Maximum System Bus Speed

Ziferten wrote:
Alright, so I didn't get an answer, but I learned way more about Hertz!

Hehe. Well, actually you did. What it "supports" is what it's rated at.

I rather suspect you want to know what you can 'get out of it' and that was
answered too.


"Ziferten" wrote in message
...

What is the maximum that the Athlon XP 2800+ supports? I use a Gigabyte
GA-7N400 Pro2 by the way

BigBadger wrote:

You said 333MHz...a MHz is a measure of frequency. The frequency in MHz of a
XP2800+ FSB is 166...end of story.


Yes. Hertz is "a measure of frequency." It's your assumption that a 'clock'
is the only thing of interest that's the problem.

The bus data rate of an XP2800+ is 333Mhz because that is the frequency of
data arrival.

BigBadger wrote:

Yes. In previous discussions I've also pointed out that same argument as
the perspective of the 'purist'. It does, however, beg the question about
the data rate of a 166.6Mhz clocked double data rate bus being 333 'what'?
To which I mused perhaps we should regret having changed from the original
designation of "Cycles/Second" to "Hertz." (It's interesting to note that
few would find such a problem with a bus rate designation of 333
'Mega-Cycles/Second' but do when the synonym "Hertz" is substituted)


Hertz is a measure of Mega Cycles per second...we both agree on that.

Yep. Now, cycles of what?

The dictionary 'physics' definition of a cycle is:
one complete oscillation: one complete continuous change in the magnitude of
an oscillating quantity or system that brings the system back to its
original energy state.
Therefore it does not matter how many data points is carried on the wave,
the frequency is the number of cycles (or oscillations) per second and for
an XP2800+ this is 166,600,000....or 166MHz

Except that we aren't talking about the 'physics' of a waveform in this
context. We're talking about the bus data rate and that is 333Mhz.

Let me give an analogy. Do you care what the magnetic flux on the platters
in a 120 gig hard drive looks like? Do you care if it's FM encoded, or MFM
encoded, or RLL encoded? No, all you care about is that it stores 120 gig.
That is the 'relevant' summary information: the data you get.

The same applies to the bus. It is of technical interest that it's a
166.6MHZ clocked double data rate bus but the summary of interest is that
it transfers data at 333MHz.

Both representations are perfectly valid in the context of what they are
describing and neither is 'hype'.

David Maynard wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

~misfit~ wrote:


David Maynard wrote:


BigBadger wrote:



No it's not 333MHz, it's actually a 166 'MHz' FSB
processor....333 is just AMD hype to sell the virtues of the DDR
bus. Intel do the same trick but they multiply the real bus
speed by 4x.

Double and quad pumping the bus is not "hype." It's an engineering
technique for transferring data twice, or 4 times for quad, per
clock cycle.

333 is the bus cycle rate, e.g. "Bus Speed," and is the relevant
number from a performance standpoint.


Yes, but David my friend, you said "333MHz FSB". That is plainly
incorrect, the "MHz" part of it.

Feel free to explain 333 'what' it is


MegaSignals/second (MS/s). g Two signals per hertz.

Hehe. Sure. That'll clear it up.

I can just hear it now: people complaining it's (really)
'MicroSofts'/s

Btw, Hertz is defined as "hertz (Hz): 1. The SI unit of frequency,
equal to one cycle per second. Note: A periodic phenomenon that has a
period of one second has a frequency of one hertz. (188) 2. A unit of
frequency which is equivalent to one cycle per second."

http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-018/_2563.htm

And the data transfer rate qualifies as "a periodic phenomenon."

"Frequency" is not just an electrical term and is not restricted to
electronic waveforms.

You have to be careful about sloppy definitions. For example, look at
this one: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/Hz.html

"Short for Hertz, a unit of frequency of electrical vibrations equal
to one cycle per second. The Hertz is named after Heinrich Hertz, who
first detected electromagnetic waves."

Oh really? Only "electrical vibrations?" So Hertz doesn't apply to
sound waves? The range of human hearing isn't 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz?

Then we're going to have to send all our astrophysicists back to
school too because they think frequency applies to orbits.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0110209

"We compute the maximum orbital frequency of stable circular motion
around uniformly rotating strange stars described by the MIT bag
model. The calculations are performed for both normal and
supramassive constant baryon mass sequences of strange stars rotating
at all possible rates. We find the lower limits on the maximum
orbital frequency and discuss them for a range of masses and for all
rotational frequencies allowed in the model considered. We show that
for slowly and moderately rotating strange stars the maximum value of
orbital frequency can be a good indicator of the mass of the compact
object. However, for rapidly rotating strange stars the same value of
orbital frequency in the innermost stable circular orbit is obtained
for stars with masses ranging from that of a planetoid to about three
solar masses. At sufficiently high rotation rates of the strange
star, the rotational period alone constrains the stellar mass to a
surprisingly narrow range."


That second definition falls into the trap I allude to with my lament
of the change from Cycles/s to Hertz: that using the name "Hertz"
suddenly limits the scope.

Yup, it's a mine-field. I just personally have an aversion to people talking
about "800MHz" (FI) FSB's when it's really 200Mhz. Paint me pedantic.
--
~misfit~

Ziferten wrote:

kinda.... i was really after whether or not the 200(MHz? : )) bus was safe
for the processor

A 200Mhz bus (in this case you mean the base clock rate) is 'safe' in that
it, alone, isn't going to physically damage the processor.

Whether it will run at that speed is a bit more problematic.

As an example, I have an AMD mobile, 512K cache (Barton), 2400+ running
2,400MHz on a 200MHz (base clock rate) bus although it's spec'd for a
133.3Mhz (base clock rate) bus. But I was able to run it like that because
it's multiplier is unlocked and it took overvolting the processor, memory,
and the chipset (probably because the memory is el-cheapo junk).


"David Maynard" wrote in message
...

Ziferten wrote:

Alright, so I didn't get an answer, but I learned way more about Hertz!

Hehe. Well, actually you did. What it "supports" is what it's rated at.

I rather suspect you want to know what you can 'get out of it' and that

was

answered too.



"Ziferten" wrote in message
...


What is the maximum that the Athlon XP 2800+ supports? I use a Gigabyte
GA-7N400 Pro2 by the way

Ziferten wrote:
kinda.... i was really after whether or not the 200(MHz? : )) bus was
safe for the processor

It won't kill it. g. It may fail to post or boot Windows without a vcore
increase.

However, whether you'll get it to run stably at 200MHz FSB is another
matter. It's multi-locked right? With an increase in core voltage and maybe
better cooling it could be acheivable. It all depends on your CPU, they
aren't all created equal.
--
~misfit~

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
Ziferten wrote:
Alright, so I didn't get an answer, but I learned way more about
Hertz!

Hehe. Well, actually you did. What it "supports" is what it's rated
at.

I rather suspect you want to know what you can 'get out of it' and
that was answered too.


"Ziferten" wrote in message
...

What is the maximum that the Athlon XP 2800+ supports? I use a
Gigabyte GA-7N400 Pro2 by the way

BigBadger wrote:
Yes. In previous discussions I've also pointed out that same
argument as the perspective of the 'purist'. It does, however, beg
the question about the data rate of a 166.6Mhz clocked double data
rate bus being 333 'what'? To which I mused perhaps we should regret
having changed from the original designation of "Cycles/Second" to
"Hertz." (It's interesting to note that few would find such a
problem with a bus rate designation of 333 'Mega-Cycles/Second' but
do when the synonym "Hertz" is substituted)

Hertz is a measure of Mega Cycles per second...we both agree on that.
The dictionary 'physics' definition of a cycle is:
one complete oscillation: one complete continuous change in the
magnitude of an oscillating quantity or system that brings the system
back to its original energy state.
Therefore it does not matter how many data points is carried on the
wave, the frequency is the number of cycles (or oscillations) per
second and for an XP2800+ this is 166,600,000....or 166MHz

Yeah! What he said!
--
~misfit~

The data transfer occurs 800,000,000 times per second. There are
800,000,000 clocking edges per second, on each of which a transfer of the
full bus width occurs. Now, is it more meaningful to call that transfering
at a rate of 800,000,000 times per second or 200,000,000 X times 4 per
second? As for the clocks that controls the memory, they generate
400,000,000 pulses per second, and are derived from 800,000,000 pulses per
second (to get the offset.) The FSB transfers to and from memory at 800 MHz
for Pentium 4 CPU's rated for that. You can call it anything you want to,
but you may not be understood, and certainly you will not change reality.

--
Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
For communication,
replace "at" with the 'at sign'
replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
replace "dot" with "."


"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
David Maynard wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

~misfit~ wrote:


David Maynard wrote:


BigBadger wrote:



No it's not 333MHz, it's actually a 166 'MHz' FSB
processor....333 is just AMD hype to sell the virtues of the DDR
bus. Intel do the same trick but they multiply the real bus
speed by 4x.

Double and quad pumping the bus is not "hype." It's an engineering
technique for transferring data twice, or 4 times for quad, per
clock cycle.

333 is the bus cycle rate, e.g. "Bus Speed," and is the relevant
number from a performance standpoint.


Yes, but David my friend, you said "333MHz FSB". That is plainly
incorrect, the "MHz" part of it.

Feel free to explain 333 'what' it is


MegaSignals/second (MS/s). g Two signals per hertz.

Hehe. Sure. That'll clear it up.

I can just hear it now: people complaining it's (really)
'MicroSofts'/s

Btw, Hertz is defined as "hertz (Hz): 1. The SI unit of frequency,
equal to one cycle per second. Note: A periodic phenomenon that has a
period of one second has a frequency of one hertz. (188) 2. A unit of
frequency which is equivalent to one cycle per second."

http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-018/_2563.htm

And the data transfer rate qualifies as "a periodic phenomenon."

"Frequency" is not just an electrical term and is not restricted to
electronic waveforms.

You have to be careful about sloppy definitions. For example, look at
this one: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/Hz.html

"Short for Hertz, a unit of frequency of electrical vibrations equal
to one cycle per second. The Hertz is named after Heinrich Hertz, who
first detected electromagnetic waves."

Oh really? Only "electrical vibrations?" So Hertz doesn't apply to
sound waves? The range of human hearing isn't 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz?

Then we're going to have to send all our astrophysicists back to
school too because they think frequency applies to orbits.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0110209

"We compute the maximum orbital frequency of stable circular motion
around uniformly rotating strange stars described by the MIT bag
model. The calculations are performed for both normal and
supramassive constant baryon mass sequences of strange stars rotating
at all possible rates. We find the lower limits on the maximum
orbital frequency and discuss them for a range of masses and for all
rotational frequencies allowed in the model considered. We show that
for slowly and moderately rotating strange stars the maximum value of
orbital frequency can be a good indicator of the mass of the compact
object. However, for rapidly rotating strange stars the same value of
orbital frequency in the innermost stable circular orbit is obtained
for stars with masses ranging from that of a planetoid to about three
solar masses. At sufficiently high rotation rates of the strange
star, the rotational period alone constrains the stellar mass to a
surprisingly narrow range."


That second definition falls into the trap I allude to with my lament
of the change from Cycles/s to Hertz: that using the name "Hertz"
suddenly limits the scope.

Yup, it's a mine-field. I just personally have an aversion to people
talking
about "800MHz" (FI) FSB's when it's really 200Mhz. Paint me pedantic.
--
~misfit~

~misfit~ wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

~misfit~ wrote:


David Maynard wrote:


~misfit~ wrote:



David Maynard wrote:



BigBadger wrote:




No it's not 333MHz, it's actually a 166 'MHz' FSB
processor....333 is just AMD hype to sell the virtues of the DDR
bus. Intel do the same trick but they multiply the real bus
speed by 4x.

Double and quad pumping the bus is not "hype." It's an engineering
technique for transferring data twice, or 4 times for quad, per
clock cycle.

333 is the bus cycle rate, e.g. "Bus Speed," and is the relevant
number from a performance standpoint.


Yes, but David my friend, you said "333MHz FSB". That is plainly
incorrect, the "MHz" part of it.

Feel free to explain 333 'what' it is


MegaSignals/second (MS/s). g Two signals per hertz.

Hehe. Sure. That'll clear it up.

I can just hear it now: people complaining it's (really)
'MicroSofts'/s

Btw, Hertz is defined as "hertz (Hz): 1. The SI unit of frequency,
equal to one cycle per second. Note: A periodic phenomenon that has a
period of one second has a frequency of one hertz. (188) 2. A unit of
frequency which is equivalent to one cycle per second."

http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-018/_2563.htm

And the data transfer rate qualifies as "a periodic phenomenon."

"Frequency" is not just an electrical term and is not restricted to
electronic waveforms.

You have to be careful about sloppy definitions. For example, look at
this one: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/Hz.html

"Short for Hertz, a unit of frequency of electrical vibrations equal
to one cycle per second. The Hertz is named after Heinrich Hertz, who
first detected electromagnetic waves."

Oh really? Only "electrical vibrations?" So Hertz doesn't apply to
sound waves? The range of human hearing isn't 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz?

Then we're going to have to send all our astrophysicists back to
school too because they think frequency applies to orbits.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0110209

"We compute the maximum orbital frequency of stable circular motion
around uniformly rotating strange stars described by the MIT bag
model. The calculations are performed for both normal and
supramassive constant baryon mass sequences of strange stars rotating
at all possible rates. We find the lower limits on the maximum
orbital frequency and discuss them for a range of masses and for all
rotational frequencies allowed in the model considered. We show that
for slowly and moderately rotating strange stars the maximum value of
orbital frequency can be a good indicator of the mass of the compact
object. However, for rapidly rotating strange stars the same value of
orbital frequency in the innermost stable circular orbit is obtained
for stars with masses ranging from that of a planetoid to about three
solar masses. At sufficiently high rotation rates of the strange
star, the rotational period alone constrains the stellar mass to a
surprisingly narrow range."


That second definition falls into the trap I allude to with my lament
of the change from Cycles/s to Hertz: that using the name "Hertz"
suddenly limits the scope.


Yup, it's a mine-field. I just personally have an aversion to people talking
about "800MHz" (FI) FSB's when it's really 200Mhz. Paint me pedantic.

When "it's" the base clock you're right. But when "it's" the data rate then
"it's" 'really' 800MHz.


--
~misfit~

Well, not really. How about FM modulation, as in FM broadcast radio? The
original carrier frequency is measured in MHz, but then it is modulated by
an audio frequency, measured in KHz, and the results is a varying frequency,
giving a waveform which does not necessarily EVER repeat itself. And then
there is phase modulation, pulse width modulation, not to mention
polarization. And what about "spread spectrum", as used to be found as a
BIOS settings, giving a modulated clock rate? Don't try to read too much
into brief definition.

As clock pulse trains, they carry no more data than a 60 Hz or 50 Hz power
line.

--
Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
For communication,
replace "at" with the 'at sign'
replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
replace "dot" with "."


"BigBadger" wrote in message
...

Hertz is a measure of Mega Cycles per second...we both agree on that.
The dictionary 'physics' definition of a cycle is:
one complete oscillation: one complete continuous change in the magnitude
of
an oscillating quantity or system that brings the system back to its
original energy state.
Therefore it does not matter how many data points is carried on the wave,
the frequency is the number of cycles (or oscillations) per second and for
an XP2800+ this is 166,600,000....or 166MHz