Windows reports Wrong CPU Speed.

ECM wrote:

"ECM" wrote in message

.... snip ...

1.67GHz is correct for a Athlon XP 2000+. I'm not sure what
Athlon you're running; is it a AthlonXP 3000+ with a 333MHz
FSB? If so, it'll run at 2.16GHz; if it's anAthlonXP 3000+
400MHz FSB it'll run at 2.2GHz. I suspect you've got the
AthlonXP 3000+, 333FSB set at a FSB of 133MHz. It's the
only thing that makes sense.
.... snip ...

Now that I've seen the posts from misfit and Mutley, I think
could be wrong - I vaguely remeber hearing something about
thisidiotic scam. What a sh!tty deal! Get your money back if
you can!

If it performs the equivalent of the 'Industry Leader's chip at
the designated clock speed, what is wrong with the reduced
dissipation and extra timing margins of using a slower clock
rate? Unfortunately these marketdroid antics are necessary to
avoid being rejected out of hand by ignorant buyers.

--
"This is a wonderful answer. It's off-topic, it's incorrect,
and it doesn't answer the question." -- Richard Heathfield

"I support the Red Sox and any team that beats the Yankees"

snip

Because it's 'their name' for whatever it is, or so they might argue. Just
as AMD calls a 1.67GHz processor an "XP 2000+." How do THEY 'get away with
it'?

snip

because that's it's performance rating compared to a Pentium 4 ... even
though it runs at 1.6Ghz it performs like a 2.0Ghz P4 so looking at the name
you can tell what sort of processing power you're buying.

Mal wrote:

snip

Because it's 'their name' for whatever it is, or so they might argue. Just
as AMD calls a 1.67GHz processor an "XP 2000+." How do THEY 'get away with
it'?

snip

because that's it's performance rating compared to a Pentium 4

Yeah? Which P4? Willamette? Northwood? Extreme? Hyperthreading on/off? What
FSB? (it matters, you know)

AMD says it's based on a series of benchmarks relative to the original
Athlon; not 'compared to a P4'.

... even
though it runs at 1.6Ghz it performs like a 2.0Ghz P4 so looking at the name
you can tell what sort of processing power you're buying.

One can always come up with an 'explanation' for the invented 'nomenclature'.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:58:42 -0400, Tony Hill
put finger to keyboard and composed:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:58:28 +0100, "Mutley" wrote:

I have a AMD Pro 3100A+ Processor running on a PC Chips M825G MainBoard.
( http://tinyurl.com/47fus ) with 1GB of DDR.

Windows reports it as a AMD Athlon XP 2000+
Does anyone know why?

Because that's what it is. The store that sold it to you (Tiger
Direct?) was using VERY sketchy marketing practices to say the least.
There is no such thing as an "AMD Pro 3100A+" processor, all this
store is doing is taking an AthlonXP 2000+ processor and slapping a
new sticker on it and selling it as something else.

In most markets this is illegal, an a call to the better business
bureau is not an entirely bad idea. However your best bet would be to
return it to the store and demand your money back.

BTW, its running at 1.67GHz and its not clocked.

That is the correct speed for this AthlonXP 2000+ processor you were
sold.

PS. PC Chips has a LONG history of defrauding customers. They are
known crooks, but consumer protection laws are weak to say the least,
especially when the company screwing people over is based out of
China.

That may be so, but AFAIK PC Chips do not sell CPUs. So if anyone is
defrauding customers in this particular case, it is the vendor of the
CPU, not PC Chips.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

Franc Zabkar wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:58:42 -0400, Tony Hill
put finger to keyboard and composed:
=20
=20
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:58:28 +0100, "Mutley" wrote:


I have a AMD Pro 3100A+ Processor running on a PC Chips M825G MainBoar=
d.
( http://tinyurl.com/47fus ) with 1GB of DDR.

Windows reports it as a AMD Athlon XP 2000+
Does anyone know why?

Because that's what it is. The store that sold it to you (Tiger
Direct?) was using VERY sketchy marketing practices to say the least.
There is no such thing as an "AMD Pro 3100A+" processor, all this
store is doing is taking an AthlonXP 2000+ processor and slapping a
new sticker on it and selling it as something else.

In most markets this is illegal, an a call to the better business
bureau is not an entirely bad idea. However your best bet would be to
return it to the store and demand your money back.


BTW, its running at 1.67GHz and its not clocked.

That is the correct speed for this AthlonXP 2000+ processor you were
sold.

PS. PC Chips has a LONG history of defrauding customers. They are
known crooks, but consumer protection laws are weak to say the least,
especially when the company screwing people over is based out of
China.
=20
=20
That may be so, but AFAIK PC Chips do not sell CPUs.

Yes, they do. AMD Duron, AMD Athlon (PCChips description), and VIA C3=20
soldered onto the motherboard.


http://www.pcchipsusa.com/prod-m789cluv12.asp

=B7 VIA C3 Samual 2 1500+(800MHz/133) processor onboard at 133MHz FSB


http://www.pcchipsusa.com/prod-m825gv92c.asp

On-Board CPU CPU Speed FSB
AMD Athlon=99/PRO 2700A+ 1333MHz 133 MHz FSB
AMD Duron=99/PRO 2200+ 1200MHz 100 MHz FSB
AMD Duron=99/PRO 2800+ 1600MHz 133 MHz FSB

http://www.pcchipsusa.com/prod-m825luv72c.asp

On-Board CPU CPU Speed FSB
AMD Athlon=99/PRO 2100A+ 1100MHz 133 MHz FSB
AMD Athlon=99 /PRO 2700A+ 1333MHz 133 MHz FSB
AMD Athlon=99/PRO 3000A+ 1700MHz 133 MHz FSB
AMD Athlon=99/PRO 3100A+ 2000MHz 133 MHz FSB
AMD Duron=99/PRO 2100+ 1100MHz 100 MHz FSB

http://www.pcchipsusa.com/prod-m863gv15c.asp

On-Board CPU CPU Speed FSB
AMD Athlon=99/PRO 3000A+ 1800MHz 133 MHz FSB

How they arrive at those 'Pro' ratings is a mystery.

So if anyone is
defrauding customers in this particular case, it is the vendor of the
CPU, not PC Chips.

Think again.

=20
=20
- Franc Zabkar

That may be so, but AFAIK PC Chips do not sell CPUs. So if anyone is
defrauding customers in this particular case, it is the vendor of the
CPU, not PC Chips.


- Franc Zabkar
--
So when AMD make a XP2000+ CPU and then PC Chips integrate it in a
motherboard and sell it as a Pro3100+ your saying this is somehow AMD's
fault????

--
*****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****

BigBadger wrote:

That may be so, but AFAIK PC Chips do not sell CPUs. So if anyone is
defrauding customers in this particular case, it is the vendor of the
CPU, not PC Chips.


- Franc Zabkar
--

So when AMD make a XP2000+ CPU and then PC Chips integrate it in a
motherboard and sell it as a Pro3100+ your saying this is somehow AMD's
fault????


Oh, come on. I think it's rather obvious he is unaware that PCChips put the
processor on the board, since he said "AFAIK PC Chips do not sell CPUs,"
and that he assumed it was the more 'traditional' situation where the mobo
manufacturer sells the board and someone ELSE, I.E. "the vendor of the
CPU," places the processor on it.

He's incorrect but that doesn't mean your 'interpretation' makes any sense.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:31:56 -0500, David Maynard wrote:

AMD says it's based on a series of benchmarks relative to the original
Athlon; not 'compared to a P4'.

... even
though it runs at 1.6Ghz it performs like a 2.0Ghz P4 so looking at the name
you can tell what sort of processing power you're buying.

One can always come up with an 'explanation' for the invented 'nomenclature'.

And one can always find the facts. Copied form the pdf. I'll let whoever
wants to read it sort it out, but note the reference to the P4.

Page 2 AMD Athlon" XP Processor June 4, 2002 Benchmarking and Model
Numbering Methodology Performance and Frequency With the advent of the AMD
Athlon" processor and the Intel Pentium® 4 processor, the design
architectures of these two companies fundamentally diverged. This design
divergence has resulted in a difference in work done per clock cycle.
Thus, microprocessors operating at identical frequencies may offer
dramatically different levels of performance. Consequently, frequency is
no longer the most meaningful metric for judging relative microprocessor
performance. Today s end users need a better approach W H I T E P A P E R
for comparing relative processor performance. This new approach must
recognize that end users: " Care about the performance of the applications
that they use and care less about the results of synthetic tests "
Typically use a variety of application software " Care about the
performance of the system that they purchase " Need the ability to easily
and simply conduct comparative shopping AMD is driving the True
Performance Initiative (TPI) a strategic initiative with industry leaders
and consumer advocates to develop a reliable processor performance metric
that PC users can trust.

And then there's the tables that compare it to the P4 and even a list of
the P4 hardware used in the comparative systems. The only conclusing on
can come to is that the PR is for comparison to the P4.

Better throw this in too.

Competitive Comparison It is also important to consider how AMD Athlon XP
processors perform relative to competitive PC processors. In order to
provide an accurate comparison between systems based on the AMD Athlon XP
processor and on the Pentium 4 processor, systems are configured
similarly. The details of the system configurations utilized in this
analysis are listed in Appendix D. For the purposes of this comparison,
AMD has used DDR memory system configurations for both the AMD and Intel
processor-based systems. DDR was chosen because it has been adopted as the
mainstream memory system configuration whereas RDRAM has been relegated to
high-end systems and is expected to account for less than 10 percent of
the market, according to industry analysts. Appendix C includes a
comparison using the RDRAM memory system configuration for the Pentium 4.

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

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
BigBadger wrote:

That may be so, but AFAIK PC Chips do not sell CPUs. So if anyone is
defrauding customers in this particular case, it is the vendor of the
CPU, not PC Chips.


- Franc Zabkar
--

So when AMD make a XP2000+ CPU and then PC Chips integrate it in a
motherboard and sell it as a Pro3100+ your saying this is somehow AMD's
fault????


Oh, come on. I think it's rather obvious he is unaware that PCChips put
the processor on the board, since he said "AFAIK PC Chips do not sell
CPUs," and that he assumed it was the more 'traditional' situation where
the mobo manufacturer sells the board and someone ELSE, I.E. "the vendor
of the CPU," places the processor on it.

He's incorrect but that doesn't mean your 'interpretation' makes any
sense.

I guess that depends on how you define 'CPU Vendor'... ie. the original
Vendor AMD, or the re-seller which in this case is PC Chips but could be
anyone else in a 'conventional' build.

--
*****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:47:12 +1000, Franc Zabkar
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:58:42 -0400, Tony Hill
put finger to keyboard and composed:
PS. PC Chips has a LONG history of defrauding customers. They are
known crooks, but consumer protection laws are weak to say the least,
especially when the company screwing people over is based out of
China.

That may be so, but AFAIK PC Chips do not sell CPUs. So if anyone is
defrauding customers in this particular case, it is the vendor of the
CPU, not PC Chips.

In this case it really IS PC Chips selling the processor, and that's
why I say that it's definitely them that is defrauding the customer.
They have repackaged an AMD AthlonXP 2000+ and sold it as an "AMD
Athlon 3100A+".

Note the important difference between how AMD markets their chips with
model numbers vs. what PC Chips is doing. AMD does not sell their
processors as an "Intel Pentium4 2000A+", they sell them as an "AMD
AthlonXP 2000+", quite different.

However PCChips here is selling their chip as an "AMD Athlon Pro". If
they had marketed the thing as a "PC Chips SuperDooperCPU Pro 3100A",
I wouldn't have cared so much, because then it would be obvious that
their processor is something quite different from what everyone else
is selling. However selling the chip as an AMD Athlon one would
expect it to be sold the same as other AMD Athlon products.


FWIW though, AMD is definitely not without fault in this deal as well.
You would *NEVER* see Intel allow this sort of nonsense; they would
fight VERY hard to protect their trademark. AMD, however, seems just
fine about letting PCChips stomp on their trademark while defrauding
customers, all the while continuing to sell chips to the company.
This sort of thing is not likely to be a good business plan for AMD in
the long wrong.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca