, 533Mhz, 800Mhz blah blah either 100Mhz or 133Mhz bus. So did the engineering department forgot to tell the marketing/publishing department they have a 200Mhz bus now, or is it the other way round??? AMD's rating system, on the other hand, is quite shady. "No unit" bullsh*t. A unit is strongly implied. It's deceptive. It misrepresents the truth. It's about as deceptive/useful as the 800Mhz figure. Looking at 800Mhz, I would guess that it's faster than the 533Mhz perhaps by as much as 50%. Looking at XP3200 vs P4 3.2Ghz, I might think they are about the same, which isn't as far from the truth as the 50% of the "800Mhz" FSB. The same applies when comparing between AMD's own products using the rating figure as the guide. A lot more accurate than between Intel's FSB figures! -- L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work. If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript. If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too. But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:38:36 GMT, "Wes Newell"
wrote: On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:15:52 -0500, chrisv wrote: I have zero problem with the way, for example, Intel is rating their front-side bus. Bus speed is adressed in 2 ways, the clock speed, which is measured in Hz, and data rates which are measured in bps/Bps, more commonly called throughput. Throughput is the effective data rate. A term you might be more familiar with when talking about modems. Many people have called a 2400bps modem a 2400 baud modem incorrectly, using the throughput as the signal rate, when in fact the signal rate was 600 baud. But if you ever looked at the specs you would see that the box would say 2400bps, not 2400 baud. What Intel and AMD has done is taken the clock speed (MHz) and multiplied it by the data rate (bps) and used the result as MHz. If you can't see the error in this then you must be blind. An interesting point of note for you. If you look at Intel's spec sheets, they do indeed state things like "800 MHz" bus speed for the Pentium 4. However, if you read AMD's own documentation, they seem to mostly avoiding the use of the frequency units on their numbers. They instead just say "400 FSB" (there are a few places where they seemed to have slipped up and said "400 MHz" though). I don't know that either is a particularly good way of going about things, I'd much rather just see bandwidth numbers, since that is what really matters in the end. Just a bit of food for thought though. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:32:46 -0500, chrisv
wrote: Amd call their CPUs 3200+ not 3200MHz. Since they have no unit, they cannot be misrepresenting the truth. Let me guess... You're an AMD FANatic. "AMD good. Intel bad." There's nothing wrong with the "800MHz FSB" abbreviation. I use it myself, and not to deceive, to communicate. It's a lot easier than saying "200MHz quad-data-rate" and then having to explain what the hell that means to someone who probably couldn't care less. AMD's rating system, on the other hand, is quite shady. "No unit" bullsh*t. A unit is strongly implied. It's deceptive. It misrepresents the truth. I personally feel that the only deceptive part about it is the fact that the model numbers so closely related to clock speed of P4 processors. I MUCH prefer the model numbers of the Opteron and Athlon64 FX, which really have no connection to clock speed. Now, that being said, it's tough to argue too much against the model number system that AMD uses due to the simple fact that it works. AMD's revenue was really lagging before their numbering system because they were unable to sell their Athlon 1.4GHz chip for any more than Intel's Pentium4 1.4GHz chip. OEMs and customers just wouldn't buy it. In comes the AthlonXP, and all of a sudden their 1.4GHz chip (the AthlonXP 1600+ is accepted by customers and OEMs alike as being equivalent to a P4 1.6GHz chip. Revenues went up quite a bit. In short, like it or not, their model numbering system worked. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The little lost angel wrote:
Anyway, I'm getting quite confused by this thread to be honest. I had always thought the 800Mhz was the result of adding 2 channels, 4x data rate and 100Mhz clock. But you guys are giving me the impression it's 4x data rate, 200Mhz clock... the Intel spec sheet says the P4 blah blah processor 400Mhz, 533Mhz, 800Mhz blah blah either 100Mhz or 133Mhz bus. Who knows... you could be right. Which only illustrates the point further... WTF is everybody talking about? We still don't really know as nobody out there is actually telling the truth. We're buried so far in marketing BS, misleading advertising and incorrect "facts" that we can't even determine whats going on when we try. So did the engineering department forgot to tell the marketing/publishing department they have a 200Mhz bus now, or is it the other way round??? Many marketiong types never listen to Engineering types anyway... most of them have not the knowledge to understand. AMD's rating system, on the other hand, is quite shady. "No unit" bullsh*t. A unit is strongly implied. It's deceptive. It misrepresents the truth. It's about as deceptive/useful as the 800Mhz figure. Looking at 800Mhz, I would guess that it's faster than the 533Mhz perhaps by as much as 50%. So a 3200+ would be about 50% faster than 2100+, right? And 3200+ would be about as fast as a 3.2GHz P4 cough - we're talking ish here, and on average, not on specific benchmarks So are you talking about the numbers representing end result? Then AMD is not misleading. Are you talking about using correct Units? AMD is not misleading (since they don't use any :-) Looking at XP3200 vs P4 3.2Ghz, I might think they are about the same, which isn't as far from the truth as the 50% of the "800Mhz" FSB. The same applies when comparing between AMD's own products using the rating figure as the guide. A lot more accurate than between Intel's FSB figures! Indeed. And if you want to know what the real figures are for a particular chip it's easy enough to find out. With Intel we still don't know where the 800MHz figure comes from. It's not an 800MHz clock. If it's 100MHz * 2 channels * 4 transfers per clock then it really isn't 800Million of anything per second, it's 400Million at twice the width - VERY different. Ben -- I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Tony Hill wrote:
I personally feel that the only deceptive part about it is the fact that the model numbers so closely related to clock speed of P4 processors. I MUCH prefer the model numbers of the Opteron and Athlon64 FX, which really have no connection to clock speed. Yeah, ok. But thats what they were trying to achieve... since P4 is labelled by it's clock. Now, that being said, it's tough to argue too much against the model number system that AMD uses due to the simple fact that it works. I would equally argue against AMD if their figures were misleading. I'm not a fan of the fact that they call their FSBs "333" and "400" but since they don't append MHz they're not misrepresenting anything. AMD's revenue was really lagging before their numbering system because they were unable to sell their Athlon 1.4GHz chip for any more than Intel's Pentium4 1.4GHz chip. OEMs and customers just wouldn't buy it. In comes the AthlonXP, and all of a sudden their 1.4GHz chip (the AthlonXP 1600+ is accepted by customers and OEMs alike as being equivalent to a P4 1.6GHz chip. Revenues went up quite a bit. In short, like it or not, their model numbering system worked. Plus they came right out and said what they were doing. And it is merely there to represent the end result - that a 1600+ is similar to a 1.6GHz P4. It is not there to misrepresent the facts, with the facts buried so deep that you can't even find out whats going on. Ben -- I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Tony Hill wrote:
An interesting point of note for you. If you look at Intel's spec sheets, they do indeed state things like "800 MHz" bus speed for the Pentium 4. However, if you read AMD's own documentation, they seem to mostly avoiding the use of the frequency units on their numbers. They instead just say "400 FSB" (there are a few places where they seemed to have slipped up and said "400 MHz" though). Exactly. Without units you are not really saying anything. And does anybody know exactly where the 800 comes from? I don't know that either is a particularly good way of going about things, I'd much rather just see bandwidth numbers, since that is what really matters in the end. Just a bit of food for thought though. No, I don't think leaving units off is a good way of doing it, but at least it's not a direct lie. Agreed that end result is much more important. Which is why I think the PCxy00 labelling of DDR memory is good. The people that use 400MHz for PC3200 are bad. 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 |
[7CIT] I Do Not Think That Anyone In Here Can Answer This; Albeit, | Ken Maltby | Overclocking | 16 | 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 |
[7CIT] I Do Not Think That Anyone In Here Can Answer This; Albeit, | Aaron Dinkin | Overclocking AMD Processors | 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 |
Chaintech support answer verification. | Hormel Bait | Homebuilt PC's | 4 | July 14th 03 06:05 AM |