AMD has the answer for Intel

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.

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...

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...

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

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

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

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

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...