Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Running a M7NCD Motherboard with 400 FSB

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
September 28, 2004 11:24:53 PM

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

Hi,
I got a Biostar M7NCD motherboard that says it can support 400Mhz FSB.
I bought a new AMD 3200 XP+, 400FSB CPU and 512MB PC3200 Memory to go with
it. I wanted to run it with FSB speed of 400Mhz.

The default BIOS setup is for 200Mhz FSB and the BIOS menu does not let
me change it to anything higher that 200Mhz FSB.

What can I do to get it run at a higher FSB ? I did not see anything
in the motherboard manuals. Please help.

Thanks,
Krutibas
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
September 29, 2004 4:47:12 PM

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

I have that same board- and that same problem! I pretty much gave up-
decided that its just bluffing pmsl- you could try asking Biostar
themselves? www.biostar.co.tw i think- please post back with any information
:) 
Yours,
Dalgibbard.

"Krutibas Biswal" <krutibasb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7cf8d984.0409281824.4111ea10@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> I got a Biostar M7NCD motherboard that says it can support 400Mhz FSB.
> I bought a new AMD 3200 XP+, 400FSB CPU and 512MB PC3200 Memory to go with
> it. I wanted to run it with FSB speed of 400Mhz.
>
> The default BIOS setup is for 200Mhz FSB and the BIOS menu does not let
> me change it to anything higher that 200Mhz FSB.
>
> What can I do to get it run at a higher FSB ? I did not see anything
> in the motherboard manuals. Please help.
>
> Thanks,
> Krutibas
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
September 29, 2004 5:18:46 PM

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

sorry that link again :)  www.biostar.com.tw
Dalgibbard.

"Dalgibbard" <dalgibbard@*remove*blueyonder.*remove*co.uk> wrote in message
news:k9y6d.118659$U04.45625@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I have that same board- and that same problem! I pretty much gave up-
> decided that its just bluffing pmsl- you could try asking Biostar
> themselves? www.biostar.co.tw i think- please post back with any
information
> :) 
> Yours,
> Dalgibbard.
>
> "Krutibas Biswal" <krutibasb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7cf8d984.0409281824.4111ea10@posting.google.com...
> > Hi,
> > I got a Biostar M7NCD motherboard that says it can support 400Mhz
FSB.
> > I bought a new AMD 3200 XP+, 400FSB CPU and 512MB PC3200 Memory to go
with
> > it. I wanted to run it with FSB speed of 400Mhz.
> >
> > The default BIOS setup is for 200Mhz FSB and the BIOS menu does not let
> > me change it to anything higher that 200Mhz FSB.
> >
> > What can I do to get it run at a higher FSB ? I did not see anything
> > in the motherboard manuals. Please help.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Krutibas
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
September 29, 2004 7:42:01 PM

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

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:47:12 +0000, Dalgibbard wrote:

> "Krutibas Biswal" <krutibasb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7cf8d984.0409281824.4111ea10@posting.google.com...
>> Hi,
>> I got a Biostar M7NCD motherboard that says it can support 400Mhz FSB.
>> I bought a new AMD 3200 XP+, 400FSB CPU and 512MB PC3200 Memory to go with
>> it. I wanted to run it with FSB speed of 400Mhz.
>>
>> The default BIOS setup is for 200Mhz FSB and the BIOS menu does not let
>> me change it to anything higher that 200Mhz FSB.
>>
>> What can I do to get it run at a higher FSB ? I did not see anything
>> in the motherboard manuals. Please help.
>>
> I have that same board- and that same problem! I pretty much gave up-
> decided that its just bluffing pmsl- you could try asking Biostar
> themselves? www.biostar.co.tw i think- please post back with any information
> :) 
You don't have a problem. Your board supports a 400FSB (200MHz), not a
400MHz FSB. There aren't any boards that support a 400MHz FSB, and the
3200+ runs on a 200MHz FSB (real clock speed).

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
September 29, 2004 8:04:33 PM

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

Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.

Thanks,
Krutibas
Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.09.29.15.42.08.590095@TAKEOUTverizon.net>...
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:47:12 +0000, Dalgibbard wrote:
>
> > "Krutibas Biswal" <krutibasb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:7cf8d984.0409281824.4111ea10@posting.google.com...
> >> Hi,
> >> I got a Biostar M7NCD motherboard that says it can support 400Mhz FSB.
> >> I bought a new AMD 3200 XP+, 400FSB CPU and 512MB PC3200 Memory to go with
> >> it. I wanted to run it with FSB speed of 400Mhz.
> >>
> >> The default BIOS setup is for 200Mhz FSB and the BIOS menu does not let
> >> me change it to anything higher that 200Mhz FSB.
> >>
> >> What can I do to get it run at a higher FSB ? I did not see anything
> >> in the motherboard manuals. Please help.
> >>
> > I have that same board- and that same problem! I pretty much gave up-
> > decided that its just bluffing pmsl- you could try asking Biostar
> > themselves? www.biostar.co.tw i think- please post back with any information
> > :) 
> You don't have a problem. Your board supports a 400FSB (200MHz), not a
> 400MHz FSB. There aren't any boards that support a 400MHz FSB, and the
> 3200+ runs on a 200MHz FSB (real clock speed).
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
September 29, 2004 11:38:00 PM

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

Krutibas Biswal wrote:

> Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
> the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
> a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.

No, it is not "marketing hype." It's the data rate which, for DDR, is
400MHz on a 200MHz clocked bus because the data rate is twice the clock rate.

That IS why it's called "Double Rata Rate" (DDR).

>
> Thanks,
> Krutibas
> Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.09.29.15.42.08.590095@TAKEOUTverizon.net>...
>
>>On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:47:12 +0000, Dalgibbard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Krutibas Biswal" <krutibasb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:7cf8d984.0409281824.4111ea10@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>> I got a Biostar M7NCD motherboard that says it can support 400Mhz FSB.
>>>>I bought a new AMD 3200 XP+, 400FSB CPU and 512MB PC3200 Memory to go with
>>>>it. I wanted to run it with FSB speed of 400Mhz.
>>>>
>>>>The default BIOS setup is for 200Mhz FSB and the BIOS menu does not let
>>>>me change it to anything higher that 200Mhz FSB.
>>>>
>>>>What can I do to get it run at a higher FSB ? I did not see anything
>>>>in the motherboard manuals. Please help.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have that same board- and that same problem! I pretty much gave up-
>>>decided that its just bluffing pmsl- you could try asking Biostar
>>>themselves? www.biostar.co.tw i think- please post back with any information
>>>:) 
>>
>>You don't have a problem. Your board supports a 400FSB (200MHz), not a
>>400MHz FSB. There aren't any boards that support a 400MHz FSB, and the
>>3200+ runs on a 200MHz FSB (real clock speed).
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
September 30, 2004 12:43:00 PM

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

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:38:00 -0500, David Maynard wrote:

> Krutibas Biswal wrote:
>
>> Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
>> the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
>> a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.
>
> No, it is not "marketing hype." It's the data rate which, for DDR, is
> 400MHz on a 200MHz clocked bus because the data rate is twice the clock rate.
>
> That IS why it's called "Double Rata Rate" (DDR).
>
Data rates are measured in throughput, not MHz. Data rates deserve and do
have their own measuring systems, actually there's two, bps and Bps, and
it's not MHz. So if you don't want to call it marketing hype, what would
you call it? The inflated number serves absolutely no purpose except to
get a bigger number. How about marketing BS or just plain BS.:-)

Now before you reply, consider that by definition, bus speeds are
measured by their clock speeds, not data rates. If one wants to define the
data rate, a simple 200MHz DDR says it's Double Data rate. Still it's
rather worthless information unless one knows the number of data lines and
does the math to figure out the actual bandwidth of the bus. So being
worthless, what purpose other than marketing does it serve?


--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
September 30, 2004 10:38:37 PM

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

David Maynard wrote:
> Krutibas Biswal wrote:
>
>> Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
>> the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
>> a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.
>
> No, it is not "marketing hype." It's the data rate which, for DDR, is
> 400MHz on a 200MHz clocked bus because the data rate is twice the
> clock rate.

Oh dear, here we go again ... anyone taking bets on how many posts this
thread will finish up on? :) 

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
September 30, 2004 10:38:38 PM

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

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:38:37 +1200, Michael Brown wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>> Krutibas Biswal wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
>>> the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
>>> a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.
>>
>> No, it is not "marketing hype." It's the data rate which, for DDR, is
>> 400MHz on a 200MHz clocked bus because the data rate is twice the
>> clock rate.
>
> Oh dear, here we go again ... anyone taking bets on how many posts this
> thread will finish up on? :) 
>
> [...]
As many as it takes.;-)

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
September 30, 2004 10:42:13 PM

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

Wes Newell wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:38:00 -0500, David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>Krutibas Biswal wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
>>>the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
>>>a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.
>>
>>No, it is not "marketing hype." It's the data rate which, for DDR, is
>>400MHz on a 200MHz clocked bus because the data rate is twice the clock rate.
>>
>>That IS why it's called "Double Rata Rate" (DDR).
>>
>
> Data rates are measured in throughput, not MHz.

Clearly an opinion of yours that is not shared by the vast majority of
memory, processor, and motherboard manufacturers.

You seem to be under the false impression that the only thing 'Hz' applies
to is an electronic wave form.

> Data rates deserve and do
> have their own measuring systems, actually there's two, bps and Bps, and
> it's not MHz.

Obviously, by overwhelming usage it is as well.

> So if you don't want to call it marketing hype, what would
> you call it?

The data rate on the bus.

Which, I would argue, is rather intuitive from "double data rate."

> The inflated number serves absolutely no purpose except to
> get a bigger number. How about marketing BS or just plain BS.:-)

The apparent conclusion from that declaration would be that you don't
understand the meaning of double data rate, or quad pumped, since you see
'no purpose' to it.

> Now before you reply, consider that by definition, bus speeds are
> measured by their clock speeds, not data rates.

Any by who's definition would that be?

Not to mention you, yourself, claim that kind of 'definition' is
'worthless' in the very next two sentences.

> If one wants to define the
> data rate, a simple 200MHz DDR says it's Double Data rate. Still it's
> rather worthless information unless one knows the number of data lines and
> does the math to figure out the actual bandwidth of the bus.

You might as well be arguing that clock speed is worthless information
since it shares exactly the same lack of detail. And, if you are, then your
'complaint' goes to the first days of computer technology; not 'DDR'
terminology.

Your argument boils down to the logic absurdum of saying "200 x 2" has
meaning but that the result of the equation "400" does not.

> So being
> worthless, what purpose other than marketing does it serve?

It's only worthless to those who don't know the meaning and instead insist
on claiming it's 'marketing hype'.

The fact of the matter is it's a logical, natural progression of, and the
most consistent with, typical industry terminology.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
October 1, 2004 9:20:41 AM

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

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:42:13 -0500, David Maynard wrote:

> Wes Newell wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:38:00 -0500, David Maynard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Krutibas Biswal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
>>>>the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
>>>>a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.
>>>
>>>No, it is not "marketing hype." It's the data rate which, for DDR, is
>>>400MHz on a 200MHz clocked bus because the data rate is twice the clock rate.
>>>
>>>That IS why it's called "Double Rata Rate" (DDR).
>>>
>>
>> Data rates are measured in throughput, not MHz.
>
> Clearly an opinion of yours that is not shared by the vast majority of
> memory, processor, and motherboard manufacturers.
>
It's not my opinion. its clear fact. That's the way it has always been in
computer science. ref:

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/d/data_transfer_rate.html

> You seem to be under the false impression that the only thing 'Hz'
> applies to is an electronic wave form.
>
No, I'm saying this is computer science, and it has it's definitions. Bus
speeds in computer science are measured in clock speeds, not data rates.
ref:

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/b/bus.html

>> Data rates deserve and do
>> have their own measuring systems, actually there's two, bps and Bps,
>> and it's not MHz.
>
> Obviously, by overwhelming usage it is as well.
>
You will never see the data rate used as a bus speed in any technical
documentation. AMD doesn't. It shows the actual clock speed, not the bogus
numbers.

>> So if you don't want to call it marketing hype, what would you call it?
>
> The data rate on the bus.
>
Actually, it's not even the data rate of the bus. It's only the data rate
for a single line of the "bus". The actual data rate of the bus, more
commonly called it's bandwidth is about 3.2GBps.

>> The inflated number serves absolutely no purpose except to get a bigger
>> number. How about marketing BS or just plain BS.:-)
>
> The apparent conclusion from that declaration would be that you don't
> understand the meaning of double data rate, or quad pumped, since you
> see 'no purpose' to it.
>
And my conclusion is that you write a lot of BS for some reason.

>> Now before you reply, consider that by definition, bus speeds are
>> measured by their clock speeds, not data rates.
>
> Any by who's definition would that be?
>
Already answered above. And if you don't like that one, welll, just you
can look at the processor specs from AMD. And I said specs, not ads.:-)

>> If one wants to define the
>> data rate, a simple 200MHz DDR says it's Double Data rate. Still it's
>> rather worthless information unless one knows the number of data lines
>> and does the math to figure out the actual bandwidth of the bus.
>
> You might as well be arguing that clock speed is worthless information
> since it shares exactly the same lack of detail. And, if you are, then
> your 'complaint' goes to the first days of computer technology; not
> 'DDR' terminology.
>
> Your argument boils down to the logic absurdum of saying "200 x 2" has
> meaning but that the result of the equation "400" does not.
>
>> So being
>> worthless, what purpose other than marketing does it serve?
>
> It's only worthless to those who don't know the meaning and instead
> insist on claiming it's 'marketing hype'.
>
> The fact of the matter is it's a logical, natural progression of, and
> the most consistent with, typical industry terminology.

The fact of the matter is that you write a lot but have absolutely nothing
technical to back up any of your claims. And since you didn't answer the
question, i can only assume that you don't know of any logical use for the
400 number. And I can fully understand that since there is none unless you
divide it by 2 to get to the base clockspeed.:-)

Now since I know for a fact that's there's no supporting authority for
your claims, I hope we can end this.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
October 1, 2004 9:20:42 AM

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

Wes Newell wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:42:13 -0500, David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>Wes Newell wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:38:00 -0500, David Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Krutibas Biswal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
>>>>>the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
>>>>>a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.
>>>>
>>>>No, it is not "marketing hype." It's the data rate which, for DDR, is
>>>>400MHz on a 200MHz clocked bus because the data rate is twice the clock rate.
>>>>
>>>>That IS why it's called "Double Rata Rate" (DDR).
>>>>
>>>
>>>Data rates are measured in throughput, not MHz.
>>
>>Clearly an opinion of yours that is not shared by the vast majority of
>>memory, processor, and motherboard manufacturers.
>>
>
> It's not my opinion. its clear fact. That's the way it has always been in
> computer science. ref:
>
> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/d/data_transfer_rate.html
>
>
>>You seem to be under the false impression that the only thing 'Hz'
>>applies to is an electronic wave form.
>>
>
> No, I'm saying this is computer science, and it has it's definitions.

You can 'say' whatever you want but that doesn't make it so.

> Bus
> speeds in computer science are measured in clock speeds, not data rates.
> ref:
>
> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/b/bus.html

Your definition says "Every bus has a clock speed measured in MHz."

No one disputes that a bus has a "clock speed measured in MHz." The issue
is what other characteristics it has and one of those is how it transfers
data; such as one transfer per clock, two per clock, or 4 per clock.

Your definition 'proves' nothing because saying "Every bus has a clock
speed measured in MHz" is like saying "every internal combustion engine's
rotation is measured in RPM." That doesn't mean the horsepower description
is 'hype' nor that it 'violates' the RPM mention.


>>>Data rates deserve and do
>>>have their own measuring systems, actually there's two, bps and Bps,
>>>and it's not MHz.
>>
>>Obviously, by overwhelming usage it is as well.
>>
>
> You will never see the data rate used as a bus speed in any technical
> documentation. AMD doesn't. It shows the actual clock speed, not the bogus
> numbers.

AMD Athlon XP
Processor Model 10
Data Sheet

Publication # 26237 Rev. C
Issue Date: May 2003

Chapters:

6 Advanced 333 Front-Side Bus AMD Athlon™ XP
Processor Model 10 Specifications

7 Advanced 400 Front-Side Bus AMD Athlon™ XP
Processor Model 10 Specifications

Those are 'data rate' descriptors for the FSB, which you claim AMD
"doesn't" do.

>
>>>So if you don't want to call it marketing hype, what would you call it?
>>
>>The data rate on the bus.
>>
>
> Actually, it's not even the data rate of the bus. It's only the data rate
> for a single line of the "bus".

That statement is a nonsensical absurdity.

> The actual data rate of the bus, more
> commonly called it's bandwidth is about 3.2GBps.

You could use Bps but that's not 'really true' either as it's a theoretical
capability unsustainable with any known synchronous RAM.

However, the issue isn't whether you, or I, or anyone else, might think Bps
is a 'better' means to describe the bus; the issue is whether using the DDR
rate is 'hype'. And it's not 'hype' because it does, in fact, describe
something real and tangible. A '400', double data rate 200 Mhz clocked, bus
is faster than a single data rate 200 MHz clocked bus.

And, as I pointed out before, the data rate expressed in 'bus speed' is
consistent with the previous single data rate description whereas Bps is not.


>>>The inflated number serves absolutely no purpose except to get a bigger
>>>number. How about marketing BS or just plain BS.:-)
>>
>>The apparent conclusion from that declaration would be that you don't
>>understand the meaning of double data rate, or quad pumped, since you
>>see 'no purpose' to it.
>>
>
> And my conclusion is that you write a lot of BS for some reason.

You're the one writing 'B.S.' by suggesting there is no meaning to a bus
being DDR vs single data rate. I.E. that it's just 'hype'.

It does, however, describe something real and tangible and so is not
'hype', regardless of how much you dislike the usage.


>>>Now before you reply, consider that by definition, bus speeds are
>>>measured by their clock speeds, not data rates.
>>
>>Any by who's definition would that be?
>>
>
> Already answered above. And if you don't like that one, welll, just you
> can look at the processor specs from AMD. And I said specs, not ads.:-)

You failed at both, as I've shown.


>>>If one wants to define the
>>>data rate, a simple 200MHz DDR says it's Double Data rate. Still it's
>>>rather worthless information unless one knows the number of data lines
>>>and does the math to figure out the actual bandwidth of the bus.
>>
>>You might as well be arguing that clock speed is worthless information
>>since it shares exactly the same lack of detail. And, if you are, then
>>your 'complaint' goes to the first days of computer technology; not
>>'DDR' terminology.
>>
>>Your argument boils down to the logic absurdum of saying "200 x 2" has
>>meaning but that the result of the equation "400" does not.
>>
>>
>>>So being
>>>worthless, what purpose other than marketing does it serve?
>>
>>It's only worthless to those who don't know the meaning and instead
>>insist on claiming it's 'marketing hype'.
>>
>>The fact of the matter is it's a logical, natural progression of, and
>>the most consistent with, typical industry terminology.
>
>
> The fact of the matter is that you write a lot but have absolutely nothing
> technical to back up any of your claims.

Of course I do, as shown, but it really isn't necessary because you, as the
one levying the 'accusation' of the term being 'hype', have the obligation
to prove the charge.

So ante up. Explain how the P4 quad pumped 100MHz clocked FSB is 'hype' and
that it makes no difference whether it's a P4 'hyped' 400Mhz FSB or a P3
100Mhz FSB bus because they both operate at the 'same real' 100 MHz clock
speed.

> And since you didn't answer the
> question,

I most certainly did answer the question.

> i can only assume that you don't know of any logical use for the
> 400 number. And I can fully understand that since there is none unless you
> divide it by 2 to get to the base clockspeed.:-)

I repeat, it's apparent you have no understanding of what double data rate
means, or your feigning ignorance.

When streaming, I.E. when doing what your '3.2 GBps bandwidth' number
describes, there are two data transfer cycles per clock cycle or, in other
words, the data rate, for a double data rate bus clocked at 200 MHz, is 400
million data transfer cycles per second (burst rate). e.g. 400 Mhz.


> Now since I know for a fact that's there's no supporting authority for
> your claims, I hope we can end this.

A false conclusions arrived at from false premises.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
October 1, 2004 9:42:34 PM

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

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:14:29 -0500, David Maynard wrote:

> Wes Newell wrote:
>
>> It's not my opinion. its clear fact. That's the way it has always been in
>> computer science. ref:
>>
>> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/d/data_transfer_rate.html
>>
>>
>>>You seem to be under the false impression that the only thing 'Hz'
>>>applies to is an electronic wave form.
>>>
>>
>> No, I'm saying this is computer science, and it has it's definitions.
>
> You can 'say' whatever you want but that doesn't make it so.
>
I didn't say anything that the world of computer scuence has been saying
for years. And I provide proof. You provide nothing but smoke and mirrors
and I'm sure people will see that.

>> Bus speeds in computer science are measured in clock speeds, not data rates.
>> ref:
>>
>> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/b/bus.html
>
> Your definition says "Every bus has a clock speed measured in MHz."
>
> No one disputes that a bus has a "clock speed measured in MHz." The issue
> is what other characteristics it has and one of those is how it transfers
> data; such as one transfer per clock, two per clock, or 4 per clock.
>
Did you not read the above. Data rates are not measured in MHz, but
BPs/bps. Now did you see anything about the bus speed being defined by
data rate? No.


> Your definition 'proves' nothing because saying "Every bus has a clock
> speed measured in MHz" is like saying "every internal combustion
> engine's rotation is measured in RPM." That doesn't mean the horsepower
> description is 'hype' nor that it 'violates' the RPM mention.
>
Wow are you dense. Just like bus speeds and data rates, they are 2
different things, and as such are defined with 2 different measurements,
RPM, and HP, not 1 like 200HP and then turn around and say 5000HP also.
It's exactly the same reason you don't use MHz for to seperate
measurements in computer science, clock speed, and data rates. You've now
proven my point. Thank you.

>>>>Data rates deserve and do
>>>>have their own measuring systems, actually there's two, bps and Bps,
>>>>and it's not MHz.
>>>
>>>Obviously, by overwhelming usage it is as well.
>>>
>>>
>> You will never see the data rate used as a bus speed in any technical
>> documentation. AMD doesn't. It shows the actual clock speed, not the
>> bogus numbers.
>
> AMD Athlon XP
> Processor Model 10
> Data Sheet
>
> Publication # 26237 Rev. C
> Issue Date: May 2003
>
> Chapters:
>
> 6 Advanced 333 Front-Side Bus AMD Athlon XP Processor Model 10
> Specifications
>
> 7 Advanced 400 Front-Side Bus AMD Athlon XP Processor Model 10
> Specifications
>
> Those are 'data rate' descriptors for the FSB, which you claim AMD
> "doesn't" do.
>
So tell me, where is MHz used above. And those are not data rate
descriptors as you put it. They are simply names names assigned by AMD for
a FSB system. Now go back and read the table under these systems and tell
me what speed in MHz they define them. Well, what do you know, it's clock
speed is 166MHz, and 200MHz. Nowhere will you find the bus defined as
333Mhz or 400MHz. And nowhere will you even find the data rate as 333MHz
or 400MHz. You will find a note that says the "system" operates at twice
the clock speed. Now what does that imply? DDR.

>> Actually, it's not even the data rate of the bus. It's only the data
>> rate for a single line of the "bus".
>
> That statement is a nonsensical absurdity.
>
>> The actual data rate of the bus, more commonly called it's bandwidth is
>> about 3.2GBps.
>
> You could use Bps but that's not 'really true' either as it's a
> theoretical capability unsustainable with any known synchronous RAM.
>
You're reaching now. The ram bus is totally different than the FSB.

> However, the issue isn't whether you, or I, or anyone else, might think
> Bps is a 'better' means to describe the bus; the issue is whether using
> the DDR rate is 'hype'. And it's not 'hype' because it does, in fact,
> describe something real and tangible. A '400', double data rate 200 Mhz
> clocked, bus is faster than a single data rate 200 MHz clocked bus.
>
The base bus is not faster. The only thing faster is the data rate. And
this is because of the 2 devices the bus connects to supports DDR.

> And, as I pointed out before, the data rate expressed in 'bus speed' is
> consistent with the previous single data rate description whereas Bps is
> not.
>
Prior to multi-data per clock there was never a problem. A 66MHz bus was
just that and everyone knew that the clockspeed of that bus was 66MHz. The
data rate, or bandwidth, is determied by the width of the bus, the data
per bits clock, not the clockspeed.

>> And my conclusion is that you write a lot of BS for some reason.
>
> You're the one writing 'B.S.' by suggesting there is no meaning to a bus
> being DDR vs single data rate. I.E. that it's just 'hype'.
>
No, nowhere have you found me "suggesting" that.

> It does, however, describe something real and tangible and so is not
> 'hype', regardless of how much you dislike the usage.
>
No it doesn't. All it does is confuse people. And even you stated (in this
same post) that the speeds are not obtainable.:-)
You keep hanging yourself. when are you going to give up with the BS or
provide some documented facts.:-)

>>>>Now before you reply, consider that by definition, bus speeds are
>>>>measured by their clock speeds, not data rates.
>>>
>>>Any by who's definition would that be?
>>>
>>>
>> Already answered above. And if you don't like that one, welll, just you
>> can look at the processor specs from AMD. And I said specs, not ads.:-)
>
> You failed at both, as I've shown.
>
You must have a lot more free time than me to keep your stupid arguement
up. It obvious that you will not embrace the truth, so I will just let you
live in your own little world and believe what you want to.

>> The fact of the matter is that you write a lot but have absolutely
>> nothing technical to back up any of your claims.
>
> Of course I do, as shown, but it really isn't necessary because you, as
> the one levying the 'accusation' of the term being 'hype', have the
> obligation to prove the charge.
>
> So ante up. Explain how the P4 quad pumped 100MHz clocked FSB is 'hype'
> and that it makes no difference whether it's a P4 'hyped' 400Mhz FSB or
> a P3 100Mhz FSB bus because they both operate at the 'same real' 100 MHz
> clock speed.
>
It's not the quad pumped bus that's hype, and I've never said it was. It's
the definition of the bus that is not correct. It is a 100MHz QDR bus. And
QDR is short for quad pumped.

>> And since you didn't answer the
>> question,
>
> I most certainly did answer the question.
>
>> i can only assume that you don't know of any logical use for the 400
>> number. And I can fully understand that since there is none unless you
>> divide it by 2 to get to the base clockspeed.:-)
>
> I repeat, it's apparent you have no understanding of what double data
> rate means, or your feigning ignorance.
>
You have no answer, so you fall back on insultsd that you know are lies.:-)

> When streaming, I.E. when doing what your '3.2 GBps bandwidth' number
> describes, there are two data transfer cycles per clock cycle or, in
> other words, the data rate, for a double data rate bus clocked at 200
> MHz, is 400 million data transfer cycles per second (burst rate). e.g.
> 400 Mhz.

It's kind of comical that you are explaining this to me when I have
designed memory controllers for computer systems, and I've explained the
FSB and the data rate on my website. Maybe you should have a look. It's
the link below.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
October 1, 2004 10:39:08 PM

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

Wes Newell wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:14:29 -0500, David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>Wes Newell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's not my opinion. its clear fact. That's the way it has always been in
>>>computer science. ref:
>>>
>>>http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/d/data_transfer_rate.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You seem to be under the false impression that the only thing 'Hz'
>>>>applies to is an electronic wave form.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, I'm saying this is computer science, and it has it's definitions.
>>
>>You can 'say' whatever you want but that doesn't make it so.
>>
>
> I didn't say anything that the world of computer scuence has been saying
> for years. And I provide proof. You provide nothing but smoke and mirrors
> and I'm sure people will see that.

Yes, of course, a 'webopedia' definition is certainly the last word in
'computer science' whereas direct quotes out of AMD's data sheets are, as
you put it, "smoke and mirrors."

</end sarcasm mode>

>>>Bus speeds in computer science are measured in clock speeds, not data rates.
>>>ref:
>>>
>>>http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/b/bus.html
>>
>>Your definition says "Every bus has a clock speed measured in MHz."
>>
>>No one disputes that a bus has a "clock speed measured in MHz." The issue
>>is what other characteristics it has and one of those is how it transfers
>>data; such as one transfer per clock, two per clock, or 4 per clock.
>>
>
> Did you not read the above. Data rates are not measured in MHz, but
> BPs/bps. Now did you see anything about the bus speed being defined by
> data rate? No.

You also didn't see anything about synchronous and asynchronous busses and
the simple bus 'definition' didn't say any thing regarding data rate at
all, nor DDR or QDR, except for a meaningless comment about some busses
being 'fast', which makes them 'faster' (brilliant, and oh so 'scientific')

For you to suggest that simple description is an all inclusive 'last word'
on buses is supercilious.

As for your 'data rate' link, you *are* aware that "often" is not a synonym
of "always" or "exclusively," right?

>>Your definition 'proves' nothing because saying "Every bus has a clock
>>speed measured in MHz" is like saying "every internal combustion
>>engine's rotation is measured in RPM." That doesn't mean the horsepower
>>description is 'hype' nor that it 'violates' the RPM mention.
>>
>
> Wow are you dense. Just like bus speeds and data rates, they are 2
> different things, and as such are defined with 2 different measurements,
> RPM, and HP,

Horsepower and RPM are not unrelated things. Horsepower is the product of
the torque produced and RPM; much as data rate is the product of how many
transfers take place per clock cycle and the clock speed.

> not 1 like 200HP and then turn around and say 5000HP also.

Amusing, but completely inappropriate as that's not what's being done.

A more appropriate analogy is you keep insisting that the only 'real' way
to describe the power of a motor is maximum torque at the specified RPM and
I'm saying that horsepower is equally good as it is precisely the end
result of the exact same equation, and more intuitive to the user. But
somehow, to you in your 'marketing conspiracy' laden world, horsepower is
'hype'.

> It's exactly the same reason you don't use MHz for to seperate
> measurements in computer science, clock speed, and data rates.

Hz means cycles per second. It can be used with any cyclic phenomena.

> You've now
> proven my point. Thank you.

That you don't understand 400 is the same thing as 2 x 200? Yes. You're
welcome.

>>>>>Data rates deserve and do
>>>>>have their own measuring systems, actually there's two, bps and Bps,
>>>>>and it's not MHz.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, by overwhelming usage it is as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>You will never see the data rate used as a bus speed in any technical
>>>documentation. AMD doesn't. It shows the actual clock speed, not the
>>>bogus numbers.
>>
>>AMD Athlon XP
>>Processor Model 10
>>Data Sheet
>>
>>Publication # 26237 Rev. C
>>Issue Date: May 2003
>>
>>Chapters:
>>
>>6 Advanced 333 Front-Side Bus AMD Athlon XP Processor Model 10
>>Specifications
>>
>>7 Advanced 400 Front-Side Bus AMD Athlon XP Processor Model 10
>>Specifications
>>
>>Those are 'data rate' descriptors for the FSB, which you claim AMD
>>"doesn't" do.
>>
>
> So tell me, where is MHz used above. And those are not data rate
> descriptors as you put it. They are simply names names assigned by AMD for
> a FSB system.

I suppose it's just 'coincidence' that they're the data rate numbers: 333,
for 2 times a 166.6 MHz Clocked FSB, and 400 for 2 times a 200 MHz clock
FSB. LOL

> Now go back and read the table under these systems and tell
> me what speed in MHz they define them. Well, what do you know, it's clock
> speed is 166MHz, and 200MHz.

Yes, the "clock speed" is 166.6 Mhz and 200 Mhz, respectively. That is not
the data rate because they are DDR busses and is why the title lists them
as 333 and 400 FSBs: the DATA RATE, not the 'clock'.

> Nowhere will you find the bus defined as
> 333Mhz or 400MHz. And nowhere will you even find the data rate as 333MHz
> or 400MHz.

Except in the large, bold, title of the chapters and every time the
processor 'name' is described or the bus is described, as in "Advanced 333
FSB technology available" or as in

Table 9. Interface Signal Groupings

Signal Group

AMD Athlon™
System Bus

See “Advanced 333 FSB AMD Athlon™ System Bus DC
Characteristics” on page 24, See “Advanced 400 FSB
AMD Athlon™ System Bus DC Characteristics” on page
28, Table 3, “Advanced 333 FSB AMD Athlon™ System
Bus AC Characteristics,” on page 23, Table 7, “Advanced
400 FSB AMD Athlon™ System Bus AC Characteristics,”
on page 27, and “CLKFWDRST Pin” on page 72.


> You will find a note that says the "system" operates at twice
> the clock speed. Now what does that imply? DDR.

Yes. And what is double 166.6 and 200?

Surprise, there's more than one way to say something.

>>>Actually, it's not even the data rate of the bus. It's only the data
>>>rate for a single line of the "bus".
>>
>>That statement is a nonsensical absurdity.
>>
>>
>>>The actual data rate of the bus, more commonly called it's bandwidth is
>>>about 3.2GBps.
>>
>>You could use Bps but that's not 'really true' either as it's a
>>theoretical capability unsustainable with any known synchronous RAM.
>>
>
> You're reaching now. The ram bus is totally different than the FSB.

That doesn't alter the fact that your 'bandwidth' numbers are theoretical
maximums.

>>However, the issue isn't whether you, or I, or anyone else, might think
>>Bps is a 'better' means to describe the bus; the issue is whether using
>>the DDR rate is 'hype'. And it's not 'hype' because it does, in fact,
>>describe something real and tangible. A '400', double data rate 200 Mhz
>>clocked, bus is faster than a single data rate 200 MHz clocked bus.
>>
>
> The base bus is not faster.

Of course it is and, contrary to your implication, 'the clock' is not 'the
bus'.

> The only thing faster is the data rate.

Which, frankly, is what really matters. The clock is simply a means of
timing on the bus and how the clock is USED varies with the type of bus.

> And
> this is because of the 2 devices the bus connects to supports DDR.

Well, that's a useless waste of words. Of course the devices 'support' DDR.
They *define* the bus. The empty wires have no 'clock', or any other signals.

>>And, as I pointed out before, the data rate expressed in 'bus speed' is
>>consistent with the previous single data rate description whereas Bps is
>>not.
>>
>
> Prior to multi-data per clock there was never a problem. A 66MHz bus was
> just that and everyone knew that the clockspeed of that bus was 66MHz. The
> data rate, or bandwidth, is determied by the width of the bus, the data
> per bits clock, not the clockspeed.

That is because earlier busses were single data rate transferring once per
clock cycle. A DDR bus transfers twice per clock cycle, which means looking
at simply the clock speed no longer represents the capability of the bus.

There are a number of ways to 'describe' that. One could say, as some
prefer, 200MHz DDR, but that presumes the reader has a clue what the heck
'DDR' means. One could state the 'bandwidth', as you have suggested, but
that provides no common reference with the SDR busses that are described
simply by 'speed'.

Using the data rate, however, is consistent with the previous 'speed'
description. With SDR, the data rate IS the 'clock speed', so saying "100
Mhz" specifies BOTH the 'clock' and the 'data rate'. With DDR the data rate
is, by definition, 2 times the clock speed and the equivalency of data rate
vs clock no longer holds. So saying '400', for a DDR bus, vs the old SDR
'200' accurately encapsulates the difference for the thing that MATTERS:
the data rate, which is transferred twice per clock with DDR.


>>>And my conclusion is that you write a lot of BS for some reason.
>>
>>You're the one writing 'B.S.' by suggesting there is no meaning to a bus
>>being DDR vs single data rate. I.E. that it's just 'hype'.
>>
>
> No, nowhere have you found me "suggesting" that.

It has been the gist of your argument from the beginning.


>>It does, however, describe something real and tangible and so is not
>>'hype', regardless of how much you dislike the usage.
>>
>
> No it doesn't.

Yes, it does, and I've explained it over and over. The burst data rate on a
200 Mhz clocked DDR bus is 400 Mhz. Pure and simple.

> All it does is confuse people.

Lots of things confuse people but that doesn't mean it's 'hype'. And people
wouldn't be so confused if it weren't for people, like you, saying it's
'just marketing hype'.

> And even you stated (in this
> same post) that the speeds are not obtainable.:-)

I said not sustainable. It IS "obtainable," for bursts.

The 400, and indeed the SDR 'speed', are burst data rates. And, as I've
already pointed out, the data rate description is entirely consistent with
the SDR 'speed' description: the same 'burst rate', means of operation, and
other limiting factors, apply in the same manner.

> You keep hanging yourself. when are you going to give up with the BS or
> provide some documented facts.:-)

You remind me of the cowboy who, laying there pounded into the dirt with
bovine hoof marks up and down his body, kept saying "what stampede?"


>>>>>Now before you reply, consider that by definition, bus speeds are
>>>>>measured by their clock speeds, not data rates.
>>>>
>>>>Any by who's definition would that be?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Already answered above. And if you don't like that one, welll, just you
>>>can look at the processor specs from AMD. And I said specs, not ads.:-)
>>
>>You failed at both, as I've shown.
>>
>
> You must have a lot more free time than me to keep your stupid arguement
> up. It obvious that you will not embrace the truth, so I will just let you
> live in your own little world and believe what you want to.

And I suppose you could stay in your own little world ignorant of what
double data rate means to a bus and believing that 2 times 200 isn't 400.

I would have preferred you finally understood it but it's ultimately your
choice.


>>>The fact of the matter is that you write a lot but have absolutely
>>>nothing technical to back up any of your claims.
>>
>>Of course I do, as shown, but it really isn't necessary because you, as
>>the one levying the 'accusation' of the term being 'hype', have the
>>obligation to prove the charge.
>>
>>So ante up. Explain how the P4 quad pumped 100MHz clocked FSB is 'hype'
>>and that it makes no difference whether it's a P4 'hyped' 400Mhz FSB or
>>a P3 100Mhz FSB bus because they both operate at the 'same real' 100 MHz
>>clock speed.
>>
>
> It's not the quad pumped bus that's hype, and I've never said it was. It's
> the definition of the bus that is not correct. It is a 100MHz QDR bus. And
> QDR is short for quad pumped.

So your position is that there's only ONE way to ever say anything? A
patently absurd argument.

Btw, what does quad pumped 'mean', in the context of what USE is it? Hint:
it transfers data 4 times per clock, so it's burst transfer rate is 4 times
faster. And if I want to give someone the gist of it, saying 400 vs 100
makes a heck of a lot more intuitive sense than '100 QDR'.

And, btw, that a '400', 200Mhz clocked DDR bus, isn't 'twice as fast' as a
SDR 200 Mhz clocked bus in overall performance is no different than a 133.3
Mhz (SDR) bus not being twice as fast in overall performance as a 66.6 Mhz
SDR bus.

There is nothing magical about 'the clock' nor is it 'the real thing'. It
is simply a means to an end, the transferring of data, and the DATA RATE is
the thing of importance to a "data processing" machine.

>>>And since you didn't answer the
>>>question,
>>
>>I most certainly did answer the question.
>>
>>
>>>i can only assume that you don't know of any logical use for the 400
>>>number. And I can fully understand that since there is none unless you
>>>divide it by 2 to get to the base clockspeed.:-)
>>
>>I repeat, it's apparent you have no understanding of what double data
>>rate means, or your feigning ignorance.
>>
>
> You have no answer, so you fall back on insultsd that you know are lies.:-)

I said it's "apparent" from what you say, as opposed to flat out saying
something like "wow, are you dense." You could, of course, demonstrate some
understanding of it in contrast.


>>When streaming, I.E. when doing what your '3.2 GBps bandwidth' number
>>describes, there are two data transfer cycles per clock cycle or, in
>>other words, the data rate, for a double data rate bus clocked at 200
>>MHz, is 400 million data transfer cycles per second (burst rate). e.g.
>>400 Mhz.
>
>
> It's kind of comical that you are explaining this to me when I have
> designed memory controllers for computer systems, and I've explained the
> FSB and the data rate on my website. Maybe you should have a look. It's
> the link below.
>

I read it, and all it does is repeat the same nonsense you've been saying
here. Not surprising since it's you.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
October 2, 2004 11:04:12 PM

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

Gnah, I've been trying to stay out of this private little flame war, but
there's a couple things I felt compelled to comment on :) 

David Maynard wrote:
> Wes Newell wrote:
>> David Maynard wrote:
>>> Wes Newell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's not my opinion. its clear fact. That's the way it has always
>>>> been in computer science. ref:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/d/data_transfer_rate.html
>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be under the false impression that the only thing 'Hz'
>>>>> applies to is an electronic wave form.
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm saying this is computer science, and it has it's
>>>> definitions.
>>>
>>> You can 'say' whatever you want but that doesn't make it so.
>>
>> I didn't say anything that the world of computer scuence has been
>> saying for years. And I provide proof. You provide nothing but smoke
>> and mirrors and I'm sure people will see that.
>
> Yes, of course, a 'webopedia' definition is certainly the last word in
> 'computer science' whereas direct quotes out of AMD's data sheets
> are, as you put it, "smoke and mirrors."

You didn't actually post anything from AMD's data sheets that specified the
bus speed as 400MHz (or similar). "FSB 400" != "400MHz FSB" (it's the misuse
of MHz that wes is complaining about, not the "400" designator). However, in
the more "marketing" portions of AMD datasheets, there are such references.
For example, the Sempron Model 8 datasheet (#31693) where it says:
"The AMD Sempron processor model 8 also includes QuantiSpeed™ architecture,
a 333-MHz, 2.7-Gigabyte per second AMD Athlon system bus, [...]"
in the overview section. However, I can't find any reference to a 333MHz bus
outside the overview.

Incidentally, Wes (among many, many others, myself included) is also guilty
of definition misuse. I noticed the use of the word "bandwidth" in reference
to the throughput of a bus ...

[...]
>>> Your definition 'proves' nothing because saying "Every bus has a
>>> clock speed measured in MHz" is like saying "every internal
>>> combustion engine's rotation is measured in RPM." That doesn't mean
>>> the horsepower description is 'hype' nor that it 'violates' the RPM
>>> mention.
>>
>> Wow are you dense. Just like bus speeds and data rates, they are 2
>> different things, and as such are defined with 2 different
>> measurements, RPM, and HP,
>
> Horsepower and RPM are not unrelated things. Horsepower is the
> product of
> the torque produced and RPM; much as data rate is the product of how
> many transfers take place per clock cycle and the clock speed.

However, sticking "HP" after the RPM number (however you wish to define an
RPM number for the engine) would be incorrect, and this is more or less what
Wes is saying (assuming I'm reading him right).

[...]

> And, btw, that a '400', 200Mhz clocked DDR bus, isn't 'twice as fast'
> as a
> SDR 200 Mhz clocked bus in overall performance is no different than a
> 133.3 Mhz (SDR) bus not being twice as fast in overall performance as
> a 66.6 Mhz
> SDR bus.

As a bus, a 133MHs SDR bus is exactly twice the performance of a 66MHz SDR
bus, no matter how you measure performance of it. As a bus, a 200MHz DDR
(aka FSB400 or whatever) bus is NOT twice as fast as a 200MHz SDR bus under
random access conditions, where things are predominantly latency-dependent.
In fact, it's exactly the same speed as a 200MHz SDR bus if you're doing
completely random access where the extra data fetched in the second half of
the cycle is of no use.

> There is nothing magical about 'the clock' nor is it 'the real
> thing'. It
> is simply a means to an end, the transferring of data, and the DATA
> RATE is the thing of importance to a "data processing" machine.

IMO, there's two important things: data rate of the bus, and latency. The
data rate on a single line or the width of the bus are completely irrelevant
as long as you have these two numbers. For example, a 800MHz hypertransport
bus (aka 1600 mega-transfers/sec in AMD tech docs) has a latency of
1/(800MHz) and a bandwidth of 3.2 GBytes/sec. From a performance point of
view, it doesn't matter if it's DDR'd and 16 bits width or SDR'd and 32 bits
wide. What DOES matter performance-wise is if it's 400MHz, DDR'd and 32-bits
wide, which has a higher latency of 1/(400MHz). The data rate per line is
completely irrelevant, as a 16-bit hypertransport bus with 1600mbit/sec per
line is definately not 8 times as fast as a 64-bit 200MHz SDR bus (at 200
mbit/sec per line), no matter how you measure it.

AMD has thankfully adopted this approach with the Athlon 64's (specifying
the hypertransport speed and the total throughput), so if Intel ever gets
around to integrating the memory controller they'll hopefully take the same
approach.

[...]

OK, you two can get back to flaming each other now :) 

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
October 4, 2004 5:48:43 AM

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

Michael Brown wrote:

> Gnah, I've been trying to stay out of this private little flame war, but
> there's a couple things I felt compelled to comment on :) 
>
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> Wes Newell wrote:
>>
>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wes Newell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not my opinion. its clear fact. That's the way it has
>>>>> always been in computer science. ref:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/d/data_transfer_rate.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to be under the false impression that the only thing
>>>>>> 'Hz' applies to is an electronic wave form.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I'm saying this is computer science, and it has it's
>>>>> definitions.
>>>>
>>>> You can 'say' whatever you want but that doesn't make it so.
>>>
>>> I didn't say anything that the world of computer scuence has been
>>> saying for years. And I provide proof. You provide nothing but smoke
>>> and mirrors and I'm sure people will see that.
>>
>> Yes, of course, a 'webopedia' definition is certainly the last word in
>> 'computer science' whereas direct quotes out of AMD's data sheets
>> are, as you put it, "smoke and mirrors."
>
>
> You didn't actually post anything from AMD's data sheets that specified
> the bus speed as 400MHz (or similar). "FSB 400" != "400MHz FSB" (it's
> the misuse of MHz that wes is complaining about, not the "400"
> designator).

I think you're misinterpreting his propensity to complain about 'any'
tidbit with his main complaint: that it's "marketing hype." And while I'd
still argue that 'Hz' is appropriate for more than simply a 'clock', the
average Joe doesn't know a MegaHertz from a MegaAvis, so "MHz" could hardly
be considered a useful 'hype'. They do, however, know that 400 is larger
than 200 and we all know that bigger, larger, is better, right?

It's the '400' that's the real issue.

> However, in the more "marketing" portions of AMD datasheets, there are
> such references. For example, the Sempron Model 8 datasheet (#31693)
> where it says: "The AMD Sempron processor model 8 also includes
> QuantiSpeed™ architecture, a 333-MHz, 2.7-Gigabyte per second AMD Athlon
> system bus, [...]" in the overview section. However, I can't find any
> reference to a 333MHz bus outside the overview.
>
> Incidentally, Wes (among many, many others, myself included) is also
> guilty of definition misuse. I noticed the use of the word "bandwidth"
> in reference to the throughput of a bus ...

True. And I'm not quibbling with it. After all, the issue is how it's
presented to the buying public and not a 'computer science class' ;) 

>
> [...]
>
>>>> Your definition 'proves' nothing because saying "Every bus has a
>>>> clock speed measured in MHz" is like saying "every internal
>>>> combustion engine's rotation is measured in RPM." That doesn't
>>>> mean the horsepower description is 'hype' nor that it 'violates'
>>>> the RPM mention.
>>>
>>> Wow are you dense. Just like bus speeds and data rates, they are 2
>>> different things, and as such are defined with 2 different
>>> measurements, RPM, and HP,
>>
>> Horsepower and RPM are not unrelated things. Horsepower is the product
>> of the torque produced and RPM; much as data rate is the product of
>> how many transfers take place per clock cycle and the clock speed.
>
>
> However, sticking "HP" after the RPM number (however you wish to define
> an RPM number for the engine) would be incorrect, and this is more or
> less what Wes is saying (assuming I'm reading him right).

As I said when he suggested something similar, that would certainly be a
problem if that were the case, but it's not. There is no conceivable
interpretation of 'horsepower' that could be applied to a raw RPM number
but Hz is suitable for anything cyclic, even if not 'preferred'. Hz *is*
"cycles per second" and the 'data rate' is not RPM in the analogy; it *is*
the 'horsepower'.

> [...]
>
>
>> And, btw, that a '400', 200Mhz clocked DDR bus, isn't 'twice as fast'
>> as a SDR 200 Mhz clocked bus in overall performance is no different
>> than a 133.3 Mhz (SDR) bus not being twice as fast in overall
>> performance as a 66.6 Mhz SDR bus.
>
>
> As a bus, a 133MHs SDR bus is exactly twice the performance of a 66MHz
> SDR bus, no matter how you measure performance of it. As a bus, a 200MHz
> DDR (aka FSB400 or whatever) bus is NOT twice as fast as a 200MHz SDR
> bus under random access conditions, where things are predominantly
> latency-dependent. In fact, it's exactly the same speed as a 200MHz SDR
> bus if you're doing completely random access where the extra data
> fetched in the second half of the cycle is of no use.

Now, you and I both know this is not true in practice. You're streaming
cache lines, at the least.

>> There is nothing magical about 'the clock' nor is it 'the real thing'.
>> It is simply a means to an end, the transferring of data, and the DATA
>> RATE is the thing of importance to a "data processing" machine.
>
>
> IMO, there's two important things: data rate of the bus, and latency.
> The data rate on a single line or the width of the bus are completely
> irrelevant as long as you have these two numbers. For example, a 800MHz
> hypertransport bus (aka 1600 mega-transfers/sec in AMD tech docs) has a
> latency of 1/(800MHz) and a bandwidth of 3.2 GBytes/sec. From a
> performance point of view, it doesn't matter if it's DDR'd and 16 bits
> width or SDR'd and 32 bits wide. What DOES matter performance-wise is if
> it's 400MHz, DDR'd and 32-bits wide, which has a higher latency of
> 1/(400MHz). The data rate per line is completely irrelevant, as a 16-bit
> hypertransport bus with 1600mbit/sec per line is definately not 8 times
> as fast as a 64-bit 200MHz SDR bus (at 200 mbit/sec per line), no matter
> how you measure it.

If the issue were what the 'best' way, starting from scratch with no
history to worry about, to describe a 'bus' was I very well might agree
with you, but that isn't the case. The issue is simply if saying "400 MHz"
(data rate) for a 200MHz DDR bus has ANY useful meaning so that it's not
simply "marketing hype." And I contend that, even with as many flaws or
irritating aspects it may have, it DOES convey a real and useful meaning
and, further, it's consistent with what the user was already familiar with.

Telling the user his new bus speed in Bps when the previous one was MHz
doesn't give him clue one about what the heck is going on. It would as if
some science 'perfectionist' decided to rate your new car's gas mileage in
BTU/foot. It might be 'technically superior' but, huh?

(Btw, transitioning from 32 to 64 bit processors is a good time to make the
break since none of the previous numbers have a 'simple' relationship to
the new.)

>
> AMD has thankfully adopted this approach with the Athlon 64's
> (specifying the hypertransport speed and the total throughput), so if
> Intel ever gets around to integrating the memory controller they'll
> hopefully take the same approach.

Well, perhaps we can have Wes look up the "computer science" definition of
a "hypertransport bus" ;)  What will the next one be? The
"superduperhypertranswarp bus?" Talk about "marketing hype." <g>.



> [...]
>
> OK, you two can get back to flaming each other now :) 
>
> -- Michael Brown www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)  Add
> michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
October 5, 2004 1:03:13 AM

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

David Maynard wrote:

> Michael Brown wrote:
>
>> David Maynard wrote:
>>
>>> Wes Newell wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>>
[...]
>>>>> Your definition 'proves' nothing because saying "Every bus has a
>>>>> clock speed measured in MHz" is like saying "every internal
>>>>> combustion engine's rotation is measured in RPM." That doesn't
>>>>> mean the horsepower description is 'hype' nor that it 'violates'
>>>>> the RPM mention.
>>>>
>>>> Wow are you dense. Just like bus speeds and data rates, they are 2
>>>> different things, and as such are defined with 2 different
>>>> measurements, RPM, and HP,
>>>
>>> Horsepower and RPM are not unrelated things. Horsepower is the
>>> product of the torque produced and RPM; much as data rate is the
>>> product of how many transfers take place per clock cycle and the
>>> clock speed.
>>
>> However, sticking "HP" after the RPM number (however you wish to
>> define an RPM number for the engine) would be incorrect, and this is
>> more or less what Wes is saying (assuming I'm reading him right).
>
> As I said when he suggested something similar, that would certainly
> be a problem if that were the case, but it's not. There is no
> conceivable interpretation of 'horsepower' that could be applied to a
> raw RPM number but Hz is suitable for anything cyclic, even if not
> 'preferred'.

In that case, your analogy was a bad one :) 

[...]
>>> And, btw, that a '400', 200Mhz clocked DDR bus, isn't 'twice as
>>> fast' as a SDR 200 Mhz clocked bus in overall performance is no
>>> different than a 133.3 Mhz (SDR) bus not being twice as fast in
>>> overall performance as a 66.6 Mhz SDR bus.
>>
>>
>> As a bus, a 133MHs SDR bus is exactly twice the performance of a
>> 66MHz SDR bus, no matter how you measure performance of it. As a
>> bus, a 200MHz DDR (aka FSB400 or whatever) bus is NOT twice as fast
>> as a 200MHz SDR bus under random access conditions, where things are
>> predominantly latency-dependent. In fact, it's exactly the same
>> speed as a 200MHz SDR bus if you're doing completely random access
>> where the extra data fetched in the second half of the cycle is of
>> no use.
>
> Now, you and I both know this is not true in practice. You're
> streaming cache lines, at the least.

I was talking about busses themselves, not how the busses were used. The
performance of a system across different bus types is a whole different
question, and is much too varied across platforms to be able to make any
sort of statement about. For example, dropping from a 64-bit 200MHz DDR bus
to a 64-bit 200MHz SDR bus would not noticably harm a system with an 8-byte
cache line under random-access conditions. However, it would significantly
damage the performance if the same system had 16-byte cache lines, under the
same conditions.

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
October 5, 2004 1:03:14 AM

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

Michael Brown wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Brown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>David Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Wes Newell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>David Maynard wrote:
>>>>>
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>>Your definition 'proves' nothing because saying "Every bus has a
>>>>>>clock speed measured in MHz" is like saying "every internal
>>>>>>combustion engine's rotation is measured in RPM." That doesn't
>>>>>>mean the horsepower description is 'hype' nor that it 'violates'
>>>>>>the RPM mention.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wow are you dense. Just like bus speeds and data rates, they are 2
>>>>>different things, and as such are defined with 2 different
>>>>>measurements, RPM, and HP,
>>>>
>>>>Horsepower and RPM are not unrelated things. Horsepower is the
>>>>product of the torque produced and RPM; much as data rate is the
>>>>product of how many transfers take place per clock cycle and the
>>>>clock speed.
>>>
>>>However, sticking "HP" after the RPM number (however you wish to
>>>define an RPM number for the engine) would be incorrect, and this is
>>>more or less what Wes is saying (assuming I'm reading him right).
>>
>>As I said when he suggested something similar, that would certainly
>>be a problem if that were the case, but it's not. There is no
>>conceivable interpretation of 'horsepower' that could be applied to a
>>raw RPM number but Hz is suitable for anything cyclic, even if not
>>'preferred'.
>
>
> In that case, your analogy was a bad one :) 

Well, maybe it looked bad, to you, after it was brutally mangled ;) 

It actually holds rather well. Horsepower is the product of torque and RPM
while Data Rate is the product of transfers per clock and clock speed. (and
even your complaint about 'latency' has a horsepower semi equivalent as it
isn't 'the same horsepower' under all circumstances. e.g. It ain't 'X
horsepower' when you're lugging the thing in traffic.)

The original point was that Wes is insisting only "torque at the specified
RPM" is a valid description (e.g. "200 Mhz DDR" so we 'know', in oh so
precise 'real' [sic] terms, it's 200 x 2) and I'm arguing that horsepower,
being the precise result of the exact same equation (400), is, for this
purpose, just as good, thank you very much.

And saying "200 MHz DDR" suffers equally from all the technical ailments
you've rightly attributed to using the '400 MHz' terminology. It would, of
course, because they're ultimately the SAME THING: 'The bus' is 'the bus'.

Frankly, I tend to prefer the "200 MHz DDR" phraseology myself because it
more closely mirrors 'how it's done' but I can also see that Mr. and Mrs.
Joe Public probably don't give a tinker's dam 'how it's done'. They don't
want to know how to MAKE the dern thing they just want some clue about
which to get.


> [...]
>
>>>>And, btw, that a '400', 200Mhz clocked DDR bus, isn't 'twice as
>>>>fast' as a SDR 200 Mhz clocked bus in overall performance is no
>>>>different than a 133.3 Mhz (SDR) bus not being twice as fast in
>>>>overall performance as a 66.6 Mhz SDR bus.
>>>
>>>
>>>As a bus, a 133MHs SDR bus is exactly twice the performance of a
>>>66MHz SDR bus, no matter how you measure performance of it. As a
>>>bus, a 200MHz DDR (aka FSB400 or whatever) bus is NOT twice as fast
>>>as a 200MHz SDR bus under random access conditions, where things are
>>>predominantly latency-dependent. In fact, it's exactly the same
>>>speed as a 200MHz SDR bus if you're doing completely random access
>>>where the extra data fetched in the second half of the cycle is of
>>>no use.
>>
>>Now, you and I both know this is not true in practice. You're
>>streaming cache lines, at the least.
>
>
> I was talking about busses themselves, not how the busses were used. The
> performance of a system across different bus types is a whole different
> question, and is much too varied across platforms to be able to make any
> sort of statement about. For example, dropping from a 64-bit 200MHz DDR bus
> to a 64-bit 200MHz SDR bus would not noticably harm a system with an 8-byte
> cache line under random-access conditions. However, it would significantly
> damage the performance if the same system had 16-byte cache lines, under the
> same conditions.

I understand that but, again, you're being an engineer wanting to detail
every bit, byte, and nibble. But the issue was a 'simple', hopefully
intuitive, description for Mr. and Mrs. Joe Public trying to figure out
whether they should get, say, a 133 Mhz FSB Athlon motherboard or '266 Mhz
FSB' one. The only cache line they know about is at the grocery store and
'DDR' isn't going to mean any more to them than ATC (Intel) or 'hyper
transport' (wasn't that a Pontiac MiniVan? =:o )


>
> [...]
>
> --
> Michael Brown
> www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :) 
> Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
>
>
!