Dear Motherboard Gurus.... tell me if ...

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

Dear Motherboard Gurus.... tell me if ...

.... it would do any harm to plug in a CPU of a higher FSB rating than
the MOBO is designed for ?
My mobo has a fsb rating of 400MHz but my P4s rating is 800Mhz.
I personally feel it woud do no (physical) harm except, perhaps,
to 'pull down' the P4's capability and cause it to be under-utilised?
Please correct me if I'm wrong
thnx

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

Dear Motherboard Gurus.... tell me if ...

.... it would do any harm to plug in a CPU of a higher FSB rating than
the MOBO is designed for ?
My mobo has a fsb rating of 400MHz but my P4s rating is 800Mhz.
I personally feel it woud do no (physical) harm except, perhaps,
to 'pull down' the P4's capability and cause it to be under-utilised?
Please correct me if I'm wrong
thnx

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It might work but wont run at the rated speed for the CPU. I Tried this and
ended up getting a MB with a 200 FSB. So yes you are correct. DOUG

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

"Clive" <clive_leutens@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:46jh80hltps38r18bcfuh63tbq3tuh7jgt@4ax.com...
>
> Dear Motherboard Gurus.... tell me if ...
>
> ... it would do any harm to plug in a CPU of a higher FSB rating than
> the MOBO is designed for ?
> My mobo has a fsb rating of 400MHz but my P4s rating is 800Mhz.
> I personally feel it woud do no (physical) harm except, perhaps,
> to 'pull down' the P4's capability and cause it to be under-utilised?
> Please correct me if I'm wrong
> thnx
You want to watch the voltage output as well. I'm pretty sure a first gen.
P4 and a northwood have different v.core requirements. Start pumping too
much voltage to the core and it won't last long.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

Depends on the motherboard. Some will not recognize it and will not boot up
at all.

"Clive" <clive_leutens@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:46jh80hltps38r18bcfuh63tbq3tuh7jgt@4ax.com...
>
> Dear Motherboard Gurus.... tell me if ...
>
> ... it would do any harm to plug in a CPU of a higher FSB rating than
> the MOBO is designed for ?
> My mobo has a fsb rating of 400MHz but my P4s rating is 800Mhz.
> I personally feel it woud do no (physical) harm except, perhaps,
> to 'pull down' the P4's capability and cause it to be under-utilised?
> Please correct me if I'm wrong
> thnx

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

Jim in Canada wrote:

> "Clive" <clive_leutens@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:46jh80hltps38r18bcfuh63tbq3tuh7jgt@4ax.com...
>
>>Dear Motherboard Gurus.... tell me if ...
>>
>>... it would do any harm to plug in a CPU of a higher FSB rating than
>>the MOBO is designed for ?
>>My mobo has a fsb rating of 400MHz but my P4s rating is 800Mhz.
>>I personally feel it woud do no (physical) harm except, perhaps,
>>to 'pull down' the P4's capability and cause it to be under-utilised?
>>Please correct me if I'm wrong
>>thnx
>

[Top posting corrected.]
> Depends on the motherboard. Some will not recognize it and will not boot up
> at all.
>

It could depend on the cpu too. I have, for example, twice run
into 333 MHz FSB Barton core Athlons that would not work in a
266 MHz motherboard. Both times, just putting in a different
cpu of the exact same model/speed fixed the problem.

Intel is so far behind AMD these days that it has been a while
since I wasted time on P4s, but perhaps others have had similar
experiences with P4s ? If you have the kind of money needed
for a fast P4 you would be better off switching to AMD64 - at
least until Intel manages to catch up, possibly by this time
next year.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

On 4/23/2004 12:59 AM Clive brightened our day with:

>Dear Motherboard Gurus.... tell me if ...
>
>... it would do any harm to plug in a CPU of a higher FSB rating than
>the MOBO is designed for ?
>My mobo has a fsb rating of 400MHz but my P4s rating is 800Mhz.
>I personally feel it woud do no (physical) harm except, perhaps,
>to 'pull down' the P4's capability and cause it to be under-utilised?
>Please correct me if I'm wrong
>thnx
>
>

How about telling us exactly what your motherboard is?

--
"Smiles everyone, Smiles!" - Mr. Roarke

Steve [Inglo]

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

"Clive" <clive_leutens@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:46jh80hltps38r18bcfuh63tbq3tuh7jgt@4ax.com...
|
| Dear Motherboard Gurus.... tell me if ...
|
| ... it would do any harm to plug in a CPU of a higher FSB rating than
| the MOBO is designed for ?
| My mobo has a fsb rating of 400MHz but my P4s rating is 800Mhz.
| I personally feel it woud do no (physical) harm except, perhaps,
| to 'pull down' the P4's capability and cause it to be under-utilised?
| Please correct me if I'm wrong
| thnx

You do not have to be a guru to apply some simple rules.

Various models of CPU use differing voltages and multipliers. The BIOS
extracts a model code from the CPU and uses this to identify the chip and
set the working parameters accordingly on modern auto configure mobos:
(remember the old boards where you had 8 or 10 jumpers to set voltages,
frequencies and such, plus perhaps a DIP switch or two).

Unless you can set these things manually, then the CPU type must be on the
board's list of acceptable CPUs for a known outcome. Refer to the maker's
specs in the book or on their web page. (Occasionally closely related CPU
versions work, sometimes in a limited mode, sometimes the chip may be
damaged - take your chances or get someone else to try it).
John.

 

[Phil]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

"Rob Stow" <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote in message
news:108lsp37778pe70@corp.supernews.com...
> Homie wrote:
>
> > Bottom posting corrected (most people start reading at the top of a
page, it aint 1987
> > anymore, welcome to the 21st century).
> > " Intel is so far behind AMD these days "
> > Where do people come up with such bullshit?
>
> Perhaps because an AMD64 processor outperforms and uses a lot
> less power than a P4 or Xeon that is clocked 50% faster ?

So let me see here, you're comparing a 32/64bit processor against two 32bit
processors? Why the hell didn't you compare the Athlon XP which has *much*
more relavence?

And since when did the clock speed have any relavence nowadays...sure, its
clocked 50% slower or whatever, but do you see AMD releasing CPUs with 3GHz
clock speeds? Didn't think so.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

> > > Bottom posting corrected (most people start reading at the top of a
> page, it aint 1987
> > > anymore, welcome to the 21st century).
> > > " Intel is so far behind AMD these days "
> > > Where do people come up with such bullshit?
> >
> > Perhaps because an AMD64 processor outperforms and uses a lot
> > less power than a P4 or Xeon that is clocked 50% faster ?
>
> So let me see here, you're comparing a 32/64bit processor against two
32bit
> processors? Why the hell didn't you compare the Athlon XP which has *much*
> more relavence?

Why would the AXP be more relevant than a P4HT vs A64 ..
their is not going to be a p4 with the a64 code (yet) .. So does that mean 2
or even 3 more generations down the line if intel is making 32bit processors
then those will still need to be compared to the AXP.

I dont hink that a A64 will beat out a TOP p4 OC however.. But thermally
speaking the a64/opt/a64-fx is a DREAM when it comes to quiet computing (is
why I think dell will eventually make the move).

Intel is far behind AMD in reality.. One could say they are as far as 2
years behind ( more like one major generation ). This isnt because AMD is
just SOOO much better than intel.. It's because intel expected the "64bit"
processor line that amd was making to flop.. So it was 1 bad decision that's
now put them 2 years behind..


> And since when did the clock speed have any relavence nowadays...sure, its
> clocked 50% slower or whatever, but do you see AMD releasing CPUs with
3GHz
> clock speeds? Didn't think so.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

"Phil" <pjharding24_invalid_@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c6g1va$b7605$1@ID-230790.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Rob Stow" <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote in message
> news:108lsp37778pe70@corp.supernews.com...
> > Homie wrote:
> >
> > > Bottom posting corrected (most people start reading at the top
of a
> page, it aint 1987
> > > anymore, welcome to the 21st century).
> > > " Intel is so far behind AMD these days "
> > > Where do people come up with such bullshit?
> >
> > Perhaps because an AMD64 processor outperforms and uses a lot
> > less power than a P4 or Xeon that is clocked 50% faster ?
>
> So let me see here, you're comparing a 32/64bit processor against
two 32bit
> processors? Why the hell didn't you compare the Athlon XP which has
*much*
> more relavence?
>
> And since when did the clock speed have any relavence
nowadays...sure, its
> clocked 50% slower or whatever, but do you see AMD releasing CPUs
with 3GHz
> clock speeds? Didn't think so.
>

To use your own words, clock speed has no relevance - performance
does. AMD's chips have a superior design that gives them great
performance at about 2/3 the clock speed of a comparable Pentium. Do
I see AMD releaseing 3GHz clock speed chips? They don't have to since
their slow clockspeed chips perform as well or better than a P4. That
is why they use the performance rating. If they could get an Athlon
or Clawhammer to run at a clockspeed of 3GHz the P4 would be left
choking on their dust.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:55:53 +0100, "Phil"
<pjharding24_invalid_@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Rob Stow" <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote in message
>news:108lsp37778pe70@corp.supernews.com...
>> Homie wrote:
>>
>> > Bottom posting corrected (most people start reading at the top of a
>page, it aint 1987
>> > anymore, welcome to the 21st century).
>> > " Intel is so far behind AMD these days "
>> > Where do people come up with such bullshit?
>>
>> Perhaps because an AMD64 processor outperforms and uses a lot
>> less power than a P4 or Xeon that is clocked 50% faster ?
>
>So let me see here, you're comparing a 32/64bit processor against two 32bit
>processors? Why the hell didn't you compare the Athlon XP which has *much*
>more relavence?
>
>And since when did the clock speed have any relavence nowadays...sure, its
>clocked 50% slower or whatever, but do you see AMD releasing CPUs with 3GHz
>clock speeds? Didn't think so.
>

Or he could have compared AMD64 to the Intel Itanium...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

>>
>> Perhaps because an AMD64 processor outperforms and uses a lot
>> less power than a P4 or Xeon that is clocked 50% faster ?



What programs or applications does the AMD 64 out perform on than the P4?

 

[Slug]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On 26 Apr 2004 02:03:57 GMT, courseyauto@aol.com (Courseyauto) wrote:


>What programs or applications does the AMD 64 out perform on than the P4?

Games, almost all of them except the Quake engine games and that's due
to SSE.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"Daniel L. Belton" <abuse@spam.gov> wrote in message
news:7s8o80llnscd9r1drug0lg28fn0k1f6c9k@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:55:53 +0100, "Phil"
> <pjharding24_invalid_@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rob Stow" <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote in message
> >news:108lsp37778pe70@corp.supernews.com...
> >> Homie wrote:
> >>
> >> > Bottom posting corrected (most people start reading at the top of a
> >page, it aint 1987
> >> > anymore, welcome to the 21st century).
> >> > " Intel is so far behind AMD these days "
> >> > Where do people come up with such bullshit?
> >>
> >> Perhaps because an AMD64 processor outperforms and uses a lot
> >> less power than a P4 or Xeon that is clocked 50% faster ?
> >
> >So let me see here, you're comparing a 32/64bit processor against two
32bit
> >processors? Why the hell didn't you compare the Athlon XP which has
*much*
> >more relavence?
> >
> >And since when did the clock speed have any relavence nowadays...sure,
its
> >clocked 50% slower or whatever, but do you see AMD releasing CPUs with
3GHz
> >clock speeds? Didn't think so.
> >
>
> Or he could have compared AMD64 to the Intel Itanium...
>
>

Ahh, but if he'd compared it to the Itanium, It would've gotten spanked like
the little baby it is. The Itanium is so far ahead of anything on AMD's
drawing board, it's laughable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 19:30:23 -0700, Slug <no@email.here> wrote:

>On 26 Apr 2004 02:03:57 GMT, courseyauto@aol.com (Courseyauto) wrote:
>
>
>>What programs or applications does the AMD 64 out perform on than the P4?
>
>Games, almost all of them except the Quake engine games and that's due
>to SSE.

That's weird, since for most people, they will notice no difference in
a 64 bit and 32 bit processor since you have to have a different
version of your OS to support 64 bit...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

>
> To use your own words, clock speed has no relevance - performance
> does. AMD's chips have a superior design that gives them great
> performance at about 2/3 the clock speed of a comparable Pentium. Do
> I see AMD releaseing 3GHz clock speed chips? They don't have to since
> their slow clockspeed chips perform as well or better than a P4. That
> is why they use the performance rating. If they could get an Athlon
> or Clawhammer to run at a clockspeed of 3GHz the P4 would be left
> choking on their dust.

Well, though i buy and support AMD , cause an Intel monopoly would be
catastrophic for cpu prices, we have to speak a bit about truth. If
AMD cpu design was so much superior, then they would be able to raise
the clock frequency without problems.
I believe that in order to gain more processing power, AMD chose the
design complexity way, while intel chose the frequency way. I am very
sure that AMD cpus should have some sort of parallel processing
inside, in order to perform about the same or better than intel cpus
with have much higher frequency. Parallel processing means more
circuits inside the chip , hence more transistors, hence more
difficult to raise the frequency, due to heat , electromatgnetic
interference, e.t.c.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

>
> To use your own words, clock speed has no relevance - performance
> does. AMD's chips have a superior design that gives them great
> performance at about 2/3 the clock speed of a comparable Pentium. Do
> I see AMD releaseing 3GHz clock speed chips? They don't have to since
> their slow clockspeed chips perform as well or better than a P4. That
> is why they use the performance rating. If they could get an Athlon
> or Clawhammer to run at a clockspeed of 3GHz the P4 would be left
> choking on their dust.

Looked at the numbers again, seems that AMD barton with 512kb has
about the same number of transistors with a P4@3.06 with 512kb. Well
even if it is so, this doesnt reveal much about the interconnections
between transistors and in general the internal complexity of the
chips.
Nevertheless If AMD chips arent much complex than Intel ones, then the
failure to operate them at higher frequency is just that AMD chip
factories arent a match to Intel's ones?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On 26 Apr 2004 02:03:57 GMT, courseyauto@aol.com (Courseyauto) wrote:


>What programs or applications does the AMD 64 out perform on than the P4?
...........................................................................
......................
>Games, almost all of them except the Quake engine games and >that's due
>to SSE.



Which are the ones that run in 64 bit?

 

[Slug]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On 26 Apr 2004 11:38:44 GMT, courseyauto@aol.com (Courseyauto) wrote:


> Which are the ones that run in 64 bit?

None. AMD 64 is 32bit backwards compatible. But the AMD64 still
outperforms Intel cpu's in raw performance when it comes to most
games. BTW, I use Intel but I know which cpu is better if you are
looking for game performance. My next PC will be AMD64 unless Intel
can step up to the plate and sell me something comparable in
performance for the same or less money.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On 26 Apr 2004 11:38:44 GMT, courseyauto@aol.com (Courseyauto) wrote:


> Which are the ones that run in 64 bit?

>None. AMD 64 is 32bit backwards compatible. But the AMD64 still
>outperforms Intel cpu's in raw performance when it comes to most
>games. BTW, I use Intel but I know which cpu is better if you are
>looking for game performance. My next PC will be AMD64 unless >Intel
>can step up to the plate and sell me something comparable in
>performance for the same or less money.

So the 64 bit part has nothing to do with it being better. To which 64 bit
CPU are you refering to The Athlon 64 or the FX?
From what i understand the P4 EE is the top gaming CPU,and if you are refering
to the lower Athlon 64 CPU Thats debateable.

 

[Slug]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On 26 Apr 2004 19:23:03 GMT, courseyauto@aol.com (Courseyauto) wrote:


> So the 64 bit part has nothing to do with it being better. To which 64 bit
>CPU are you refering to The Athlon 64 or the FX?
> From what i understand the P4 EE is the top gaming CPU,and if you are refering
>to the lower Athlon 64 CPU Thats debateable.
>

You're not taking cost into account. I compare cpu's of similar cost
and not what's the fastest each has to offer. Athlon 64 3400+ costs
$620.00 CAD, P4EE 3.2ghz costs $1,373.00 CAD at the same store.
They both are comparable in performance but the AMD part has the major
advantage of costing much less. Therefore; AMD kills Intel in the bang
for buck department. Case closed.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

p92012@rainbow.cs.unipi.gr (Dimitris) wrote in message news:<af44b7e.0404260318.925f274@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > To use your own words, clock speed has no relevance - performance
> > does. AMD's chips have a superior design that gives them great
> > performance at about 2/3 the clock speed of a comparable Pentium. Do
> > I see AMD releaseing 3GHz clock speed chips? They don't have to since
> > their slow clockspeed chips perform as well or better than a P4. That
> > is why they use the performance rating. If they could get an Athlon
> > or Clawhammer to run at a clockspeed of 3GHz the P4 would be left
> > choking on their dust.
>
> Looked at the numbers again, seems that AMD barton with 512kb has
> about the same number of transistors with a P4@3.06 with 512kb. Well
> even if it is so, this doesnt reveal much about the interconnections
> between transistors and in general the internal complexity of the
> chips.
> Nevertheless If AMD chips arent much complex than Intel ones, then the
> failure to operate them at higher frequency is just that AMD chip
> factories arent a match to Intel's ones?
I beleive not. Propably the signal paths arent as simple as in Intel's
chips, thus problems like delay times, signal travel distances e.t.c
force lower frequency for stable operation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

"Dimitris" <p92012@rainbow.cs.unipi.gr> wrote in message
news:af44b7e.0404260318.925f274@posting.google.com...
> >
> > To use your own words, clock speed has no relevance - performance
> > does. AMD's chips have a superior design that gives them great
> > performance at about 2/3 the clock speed of a comparable Pentium.
Do
> > I see AMD releaseing 3GHz clock speed chips? They don't have to
since
> > their slow clockspeed chips perform as well or better than a P4.
That
> > is why they use the performance rating. If they could get an
Athlon
> > or Clawhammer to run at a clockspeed of 3GHz the P4 would be left
> > choking on their dust.
>
> Looked at the numbers again, seems that AMD barton with 512kb has
> about the same number of transistors with a P4@3.06 with 512kb. Well
> even if it is so, this doesnt reveal much about the interconnections
> between transistors and in general the internal complexity of the
> chips.
> Nevertheless If AMD chips arent much complex than Intel ones, then
the
> failure to operate them at higher frequency is just that AMD chip
> factories arent a match to Intel's ones?

AMD's ability to get as much or more power from a chip that runs at
2/3 the clock speed of an Intel must say something for a better
design. Perhaps not.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<eChjc.34681$t26.11448931@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> "Dimitris" <p92012@rainbow.cs.unipi.gr> wrote in message
> news:af44b7e.0404260318.925f274@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > To use your own words, clock speed has no relevance - performance
> > > does. AMD's chips have a superior design that gives them great
> > > performance at about 2/3 the clock speed of a comparable Pentium.
> Do
> > > I see AMD releaseing 3GHz clock speed chips? They don't have to
> since
> > > their slow clockspeed chips perform as well or better than a P4.
> That
> > > is why they use the performance rating. If they could get an
> Athlon
> > > or Clawhammer to run at a clockspeed of 3GHz the P4 would be left
> > > choking on their dust.
> >
> > Looked at the numbers again, seems that AMD barton with 512kb has
> > about the same number of transistors with a P4@3.06 with 512kb. Well
> > even if it is so, this doesnt reveal much about the interconnections
> > between transistors and in general the internal complexity of the
> > chips.
> > Nevertheless If AMD chips arent much complex than Intel ones, then
> the
> > failure to operate them at higher frequency is just that AMD chip
> > factories arent a match to Intel's ones?
>
> AMD's ability to get as much or more power from a chip that runs at
> 2/3 the clock speed of an Intel must say something for a better
> design. Perhaps not.
Yes and no. One could say that Intel's ability to raise the clock
frequency at higher numbers indicates a more healthy chip design. I
believe that answer lies inbetween, that is amd clever and possibly
more complex design gives better perfomance at lower frequency, yet
intel simple design allows to raise the frequency in order to get that
high perfomance. There is a trade off between frequency and design
complexity. Intel chose the frequency side while amd of the design
complexity.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

Do you suppose patents have anything to do with it?

Forrest

Motherboard Help By HAL web site:
http://home.comcast.net/~hal-9000/


On 26 Apr 2004 23:29:37 -0700, p92012@rainbow.cs.unipi.gr (Dimitris)
wrote:

>"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<eChjc.34681$t26.11448931@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...

< snip >

> Intel chose the frequency side while amd of the design
>complexity.