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

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
32 answers Last reply
More about dear motherboard gurus
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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]
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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...
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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...
  15. 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.
  16. 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?
  17. 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?
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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?)

    - HAL9000 <gumpy@mail.org> wrote in message news:<i74u809tlu8b9a0ge3k1hqpm7f9ubdth8c@4ax.com>...
    > Do you suppose patents have anything to do with it?
    >
    > Forrest
    >

    Tell me more.
  26. 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?)

    "- HAL9000" <gumpy@mail.org> wrote in message
    news:i74u809tlu8b9a0ge3k1hqpm7f9ubdth8c@4ax.com...
    > Do you suppose patents have anything to do with it?
    >
    > Forrest
    >

    no
  27. 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?)

    Hehehe, I dunno'.

    I don't think I've read anything on the subject on the web or at
    tomshardware.com. Just seems plausible.

    Forrest

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


    On 28 Apr 2004 03:13:40 -0700, p92012@rainbow.cs.unipi.gr (Dimitris)
    wrote:

    >- HAL9000 <gumpy@mail.org> wrote in message news:<i74u809tlu8b9a0ge3k1hqpm7f9ubdth8c@4ax.com>...
    >> Do you suppose patents have anything to do with it?
    >>
    >> Forrest
    >>
    >
    >Tell me more.
  28. 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?)

    No?


    On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:11:32 +0100, "rstlne" <.@text.news.virgin.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >"- HAL9000" <gumpy@mail.org> wrote in message
    >news:i74u809tlu8b9a0ge3k1hqpm7f9ubdth8c@4ax.com...
    >> Do you suppose patents have anything to do with it?
    >>
    >> Forrest
    >>
    >
    >no
    >
  29. 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?)

    "- HAL9000" <gumpy@mail.org> wrote in message
    news:6g2190d60t3gcjro9m3hshel96ligfaqng@4ax.com...
    > No?
    >
    >

    No, I dont think intel got a patent on "Mhz" or "Ghz" or any specific
    divison of it.

    It's all logic gates so they are similar from the start. Different design's
    can get the same speed as intel chips (or different design's can get the
    same work done as amd chips)..
    They just both chose to go about it in different ways.

    Remember too that just a few months ago (and probably still if you could
    find old kit) the VIA C3's would fit inside intel boards. The use of the
    chipset was actually found to be some type of infringement so VIA had to
    stop making the chip fit intel boards.

    I would guess something of the following would be a patent infringement

    Intel/Amd using VIA's PadLock
    or Intel/VIA using Amd's BufferOverflow protection (dont know what they call
    it)
    Or VIA/Amd using Intels thermal throttle protection (the one that's inside
    the chip, or so I hear)
  30. 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?)

    A non-scientific search of the US patent office records for patents
    with the name "Intel" in the assignee field and the word "cpu" in the
    text of the patent revealed over 1500 "hits".

    The same type of search for assignee name of "advanced micro devices"
    and "cpu" in the text of the patent revealed over 900 patents.

    I noticed several patents on "branch prediction" in the AMD hit list
    (only viewed the first page or first 50 hits).

    Patents play a major role in the protection of hi tech property. No
    doubt AMD has licensed many of the Intel patents (SSE for example). I
    suspect there exists a cross-licensing of patents agreement between
    the 2 companies, most likely a result of an earlier lawsuit filed by
    one of the parties for patent infringement.

    Here's a web site showing ongoing legal activity involving AMD and
    Intel and AMD's attempts to uncover "tech" secrets via the courts.
    http://www.amdboard.com/amdsuesintel.html

    Logic gates are the building blocks, however, unique arrangements of
    those gates is protectable subject matter under the patent laws of
    most countries.
    --
    Best regards,
    Kyle
    "rstlne" <.@text.news.virgin.net> wrote in message
    news:Zb4kc.22$Hp6.15@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net...
    |
    | "- HAL9000" <gumpy@mail.org> wrote in message
    | news:6g2190d60t3gcjro9m3hshel96ligfaqng@4ax.com...
    | > No?
    | >
    | >
    |
    | No, I dont think intel got a patent on "Mhz" or "Ghz" or any
    specific
    | divison of it.
    |
    | It's all logic gates so they are similar from the start. Different
    design's
    | can get the same speed as intel chips (or different design's can get
    the
    | same work done as amd chips)..
    | They just both chose to go about it in different ways.
    |
    | Remember too that just a few months ago (and probably still if you
    could
    | find old kit) the VIA C3's would fit inside intel boards. The use
    of the
    | chipset was actually found to be some type of infringement so VIA
    had to
    | stop making the chip fit intel boards.
    |
    | I would guess something of the following would be a patent
    infringement
    |
    | Intel/Amd using VIA's PadLock
    | or Intel/VIA using Amd's BufferOverflow protection (dont know what
    they call
    | it)
    | Or VIA/Amd using Intels thermal throttle protection (the one that's
    inside
    | the chip, or so I hear)
    |
    |
    |
  31. 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?)

    Kylesb wrote:
    > Patents play a major role in the protection of hi tech property. No
    > doubt AMD has licensed many of the Intel patents (SSE for example). I
    > suspect there exists a cross-licensing of patents agreement between
    > the 2 companies, most likely a result of an earlier lawsuit filed by
    > one of the parties for patent infringement.

    There is indeed a cross-licensing agreement between Intel and AMD.
    It gives AMD license to all Intel instruction x86 compatible sets
    up to and including SSE2. I'm not sure about SSE3. It similarly
    gives Intel license to all AMD stuff up to and including 3DNow and
    the x86-64 instructions for the Opteron.

    Note that this arrangement does *not* provide any exchange of
    physical technology. For example, with regards to SSE2 it merely
    means that Intel has to provide AMD with a list of all SSE2 instructions
    and details about what those instructions are supposed to do, and the
    right to implement SSE2 royalty-free in AMD processors. It
    is still up to AMD to figure out how to implement SSE2 in hardware.

    Similarly, Intel gets a list of AMD's x86-64 extensions and details
    about what they are supposed to do - but is up to Intel to do their
    own design work to figure out how to implement x86-64.

    From the consumer's point of view it means that Intel and AMD
    have royalty free access to each other's x86 instruction sets
    and they are therefore capable - in theory at least - of making
    their new x86 processors compatible with each other's. As to
    whether they will actually do so remains to be seen.
  32. 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 wrote:
    > There is indeed a cross-licensing agreement between Intel and AMD.
    > It gives AMD license to all Intel instruction x86 compatible sets up
    > to and including SSE2. I'm not sure about SSE3. It similarly gives
    > Intel license to all AMD stuff up to and including 3DNow and the
    > x86-64 instructions for the Opteron.
    SSE3 is also covered by some agreement, AMD has already said they are
    going to implement it in future Athlon64 cpus (possibly those on 90nm,
    could be later though, AMD hasn't told when...)

    > From the consumer's point of view it means that Intel and AMD have
    > royalty free access to each other's x86 instruction sets and they are
    > therefore capable - in theory at least - of making their new x86
    > processors compatible with each other's. As to whether they will
    > actually do so remains to be seen.
    Well, AMD will implement SSE3, and intel have already said they will
    implement x86_64 (though called differently, they don't want to
    acknowledge it isn't their idea, and only for Xeons in the near future),
    so that seems to be more than theory.

    Roland
Ask a new question

Read More

MSI-Microstar Motherboards