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

AMD has the answer for Intel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old October 15th 03, 05:49 AM
Wes Newell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:58:11 -0400, Keith R. Williams wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:53:24 -0400, Keith R. Williams wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:12:54 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

Gee Wes, I suppose you'd support an argument that all PCs since
the IBM 5150 run at 14.31818 MHz?

Don't know, or care what the IBM 5150 is, and I'm sure not going to waste
my time getting the data on it.


Umm, the *original* IBM PC, from 1981. Sheesh, I thought you
were the PC 'spurt!

Saw it. Considered it trash and didn't buy one. Bought a 286 a little
later to port a program I had written over to the x86 at the request of
several PC types. And I've never bought a complete system. I'always put my
own together, so manufacturer model numbers don't mean Jack to me.

Get a clue (or take any of the free one's offered here), you
haven't a leg to stand on.


On what issue? There's only one issue I've ever made a statement about
here and that's using bogus MHz numbers for the FSB. you've already agreed
with me on that so I don't even know what you are talking about.


You're 1/4 number. As has been 'splained to you many times, the
interface uses 1/2 clocking, via the slice strobes. That makes
it, under any definition a 400MHz bus. Indeed the fastest thing
happening (including data lines) is at 400MHz (maybe).


Sorry. I just don't buy using that as a valid FSB speed designation. The
base clock is the only valid one I will ever consider. Anything else with
MHz behind it in reference to the FSB is just pure BS. If you want to talk
data bits, use the proper terminology for data rates. You can throw all
kinds of bull**** at this you want to. it still won't make it right.

I couldn't care less about the actual timings of the data ticks since it
isn't adjustable.


You haven't a clue. It's not the common clock, it's the
frequency of the bus. The common clock may generate the strobes,
but the 14.31818 MHz system oscillator generates *all* the
processor clocks/strobes. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Christ, you are grasping at straws now. WTF does this have to do with the
FSB, other than that may be the base clock of the clock generator which
genrates the bus clock.

Ther's 4 ticks per clock no matter what the clock is.


Nope. The slice strobes run the channel.


I thought you would understand that I meant the bus was QDR.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html
  #212  
Old October 15th 03, 01:28 PM
George Macdonald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:49:35 GMT, "Wes Newell"
wrote:



You haven't a clue. It's not the common clock, it's the
frequency of the bus. The common clock may generate the strobes,
but the 14.31818 MHz system oscillator generates *all* the
processor clocks/strobes. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Christ, you are grasping at straws now. WTF does this have to do with the
FSB, other than that may be the base clock of the clock generator which
genrates the bus clock.


Uh-huh - there shall be only one clock and no other clocks.shrug

Ther's 4 ticks per clock no matter what the clock is.


Nope. The slice strobes run the channel.


I thought you would understand that I meant the bus was QDR.


And pray tell what does QDR mean????

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  #213  
Old October 15th 03, 10:20 PM
Wes Newell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:28:14 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:49:35 GMT, "Wes Newell"
wrote:

I thought you would understand that I meant the bus was QDR.


And pray tell what does QDR mean????

My own offshoot of DDR, Quad Data Rate. Easier than typing quad pumped.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html
  #214  
Old October 16th 03, 01:19 PM
George Macdonald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:20:25 GMT, "Wes Newell"
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:28:14 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:49:35 GMT, "Wes Newell"
wrote:

I thought you would understand that I meant the bus was QDR.


And pray tell what does QDR mean????

My own offshoot of DDR, Quad Data Rate. Easier than typing quad pumped.


I know what the letters mean. The thing is do you? IOW how does one
achieve QDR signalling... apparently with the bus' base clock?

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  #215  
Old October 16th 03, 05:39 PM
Wes Newell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:19:47 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:20:25 GMT, "Wes Newell"
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:28:14 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:49:35 GMT, "Wes Newell"
wrote:

I thought you would understand that I meant the bus was QDR.

And pray tell what does QDR mean????

My own offshoot of DDR, Quad Data Rate. Easier than typing quad pumped.


I know what the letters mean. The thing is do you? IOW how does one
achieve QDR signalling... apparently with the bus' base clock?

No. I don't know the exact way Intel does it. Nor do I care. I haven't
owned an Intel proc. since I last used a 486SX20. And this is the AMD
overclocking ng. I don't know who started the cross posting. So save your
typing fingers, I'm not interested.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html
  #216  
Old October 16th 03, 08:36 PM
wogston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No. I don't know the exact way Intel does it. Nor do I care. I haven't
owned an Intel proc. since I last used a 486SX20. And this is the AMD
overclocking ng. I don't know who started the cross posting. So save your
typing fingers, I'm not interested.


comp.sys.IBM.PC.chips, I don't know if you're posting this from
alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd, but this thread definitely is more
appropriate to the former.


  #219  
Old October 17th 03, 07:58 AM
Wes Newell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:51:17 -0400, Keith R. Williams wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:19:47 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:20:25 GMT, "Wes Newell"
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:28:14 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:49:35 GMT, "Wes Newell"
wrote:

I thought you would understand that I meant the bus was QDR.

And pray tell what does QDR mean????

My own offshoot of DDR, Quad Data Rate. Easier than typing quad pumped.

I know what the letters mean. The thing is do you? IOW how does one
achieve QDR signalling... apparently with the bus' base clock?

No. I don't know the exact way Intel does it. Nor do I care.


SO we all agree. You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
The only difference I see here is that George and I have some
interest in technical correctness.

Yes I know what I'm talking about. It's you that doesn't seem to have a
clue.

I haven't
owned an Intel proc. since I last used a 486SX20. And this is the AMD
overclocking ng.


Wrong! Look again. At issue has been the Intel FSB, not what
you think it "should be". You're the one who has butted into a
discussion, sans information.

So now you're so smart that you know what cpu's I've owned. And the only
thing at issue that I was aware of was the Intel designation of the FSB as
800MHz, which both of you agreed was wrong.

I don't know who started the cross posting. So save your
typing fingers, I'm not interested.


It's been cross-posted to where I (and I assume George, since
he's regular on .chips too) have been since the beginning. You
really do need to rent a clue. Try arguing with your fellow
over-clockers, rather than those who are trying to give you a
clue.


This is being crossposted in 2 newsgroups. These:

alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd , comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips

I only subscribe to the first, so I sure as hell didn't cross post it to
chips. Perhaps it time you concentate more on common sense than anything
technical. I couldn't care less about the internal workings of the P4.
It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever own another Intel cpu.

Now you and George can continue your discussion, just remove the
alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd newsgroup from it.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html
 




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
[7CIT] I Do Not Think That Anyone In Here Can Answer This; Albeit, Ken Maltby General 17 February 7th 05 01:00 AM
[7CIT] I Do Not Think That Anyone In Here Can Answer This; Albeit, Aaron Dinkin Overclocking 0 February 7th 05 01:00 AM
XP install hangs at Windows Setup with floppy light on - ANSWER AFN General 0 November 27th 04 06:49 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.