AMD has the answer for Intel

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...

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...

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...

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:46:50 +0100, "Ben Pope"
wrote:

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 :-)

Heehee, I'm talking about they are equally deceptive/useful. We know
the XP3200 isn't really 50% faster than an XP2100, just as the 800
Msomething FSB isn't 50% faster. So I just think calling the XP rating
deceptive and NOT calling the 800Mega-something FSB for the same is
just a tad on the side of hypocrisy? :P

Either we say that they are both deceptive or that they are both sorta
useful for relatively comparisons. Not one is useful and the other is
only deceptive.

Note I'm not talking about how accurate they might be! :P


--
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

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:52:02 +0100, "Ben Pope"
wrote:

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.

Sorry, but seeing someone attack Intel's "800 MHz FSB"
marketing-speak, while saying that AMD's CPU rating system is A-OK,
strikes me as hypocritical, to say the least. IMO, the AMD situation
is far more deceptive.

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.

If you don't have a point, maybe you should just remain silent. Get
it through your head - not everyone is a computer geek. Only a tiny
fraction of people in the world know what a "bus" is, and they should
don't need or want me to explain the gory details. "800MHz FSB" is a
fair and reasonable lossy compression of the reality.

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.

Get real. Sheesh, CPU's have been sold according to clock frequency
since the dawn of the technology, and you claim that no unit is
implied when AMD tacks those numbers onto the product name? I mean,
what planet are you from?

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.

Do try to pay attention. The issue here is not data sheets for
electrical engineers. The issue is product and performance
descriptions appropriate for the masses, and whether or not they are
"marketing bull****" or "misrepresentative" as some have claimed.

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.

Pull your head out.

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:54:07 +0100, "Ben Pope"
wrote:

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?

Tell us, how exactly would you say that to a lay person? Would you
say "2400 bee pee ess", or "2400 bits per second"? You see, there's a
reason "2400 baud" become nomenclature - it's quick, easy, and it
works, despite not being "technically correct".

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.

I'm also curious as to what, exactly, you would say to a lay person
regarding the "800MHz FSB"? Because if you have a way to describe it,
that effectively communicates what's going, without being too
technical for anyone but a computer hardware geek, I may use your
suggestion.

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:22:08 GMT,
(The little lost angel) wrote:

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:46:50 +0100, "Ben Pope"
wrote:

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 :-)

(Slaps head in disbelief.)

Heehee, I'm talking about they are equally deceptive/useful. We know
the XP3200 isn't really 50% faster than an XP2100, just as the 800
Msomething FSB isn't 50% faster.

There is no implied doubling of performance by doubling, for example,
CPU clock speed. There's more to a computer than a CPU.

So I just think calling the XP rating
deceptive and NOT calling the 800Mega-something FSB for the same is
just a tad on the side of hypocrisy? :P

I disagree. I see one as a honest attempt to communicate bus speed,
while the other is a dishonest implication of clock speed.

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:52:43 +0100, "Ben Pope"
wrote:

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.

And you don't think the MHz is implied. Unbelievable.

AMD good. Intel bad.

chrisv wrote:
Sorry, but seeing someone attack Intel's "800 MHz FSB"
marketing-speak, while saying that AMD's CPU rating system is A-OK,
strikes me as hypocritical, to say the least. IMO, the AMD situation
is far more deceptive.

So I guess you're exactly the same then... 800MHz is fine, but AMDs system
is totally wrong. You're a hyprocrit too.

Yeah, great bit of communication. Try setting the clock rate to 800MHz.
Good luck.

If you don't have a point, maybe you should just remain silent. Get
it through your head - not everyone is a computer geek. Only a tiny
fraction of people in the world know what a "bus" is, and they should
don't need or want me to explain the gory details. "800MHz FSB" is a
fair and reasonable lossy compression of the reality.

So perpetuating incorrect information is ok as long as you're talking to the
general public.

Get real. Sheesh, CPU's have been sold according to clock frequency
since the dawn of the technology, and you claim that no unit is
implied when AMD tacks those numbers onto the product name? I mean,
what planet are you from?

The system is there as "a fair and reasonalbe lossy compression of the
reality". I guess that excuse will be perfectly ok then, since it works for
you.

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.

Do try to pay attention. The issue here is not data sheets for
electrical engineers. The issue is product and performance
descriptions appropriate for the masses, and whether or not they are
"marketing bull****" or "misrepresentative" as some have claimed.

Oh ok, so as long as you're main audience is not an engineer you can lie
about the details. Great.

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.

Pull your head out.

So I take it that it doesn't work becuase it is in fact, NOT an 800MHz bus.
Thanks. You've established my point.

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

chrisv wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:52:43 +0100, "Ben Pope"
wrote:

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.

And you don't think the MHz is implied. Unbelievable.


Whether you think they're implied not... the units ARE NOT WRITTEN THERE.

This whole argument stemmed from whether we should be measuring data
transfer rates in MHz - and the answer is that we should not. We should be
measuring them in BPS. An AMD FSB of 400 bytes per second is FACT, so the
400 does indeed mean something with the correct units added. Since the
units are not even there it could 400 bananas for all you know.

If I called it 400MHz I would be lying.

If I call it 400, you might ask what, the answer would NOT BE clock cycles
per second.

AMD good. Intel bad.

AMD misleading. Intel outright lying.

Them the facts.

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