Windows reports Wrong CPU Speed.

[mutley]

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?!

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[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?)

"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

 

[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!

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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"

 

[Guest]

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"

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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'.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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*****

 

[Guest]

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 16:47:12 +1000, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:58:42 -0400, Tony Hill
><hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>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.

In this case it really IS PC Chips selling the processor, and that's
why I say that it's definitely them that is defrauding the customer.
They have repackaged an AMD AthlonXP 2000+ and sold it as an "AMD
Athlon 3100A+".

Note the important difference between how AMD markets their chips with
model numbers vs. what PC Chips is doing. AMD does not sell their
processors as an "Intel Pentium4 2000A+", they sell them as an "AMD
AthlonXP 2000+", quite different.

However PCChips here is selling their chip as an "AMD Athlon Pro". If
they had marketed the thing as a "PC Chips SuperDooperCPU Pro 3100A",
I wouldn't have cared so much, because then it would be obvious that
their processor is something quite different from what everyone else
is selling. However selling the chip as an AMD Athlon one would
expect it to be sold the same as other AMD Athlon products.


FWIW though, AMD is definitely not without fault in this deal as well.
You would *NEVER* see Intel allow this sort of nonsense; they would
fight VERY hard to protect their trademark. AMD, however, seems just
fine about letting PCChips stomp on their trademark while defrauding
customers, all the while continuing to sell chips to the company.
This sort of thing is not likely to be a good business plan for AMD in
the long wrong.

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10kl73r7j1vrfa8@corp.supernews.com...
> 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.
>
I guess that depends on how you define 'CPU Vendor'... ie. the original
Vendor AMD, or the re-seller which in this case is PC Chips but could be
anyone else in a 'conventional' build.

--
*****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****

 

[Guest]

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 12:12:27 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:

> FWIW though, AMD is definitely not without fault in this deal as well.
> You would *NEVER* see Intel allow this sort of nonsense; they would
> fight VERY hard to protect their trademark. AMD, however, seems just
> fine about letting PCChips stomp on their trademark while defrauding
> customers, all the while continuing to sell chips to the company.
> This sort of thing is not likely to be a good business plan for AMD in
> the long wrong.
>
AMD has absolutely no control over this. And there's nothing legally wrong
with what PC Chips does. Deceptive I would agree with, but they do list
the CPU's used in their "Pro system" right on their web page. So if you
buy an AMD Pro 3100A+ MB thinking you're getting an AMD XP 3100+ cpu which
isn't even a real number, then you have nothing to blame but your own lack
of research into what you are buying.

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
newsr1mk0dmtjvo2qu8estkb0qa06rc9mii61@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:47:12 +1000, Franc Zabkar
> <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
> >On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:58:42 -0400, Tony Hill
> ><hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> put finger to keyboard and composed:
> >>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.
>
> In this case it really IS PC Chips selling the processor, and that's
> why I say that it's definitely them that is defrauding the customer.
> They have repackaged an AMD AthlonXP 2000+ and sold it as an "AMD
> Athlon 3100A+".
>
> Note the important difference between how AMD markets their chips with
> model numbers vs. what PC Chips is doing. AMD does not sell their
> processors as an "Intel Pentium4 2000A+", they sell them as an "AMD
> AthlonXP 2000+", quite different.
>
> However PCChips here is selling their chip as an "AMD Athlon Pro". If
> they had marketed the thing as a "PC Chips SuperDooperCPU Pro 3100A",
> I wouldn't have cared so much, because then it would be obvious that
> their processor is something quite different from what everyone else
> is selling. However selling the chip as an AMD Athlon one would
> expect it to be sold the same as other AMD Athlon products.
>
>
> FWIW though, AMD is definitely not without fault in this deal as well.
> You would *NEVER* see Intel allow this sort of nonsense; they would
> fight VERY hard to protect their trademark. AMD, however, seems just
> fine about letting PCChips stomp on their trademark while defrauding
> customers, all the while continuing to sell chips to the company.
> This sort of thing is not likely to be a good business plan for AMD in
> the long wrong.
>

I used to have a AMD 2200XP+ and this one I have now is alot faster then my
old CPU!

 

[Guest]

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 17:19:11 +0100, "Lo Salt"
<me@private.co.uk> wrote:


>
>I used to have a AMD 2200XP+ and this one I have now is alot faster then my
>old CPU!
>

No, maybe the system as a whole seems (or even IS) faster at
particular tasks due to other component differences, but the
CPU itself is slower than the XP2200, and if you COULD swap
CPUs, the box would be even faster with the XP2200 in it.

 

[Guest]

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

Wes Newell wrote:

> 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.

Of course there's a 'reference' to a P4. They want to tell you their
processor is better than the P4. and they'd be doing that regardless of
numbering systems or anything else.

>
> 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.

It may be the conclusion you come to from mistaking typical marketing
babble where they show their processor is better than the P4, but just what
would you expect anyway?

What you're missing is how they came UP with the rating numbers.

Go find where they give the benchmark suite used to derive the rating, the
explanation of how they picked those particular benchmarks, and how they
turn the benchmarks into a 'rating'.

That, btw, is the 'reliable metric' babble they refer to.

<snip of more marketing babble>

 

[Guest]

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:

> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:10kl73r7j1vrfa8@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>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.
>>
>
> I guess that depends on how you define 'CPU Vendor'... ie. the original
> Vendor AMD, or the re-seller which in this case is PC Chips but could be
> anyone else in a 'conventional' build.
>

Actually, no, it doesn't 'depend' because he presumed PCChips doesn't sell
processors, so it must be 'someone else'. Which was the whole point of what
he said and that you missed since you opined he was blaming AMD for what
PCChips did (but he said PCChips wasn't doing it).

He's incorrect, however.

 

[Guest]

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

Wes Newell wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:12:27 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:
>
>
>>FWIW though, AMD is definitely not without fault in this deal as well.
>>You would *NEVER* see Intel allow this sort of nonsense; they would
>>fight VERY hard to protect their trademark. AMD, however, seems just
>>fine about letting PCChips stomp on their trademark while defrauding
>>customers, all the while continuing to sell chips to the company.
>>This sort of thing is not likely to be a good business plan for AMD in
>>the long wrong.
>>
>
> AMD has absolutely no control over this.

They certainly have some actions they could take: trademark
infringement/violation suit for one.

> And there's nothing legally wrong
> with what PC Chips does.

That's debatable and probably dependent on the country where the suit is filed.

> Deceptive I would agree with, but they do list
> the CPU's used in their "Pro system" right on their web page.

Well, they list FSB and clock speed. That's not quite listing 'the CPU'.

> So if you
> buy an AMD Pro 3100A+ MB thinking you're getting an AMD XP 3100+ cpu which
> isn't even a real number, then you have nothing to blame but your own lack
> of research into what you are buying.

No offense, but that's what perpetrators of fraud always say in defense:
that if you had tried hard enough you *could* have figured it out.

It prima facie obvious they *intend* for people to think it's something
it's not.

 

[Guest]

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

~misfit~ wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>~misfit~ wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>So there you have it, you have an Athlon XP2200+. (I'm suprised that
>>>CPUID doesn't say "Thoroughbred B" though) The whole "AMD Pro
>>>3100A+" is a bullshit marketing scam that certain company's in the
>>>USA are pulling.
>>
>>Yeah? And why does everyone just automatically assume it's "certain
>>companies in the USA"? Looks to me like this is a PCChips 'exclusive'
>>in a long like of 'Pro' exclusives, like their "BX Pro" (also BXcel
>>and BXToo
>>and BXPert) that wasn't a BX chipset and the "TX Pro" and "TX Pro II"
>>that weren't TX chipsets, not to mention the infamous "PC100 Pro"
>>that didn't support a 100Mhz FSB. "Pro" seems to be the PCChips code
>>word for "we're lying."
>>
>>Just for the record, PCChips is not a 'U.S. company'.
>>
>>http://www.7bytes.com/sys1s.cgi?035+BBAM102
>>
>>Those people may be selling it but they warn you about it too.
>
>
> Ok, ok. Sit yourself down David, have a Valium. I only said "certain
> company's in the US" because that's the only country I've ever heard of this
> happening in. Tiger Direct ring a bell? I talk hardware with Aussie's and
> people from the UK, from here in NZ as well as from the states and I've
> heard of this "AMD Pro" thing *only* from the USA. And I've 'heard' people
> complaining about it several times, all Americans.

Tell your UK buddies to take a gander here.

http://www.byronsystems.co.uk/dynamic/eshop_products.set/ref/434/display2.html

Netherlands?

http://www.speurders.nl/computershardware/completepcsamdduronenathlon/1771387/amd_pro_3200_.2.1.0.1.441.3360.html

Canada?

http://www.etccomputer.ca/eShop/default.asp?systemid=21

France?

http://www.pearl.fr/article-PC2041.html


>>>I for
>>>one don't know how they get away with it.
>>
>>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'?
>>
>>Speaking of it isn't what it says it is, maybe Dan Rather and CBS
>>should
>>try calling them the "National Guard 'Pro'" documents.
>
>
> Ok, lost me there. The whole world doesn't know what's going on in the
> states. You want another Valium?

You're missing a hoot of a story then. CBS decided to break a 'big story'
about George Bush's 30 year old National Guard duty (don't ask who cares)
and all indications are the documents they put up as 'evidence' were faked.

The excuses they're using run the entire gamut of loony; my favorite being
that the experts who told them they were no good and to not use them didn't
protest loud enough.

So far, every expert on the planet has indicated they're fake, except for a
fellah who was a typewriter salesman 30 years ago that CBS seems to really
love, and the people supposedly quoted in the documents have disavowed
them, and the quotes.

But CBS "stands by the story."

Must be a 'Captain goes down with the ship' sort of thing cause it's
sinking like a rock tied to lead weights.


>>>AMD certainly didn't ever make a
>>>CPU called a "AMD Pro 3100A+". I read somewhere that it's what speed
>>>a Pentium 1 would have to run at to be on par with it. Hardly a valid
>>>comparison these days considering a P1 didn't have on-die L2 cache
>>>or half the instuction-sets that modern CPUs have.
>>>
>>>You, my friend, have been had. Unless it was cheap enough and you
>>>are happy with the performance.
>>>--
>>>~misfit~
>
>
> Take it easy David,

Those two paragraphs are not mine.

> ~misfit~
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

~misfit~ wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> You may be right when you said to me in your rather blunt reply that PCChips
> isn't an american company but just look at those URLs David. Who are they
> selling to and where?
> --
> ~misfit~
>
>

For Pete's sake. Just because *I* went to the USA site to get the data
doesn't mean diddle doodle.

 

[Guest]

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

~misfit~ wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>BigBadger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>>>news:10kl73r7j1vrfa8@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I guess that depends on how you define 'CPU Vendor'... ie. the
>>>original Vendor AMD, or the re-seller which in this case is PC Chips
>>>but could be anyone else in a 'conventional' build.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, no, it doesn't 'depend' because he presumed PCChips doesn't
>>sell processors, so it must be 'someone else'. Which was the whole
>>point of what he said and that you missed since you opined he was
>>blaming AMD for what PCChips did (but he said PCChips wasn't doing
>>it).
>
>
> And be factual, it isn't PCChips, It's PCChips-usa.
> --
> ~misfit~
>
>

I was factual: it's PCChips.

PCChips 'usa' doesn't make ANY thing.

From the 'intro'

"PCCHIPS has sales outlets in North America, European countries, and China...
The production facility based in China is one of the world's largest
motherboard manufacturing factory."

The only thing in the US is a bleeding warehouse. Well, 'sales and service
facilities'.