1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

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

Discussion in 'AMD Thunderbird' started by T, Jan 23, 2005.

  1. T

    T Guest

    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, Jan 23, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. T

    b Guest

    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, Jan 23, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. T

    b Guest

    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
     
    b, Jan 23, 2005
    #3
  4. "T" <> wrote in message
    news:2HRId.14175$...
    >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.
     
    Peter van der Goes, Jan 23, 2005
    #4
  5. T

    Wes Newell Guest

    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/showdoc.aspx?i=2303

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.htm
     
    Wes Newell, Jan 24, 2005
    #5
  6. T

    Beoweolf Guest

    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$...
    >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
     
    Beoweolf, Jan 25, 2005
    #6
  7. T

    T Guest

    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
     
    T, Jan 31, 2005
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paladin
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    391
  2. urh
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    399
  3. ftran999
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    576
    Inglo
    Aug 6, 2004
  4. Chogaire

    Increasing FSB in relation to PCI/AGP speed

    Chogaire, Feb 15, 2004, in forum: AMD Overclocking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    303
    ~misfit~
    Feb 16, 2004
  5. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    352
    Barry Watzman
    Nov 10, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page