Complete Newbie

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:36:30 -0400, Dennis E Strausser Jr wrote:

> "Wes Newell" <> wrote in message
> newsan.2004.07.23.07.35.33.581884@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 06:44:49 +0100, PAUL wrote:
>>
>> > This is from the soyo website:
>> > D
>> > Based on the latest memory technology, Double Data Rate (DDR) SDRAM
> offers
>> > improved memory clock speed at 200/266/333/400 MHz
>>
>> In the first place, this isn't the same as dual channel, and in the second
>> place, this is still not right because the KT266A chipset Dragon model
>> maximum ram clock speed is 133MHz. And since they put clock speed for
>> 200/266/333/400 MHz. the whole f*cking thing is wrong as it will only
>> support a clock speed of 200Mhz. That's the clock speed of the ram bus on
>> PC3200 ram. Someone must have just dreamed this crap up.
>
> It is right really, 200/2 = 100
> 266/2 = 133
> 333/2 = 166 (166.5)
> & 400 is 200
> 200/266/333 and 400 is the full bus.
> The new ones are 400 mhz FSB or 800 bus.

The 3200+ rated fsb clock speed is 200MHz, not 400. The 400 number is
refering to data rates, not bus speeds.

> This is supposed to go up again soon, as AMD is finding new ways
> to turn up the speed of their CPU's

The cpu doesn't set the FSB, the MB does. AMD may up the default though.
End the end, the MB sets the speed and provides the clock.

> Their new one's are either 3.2 or 3.4 GHz @ stock. I think it's called
> FX58 but don't (") me on it.

We're were talking about 32bit cpu's.

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

"Wes Newell" <> wrote in message
newsan.2004.07.24.19.54.24.810372@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:36:30 -0400, Dennis E Strausser Jr wrote:
>
> > "Wes Newell" <> wrote in message
> > newsan.2004.07.23.07.35.33.581884@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
> >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 06:44:49 +0100, PAUL wrote:
> >>
> >> > This is from the soyo website:
> >> > D
> >> > Based on the latest memory technology, Double Data Rate (DDR) SDRAM
> > offers
> >> > improved memory clock speed at 200/266/333/400 MHz
> >>
> >> In the first place, this isn't the same as dual channel, and in the
second
> >> place, this is still not right because the KT266A chipset Dragon model
> >> maximum ram clock speed is 133MHz. And since they put clock speed for
> >> 200/266/333/400 MHz. the whole f*cking thing is wrong as it will only
> >> support a clock speed of 200Mhz. That's the clock speed of the ram bus
on
> >> PC3200 ram. Someone must have just dreamed this crap up.
> >
> > It is right really, 200/2 = 100
> > 266/2 = 133
> > 333/2 = 166 (166.5)
> > & 400 is 200
> > 200/266/333 and 400 is the full bus.
> > The new ones are 400 mhz FSB or 800 bus.
>
> The 3200+ rated fsb clock speed is 200MHz, not 400. The 400 number is
> refering to data rates, not bus speeds.
>
> > This is supposed to go up again soon, as AMD is finding new ways
> > to turn up the speed of their CPU's
>
> The cpu doesn't set the FSB, the MB does. AMD may up the default though.
> End the end, the MB sets the speed and provides the clock.
>
> > Their new one's are either 3.2 or 3.4 GHz @ stock. I think it's called
> > FX58 but don't (") me on it.
>
> We're were talking about 32bit cpu's.
>
> --
> Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
> http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Ah, CPU-Z
FSB is 173.6
Bus Speed is @ 347.2
Yeah, I'm overclocking.
(Tbred-b) chip is a 2200+ comes up as 2600+ 2.17 and vcore 1.85
CPU-Z Shows 1.88
Multiplier is @ 12.5 Not far from stock.

If you want to know yours, go over to http://www.cpuid.com
Don't be running any other monitoring software when running CPU-Z
it will most times get in the way of reading your system, or send temps
way off what they really are.

AMD's work @ 100/133/166/200 (FSB) x 2 = the Bus Speed
Intel's work @ 100/133.25/200 (FSB) x 4 = the Bus Speed
I'm not sure why AMD decided to keep with the older methods, but
I cant say I could complain. It's easier to understand then some systems.
As far back as I think anyway, the might've been the later half of the K6
or K7.
But I'm not sure which.
I was thinking the start of the Pentium's used it to, but I don't think so.
Just looked @ a board I have sitting around.
I had the thing installed about a year or so ago, and had a
166 Chip doing 233 Stable on just air.
Also, I even have very, but not too very Old School.
Not so far back as the 8086 or 8088
But it is a DX2 66 MHz The 486.
I also know how to set it's jumpers to overclock to 100 or so.
I think it would be able to take more really.
Denny. :-)

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 00:28:51 -0400, Dennis E Strausser Jr wrote:

> Ah, CPU-Z
> FSB is 173.6
> Bus Speed is @ 347.2

That's a data rate, the bus is 173.6MHz with 2 data nits per clock= 347.2
See The Real Front Side Bus in link below.

> If you want to know yours, go over to http://www.cpuid.com

I don't need no stinking sw to tell me what I configured.:-)

> Don't be running any other monitoring software when running CPU-Z
> it will most times get in the way of reading your system, or send temps
> way off what they really are.

I don't know if there's a CPU-Z for Linux anyway, which I run. Even if
there were, I don't need it.
>
> AMD's work @ 100/133/166/200 (FSB) x 2 = the Bus Speed Intel's work @
> 100/133.25/200 (FSB) x 4 = the Bus Speed I'm not sure why AMD decided to
> keep with the older methods, but I cant say I could complain.

Yeah, I know how it works. But the bus speed is still 200MHz for the
3200+, not 400MHz. There's nothing 400MHz about the bus, although the bus
is DDR, and so data troughput is the same as a 400MHz non DDR bus. I'm so
sick of the way they change these numbers to make things look bigger and
faster, it just makes me want to puke.

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

"Wes Newell" <> wrote in message
newsan.2004.07.25.06.16.33.892430@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 00:28:51 -0400, Dennis E Strausser Jr wrote:
<Snip>
I e-mailed AMD to just find out which of us is right on
the FSB thing.
They are yet to get back to me.
By this point, this thread is getting so big, I don't care
which of us is right or wrong on it.
I just want to know for sure.

I might just e-mail Intel on this as well, I want to know why..
When they say 800 (FSB) why they don't just say 200 fsb.
and what the heck does this 200 x 4 help?
Only thing I can think of is this.

200 x 2 = 400 CPU 1
200 x 2 = 400 CPU 2
to a total of 800
To make it act more like there's really 2 CPU's
If there was no bottle neck, it would be like having 2 CPU's

What do you think on this?
Sorry for the change of servers, I ran out of bandwidth.
Denny. :-)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:24:47 -0400, Dennis E Strausser Jr wrote:

>
> "Wes Newell" <> wrote in message
> newsan.2004.07.25.06.16.33.892430@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 00:28:51 -0400, Dennis E Strausser Jr wrote:
> <Snip>
> I e-mailed AMD to just find out which of us is right on
> the FSB thing.

You didn't have to do that. All you have to do is look at the data sheets.
I tried pinning AMD to wall a while back about why they erroniously use
the wrong speed of the FSB. Here's the reply.
------------------------------------------

Thanks for contacting AMD's Technical Service Center. The stated FSB
speed is the effective frequency. The physical frequency is half the
effective frequency - 100, 133, or 166MHz. Most motherboards will state
this physical frequency rather than the effective frequency.

The reason for this is that, in the past, chipsets would transfer data
once per clock cycle. With the introduction of the Athlon's chipset,
they began transferring data twice per clock cycle, effectively doubling
the amount of data transferred even though the physical frequency
remained constant. This is similar to DDR (Double Data Rate) Technology,
which is used in DDR SDRAM. You will also find similar technology used
in other products as well, such as RDRAM.

Hope this helps.
Best Regards,
Jeff Hanaoka
AMD Technical Service Center


Original Message Follows:
------------------------
You refer to the Athlon FSB speeds as 200mhz, 266mhz, and 333mhz. Is
this really the front side bus speed? I can't find a motherboard that
supports front side bus speeds higher than 166mhz. What gives?

------------------------------

> They are yet to get back to me.
> By this point, this thread is getting so big, I don't care
> which of us is right or wrong on it.
> I just want to know for sure.
>



> I might just e-mail Intel on this as well, I want to know why..
> When they say 800 (FSB) why they don't just say 200 fsb.
> and what the heck does this 200 x 4 help?

Well, DDR, QDR (as I call it) helps with data throughput, and marketing
types tlike big numbers, so they just play with them.

> Only thing I can think of is this.
>
> 200 x 2 = 400 CPU 1
> 200 x 2 = 400 CPU 2
> to a total of 800
> To make it act more like there's really 2 CPU's
> If there was no bottle neck, it would be like having 2 CPU's
>
> What do you think on this?

What? It's just data bandwidth. And to be honest, enough is enough. IOW's
as long as the bandwidth is there and the cpu doesn't have to wait on it,
these numbers don't mean crap.:-)

Now just try and use these false numbers when building an actual bus,
determining the correct multiplier, even determining the speed to set, and
the list goes on. Everyone knows the Athlon XP 3200+ has a muliplier of 11
and the default speed of the cpu is a real 2200MHz. Now how easy is it to
figure out the speed of the clock of the FSB? 2200/11=200, not 400. Bus
speed refers to clock rates. Data rates have a whole new meaning. See The
Real Front Side Bus in link below.

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

"Wes Newell" <> wrote in message
newsan.2004.07.27.06.17.35.387212@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:24:47 -0400, Dennis E Strausser Jr wrote:
>
> >
> > "Wes Newell" <> wrote in message
> > newsan.2004.07.25.06.16.33.892430@TAKEOUTverizon .net...
> >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 00:28:51 -0400, Dennis E Strausser Jr wrote:
> > <Snip>
> > I e-mailed AMD to just find out which of us is right on
> > the FSB thing.
>
> You didn't have to do that. All you have to do is look at the data sheets.
> I tried pinning AMD to wall a while back about why they erroniously use
> the wrong speed of the FSB. Here's the reply.
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for contacting AMD's Technical Service Center. The stated FSB
> speed is the effective frequency. The physical frequency is half the
> effective frequency - 100, 133, or 166MHz. Most motherboards will state
> this physical frequency rather than the effective frequency.
>
> The reason for this is that, in the past, chipsets would transfer data
> once per clock cycle. With the introduction of the Athlon's chipset,
> they began transferring data twice per clock cycle, effectively doubling
> the amount of data transferred even though the physical frequency
> remained constant. This is similar to DDR (Double Data Rate) Technology,
> which is used in DDR SDRAM. You will also find similar technology used
> in other products as well, such as RDRAM.
>
> Hope this helps.
> Best Regards,
> Jeff Hanaoka
> AMD Technical Service Center
>
>
> Original Message Follows:
> ------------------------
> You refer to the Athlon FSB speeds as 200mhz, 266mhz, and 333mhz. Is
> this really the front side bus speed? I can't find a motherboard that
> supports front side bus speeds higher than 166mhz. What gives?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> > They are yet to get back to me.
> > By this point, this thread is getting so big, I don't care
> > which of us is right or wrong on it.
> > I just want to know for sure.
> >
>
>
>
> > I might just e-mail Intel on this as well, I want to know why..
> > When they say 800 (FSB) why they don't just say 200 fsb.
> > and what the heck does this 200 x 4 help?
>
> Well, DDR, QDR (as I call it) helps with data throughput, and marketing
> types tlike big numbers, so they just play with them.
>
> > Only thing I can think of is this.
> >
> > 200 x 2 = 400 CPU 1
> > 200 x 2 = 400 CPU 2
> > to a total of 800
> > To make it act more like there's really 2 CPU's
> > If there was no bottle neck, it would be like having 2 CPU's
> >
> > What do you think on this?
>
> What? It's just data bandwidth. And to be honest, enough is enough. IOW's
> as long as the bandwidth is there and the cpu doesn't have to wait on it,
> these numbers don't mean crap.:-)
>
> Now just try and use these false numbers when building an actual bus,
> determining the correct multiplier, even determining the speed to set, and
> the list goes on. Everyone knows the Athlon XP 3200+ has a muliplier of 11
> and the default speed of the cpu is a real 2200MHz. Now how easy is it to
> figure out the speed of the clock of the FSB? 2200/11=200, not 400. Bus
> speed refers to clock rates. Data rates have a whole new meaning. See The
> Real Front Side Bus in link below.
>
> --
> Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
> http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

OK..
So in a lot of ways, we are both right.
Hm, marketing, only thing I can think of now.
And with both company's, but why?
I don't think either one of us can answer this one.

Denny. :-)