So the AMD model number has no relation to the clock speed eh?

1 x Athlon 64 2800+ @ 1.8 GHz
1 x Athlon 64 3000+ @ 2.0 GHz
1 x Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.0 GHz
1 x Athlon 64 3400+ @ 2.2 GHz

2800 isn't running at 2.8 GHz, etc, etc- wtf?



TBerk

T wrote:
> 1 x Athlon 64 2800+ @ 1.8 GHz
> 1 x Athlon 64 3000+ @ 2.0 GHz
> 1 x Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.0 GHz
> 1 x Athlon 64 3400+ @ 2.2 GHz
>
> 2800 isn't running at 2.8 GHz, etc, etc- wtf?
>
>
>
> TBerk

That's correct, Horsepower isn't the factor into the efficiency of a
processor as Intel is just now finding out for themselves.

This chart from AMD should explain this for you:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/SellAMDProducts/0,,30_177_4458_3505^9487^10248,00.html

Note the difference of L2 cache and also memory controller width

The Athlon 3000 and higher now comes in flavours of pin 939 (and also
the old 754 pin) and pin 754 presently tops out at 3700. My local dealer
says he now has both Athlon 64 3200 in both pin 754 and 939 so I assume
AMD has not updated this chart lately, unless my dealer is in error

Each number represents the Intel speed equivalent

regards

B

b wrote:
> T wrote:
>
>> 1 x Athlon 64 2800+ @ 1.8 GHz
>> 1 x Athlon 64 3000+ @ 2.0 GHz
>> 1 x Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.0 GHz
>> 1 x Athlon 64 3400+ @ 2.2 GHz
>>
>> 2800 isn't running at 2.8 GHz, etc, etc- wtf?
>>
>>
>>
>> TBerk
>
>
> That's correct, Horsepower isn't the factor into the efficiency of a
> processor as Intel is just now finding out for themselves.
>
> This chart from AMD should explain this for you:
>
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/SellAMDProducts/0,,30_177_4458_3505^9487^10248,00.html
>
>
> Note the difference of L2 cache and also memory controller width
>
> The Athlon 3000 and higher now comes in flavours of pin 939 (and also
> the old 754 pin) and pin 754 presently tops out at 3700. My local dealer
> says he now has both Athlon 64 3200 in both pin 754 and 939 so I assume
> AMD has not updated this chart lately, unless my dealer is in error
>
> Each number represents the Intel speed equivalent
>
> regards
>
> B

Oops, not enough coffee yet. The chart is correct as written. My apologies.

regards

B

"T" <> wrote in message
news:2HRId.14175$ om...
>1 x Athlon 64 2800+ @ 1.8 GHz
> 1 x Athlon 64 3000+ @ 2.0 GHz
> 1 x Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.0 GHz
> 1 x Athlon 64 3400+ @ 2.2 GHz
>
> 2800 isn't running at 2.8 GHz, etc, etc- wtf?
>
>
>
> TBerk
It's been this way for several years now, beginning with the first Athlon
XP's.
The bottom line is that raw clock speed alone is a poor predictor of real
world performance.
While it may be true that AMD has gone too far with its ratings on the new
Sempron CPU's (rating them against Celerons), the fact remains that numerous
unbiased tests have shown that the AMD ratings give a fairly accurate
performance comparison to competing Intel CPU's.
So, purchase an AMD 64 3200+ running cool at 2.0 GHz and enjoy performance
comparable to (and often exceeding) a P4 3.2.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:04:46 +0000, T wrote:

> 1 x Athlon 64 2800+ @ 1.8 GHz
> 1 x Athlon 64 3000+ @ 2.0 GHz
> 1 x Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.0 GHz
> 1 x Athlon 64 3400+ @ 2.2 GHz
>
> 2800 isn't running at 2.8 GHz, etc, etc- wtf?
>
While your list is accurate, there's more than one flavor of the A64's of
the same rating, depending on model number, socket, and cache.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2303

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.htm

AMD isn't the only one aware of the fallacy of comparing "only" at clock
speed....Apple has been saying that for much longer.

As far as "popular" processor architecture, AMD has done a superior job
working within( and pushing the envelopeof) the x86 limitations. I have been
a fan for AMD since the old "Slot "A"" days. Intel was trying to out spend
the competition instead of Out-tech-ing them. Now its time for a nap.


"T" <> wrote in message
news:2HRId.14175$ om...
>1 x Athlon 64 2800+ @ 1.8 GHz
> 1 x Athlon 64 3000+ @ 2.0 GHz
> 1 x Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.0 GHz
> 1 x Athlon 64 3400+ @ 2.2 GHz
>
> 2800 isn't running at 2.8 GHz, etc, etc- wtf?
>
>
>
> TBerk

b wrote:
> T wrote:
>
>> 1 x Athlon 64 2800+ @ 1.8 GHz
>> 1 x Athlon 64 3000+ @ 2.0 GHz
>> 1 x Athlon 64 3200+ @ 2.0 GHz
>> 1 x Athlon 64 3400+ @ 2.2 GHz
>>
>> 2800 isn't running at 2.8 GHz, etc, etc- wtf?
>>
>>
>>
>> TBerk
>
>
> That's correct, Horsepower isn't the factor into the efficiency of a
> processor as Intel is just now finding out for themselves.
>
<snip>
> Each number represents the Intel speed equivalent
>
> regards
>
> B

Motorola and Apple have been saying the same thing for quite some time
now. ;])


TBerk