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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
|
#218
|
|||
|
|||
|
#219
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 12:00 AM |
[7CIT] I Do Not Think That Anyone In Here Can Answer This; Albeit, | Aaron Dinkin | Overclocking | 0 | February 7th 05 12:00 AM |
XP install hangs at Windows Setup with floppy light on - ANSWER | AFN | General | 0 | November 27th 04 05:49 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 |