Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

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?

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


--
Does a coffin have a lifetime guarantee?!

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:58:28 +0100, "Mutley"
<us@privacy.co.uk> 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?
>
>BTW, its running at 1.67GHz and its not clocked.


A "Pro 3100A+" is a nonsense made-up name to deceive buyers.
There is no such CPU in reality, so it's to be expected that
Windows wouldn't call it that.

At 1.67 GHz, (assuming it's not a Duron, IIRC they switched
to Athlons after a certain "Pro" speed) it is essentially an
XP2000.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Mutley" <us@privacy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2qu62pF14c1vqU1@uni-berlin.de...
> 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?
>
> BTW, its running at 1.67GHz and its not clocked.
>
>
> --
> Does a coffin have a lifetime guarantee?!
>
>

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.

So, get into the BIOS, and set the FSB at 177 (that's what a 333FSB actually
runs at; it's multiplied by 2).

Good Luck!
ECM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"ECM" <thedeepabyss@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:ifOdnSCpx7j_1dfcRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>
> "Mutley" <us@privacy.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2qu62pF14c1vqU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > 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?
> >
> > BTW, its running at 1.67GHz and its not clocked.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Does a coffin have a lifetime guarantee?!
> >
> >
>
> 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.
>
> So, get into the BIOS, and set the FSB at 177 (that's what a 333FSB
actually
> runs at; it's multiplied by 2).
>
> Good Luck!
> ECM
>
>
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!

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:58:28 +0100, "Mutley" <us@privacy.co.uk> 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.

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

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

ECM wrote:
>
> "ECM" <thedeepabyss@whoever.com> 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"

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

ECM wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> So, get into the BIOS, and set the FSB at 177 (that's what a
> 333FSB actually runs at; it's multiplied by 2).

When I was in the second grade I was taught that 177 * 2 was very
close to 354 :-) You have a naughty keyboard.

--
"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"

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

<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.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

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'.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:58:42 -0400, Tony Hill
<hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:58:28 +0100, "Mutley" <us@privacy.co.uk> 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.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Franc Zabkar wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:58:42 -0400, Tony Hill
> <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>
>>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:58:28 +0100, "Mutley" <us@privacy.co.uk> 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.

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


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

· 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™/PRO 2700A+ 1333MHz 133 MHz FSB
AMD Duron™/PRO 2200+ 1200MHz 100 MHz FSB
AMD Duron™/PRO 2800+ 1600MHz 133 MHz FSB

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

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

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

On-Board CPU CPU Speed FSB
AMD Athlon™/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.

>
>
> - Franc Zabkar

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> 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*****

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

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.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

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