Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

wasting the memory speed

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
April 10, 2004 4:03:21 PM

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

Accroding to this diagaram
http://www.viatech.com/en/k7-series/kt600.jsp

If for example My computer has DDR 400 and the CPU FSB is 400. In this
case I am wasting my memory speed. I mean the memory can send/receive
data to/from the chipset at speed 800Mhz(400*2) but the CPU which
suppose to handle these data can only work at FSB =400Mhz (I know the
internal speed is more than 400Mhz) but what I want to say is that
while the memory can supply data to the CPU at speed 800 the FSB of
the CPU can only take data at speed 400Mhz (so the FSB will slow down
the traffic). In this case this is not good design, the better is to
have CPU with FSB 800 or Why I bother to install memory DDR400, while
DDR200 will give the same performance provided that the CPU is FSB400.

Am I right?? any help would be very much apprciate it. Thanks.


Thanks

More about : wasting memory speed

April 10, 2004 5:01:39 PM

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

Ok, one problem here is that the marketing hype leads the advertising people
to not quite state things correctly. Let's forget the details of that ad,
and talk as accurately as possible.

The CPU FSB is more correctly stated as 200MHz (actual), but since it
employs DDR technology, it's *effective* rate is 400MHz. The "400MHz"
number you see in the ad is actually misleading, the CPU FSB does NOT
physically *run* at 400MHz, it runs at 200MHz (that's what would show up on
a scope!), *but*, because the DDR technology it employs allows data to
travel BOTH on the up and down side of each cycle (per MHz), it's *behaving*
as if it data was traveling on ONE side of the cycle, but at 400MHz! Get
it? It's a marketing gimic, the CPU isn't actually *faster*, it's more
*efficient* (2x in fact) at the same speed of a 200MHz processor (1x) that
does NOT employ DDR technology. But the marketing guys don't like that sort
of explanation, they'd rather claim the CPU is a 400MHz processor! Looks
better in the advertising than "this is a 200Mhz processor that's more
efficient and acts like a 400MHz processor". Not nearly as appealing,
right?

Same thing w/ Intel, they say their top-end processor is an 800Mhz CPU.
Technically, WRONG! It's a 200MHz processor that uses DDR technology (2x)
*and* twice as wide a data path (2 x 8 bit), making for an *effective* rate
of 200MHz x 4 = 800MHz. Whalla, the marketing guys are happy again.

Now to the memory. DDR400 (or PC3200) memory is marketed in exactly the
same fashion. It's 200MHz memory, but due to DDR technology, its
*effective* speed is 400MHz. But just as w/ the CPU FSB, it's really only
running at 200MHz (on the scope). Again, it's marketing hype. If we want
to be absolutely precise, that DDR400 (PC3200) memory is 200MHz x 2 (effect
of DDR) x 8 (bits wide) = PC3200. Some advertising people like the sound of
PC3200 instead of DDR400, so sometimes you see PC3200 referenced instead
(3200 sound more impressive than 400, I suppose). The PC3200 label also
implies it's effective bandwidth (3.2Gb/sec).

Bottomline, that AMD "400" CPU and DDR400 memory are, in fact, in PERFECT
sync, both are running 200MHz *actual*, on the "scope". What makes them
different/better is they are more efficient at that 200MHz speed than other
200MHz components that do NOT employ technologies like DDR.

Everything got all complicated in this area once DDR technology came into
the scene. Unfortunately, you can't take the advertising statements too
literally anymore. AMD did the same thing w/ their processors. Is an AMD
Athlon 2600+ actually running at 2.6GHz? No way, that's the hype, it's
actually 2.08GHz "on scope", AMD is merely claiming 2600 (2.6GHz) is the
*effective* performance compared to a 2.6GHz Intel CPU. Fact or fiction?
You decide.

HTH

Jim




"esara" <esara123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd7d27e7.0404101103.716fdb2c@posting.google.com...
> Accroding to this diagaram
> http://www.viatech.com/en/k7-series/kt600.jsp
>
> If for example My computer has DDR 400 and the CPU FSB is 400. In this
> case I am wasting my memory speed. I mean the memory can send/receive
> data to/from the chipset at speed 800Mhz(400*2) but the CPU which
> suppose to handle these data can only work at FSB =400Mhz (I know the
> internal speed is more than 400Mhz) but what I want to say is that
> while the memory can supply data to the CPU at speed 800 the FSB of
> the CPU can only take data at speed 400Mhz (so the FSB will slow down
> the traffic). In this case this is not good design, the better is to
> have CPU with FSB 800 or Why I bother to install memory DDR400, while
> DDR200 will give the same performance provided that the CPU is FSB400.
>
> Am I right?? any help would be very much apprciate it. Thanks.
>
>
> Thanks
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
April 10, 2004 7:40:44 PM

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

On 10 Apr 2004 12:03:21 -0700, esara123@hotmail.com (esara) wrote:

I will give you some examples. When you use DMA and write files or
data, it does not go through the processor. The processor uses
message codes to know when it is done writing or whatever. Dont
assume everything is moving through the CPU. The processor also has
multiple execution pipelines. These pipelines all go at once. A CPU
is not just one pipeline, it is a lot more complicated at once. Also
some data is in a cache that is used over and over.

>Accroding to this diagaram
>http://www.viatech.com/en/k7-series/kt600.jsp
>
>If for example My computer has DDR 400 and the CPU FSB is 400. In this
>case I am wasting my memory speed. I mean the memory can send/receive
>data to/from the chipset at speed 800Mhz(400*2) but the CPU which
>suppose to handle these data can only work at FSB =400Mhz (I know the
>internal speed is more than 400Mhz) but what I want to say is that
>while the memory can supply data to the CPU at speed 800 the FSB of
>the CPU can only take data at speed 400Mhz (so the FSB will slow down
>the traffic). In this case this is not good design, the better is to
>have CPU with FSB 800 or Why I bother to install memory DDR400, while
>DDR200 will give the same performance provided that the CPU is FSB400.
>
>Am I right?? any help would be very much apprciate it. Thanks.
>
>
>Thanks
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
April 11, 2004 8:56:48 AM

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

Sorry for top posting, but if you didn't cut and paste that Jim you
certainly should post it to a website. Great explaination.

Jim wrote:
> Ok, one problem here is that the marketing hype leads the advertising people
> to not quite state things correctly. Let's forget the details of that ad,
> and talk as accurately as possible.
>
> The CPU FSB is more correctly stated as 200MHz (actual), but since it
> employs DDR technology, it's *effective* rate is 400MHz. The "400MHz"
> number you see in the ad is actually misleading, the CPU FSB does NOT
> physically *run* at 400MHz, it runs at 200MHz (that's what would show up on
> a scope!), *but*, because the DDR technology it employs allows data to
> travel BOTH on the up and down side of each cycle (per MHz), it's *behaving*
> as if it data was traveling on ONE side of the cycle, but at 400MHz! Get
> it? It's a marketing gimic, the CPU isn't actually *faster*, it's more
> *efficient* (2x in fact) at the same speed of a 200MHz processor (1x) that
> does NOT employ DDR technology. But the marketing guys don't like that sort
> of explanation, they'd rather claim the CPU is a 400MHz processor! Looks
> better in the advertising than "this is a 200Mhz processor that's more
> efficient and acts like a 400MHz processor". Not nearly as appealing,
> right?
>
> Same thing w/ Intel, they say their top-end processor is an 800Mhz CPU.
> Technically, WRONG! It's a 200MHz processor that uses DDR technology (2x)
> *and* twice as wide a data path (2 x 8 bit), making for an *effective* rate
> of 200MHz x 4 = 800MHz. Whalla, the marketing guys are happy again.
>
> Now to the memory. DDR400 (or PC3200) memory is marketed in exactly the
> same fashion. It's 200MHz memory, but due to DDR technology, its
> *effective* speed is 400MHz. But just as w/ the CPU FSB, it's really only
> running at 200MHz (on the scope). Again, it's marketing hype. If we want
> to be absolutely precise, that DDR400 (PC3200) memory is 200MHz x 2 (effect
> of DDR) x 8 (bits wide) = PC3200. Some advertising people like the sound of
> PC3200 instead of DDR400, so sometimes you see PC3200 referenced instead
> (3200 sound more impressive than 400, I suppose). The PC3200 label also
> implies it's effective bandwidth (3.2Gb/sec).
>
> Bottomline, that AMD "400" CPU and DDR400 memory are, in fact, in PERFECT
> sync, both are running 200MHz *actual*, on the "scope". What makes them
> different/better is they are more efficient at that 200MHz speed than other
> 200MHz components that do NOT employ technologies like DDR.
>
> Everything got all complicated in this area once DDR technology came into
> the scene. Unfortunately, you can't take the advertising statements too
> literally anymore. AMD did the same thing w/ their processors. Is an AMD
> Athlon 2600+ actually running at 2.6GHz? No way, that's the hype, it's
> actually 2.08GHz "on scope", AMD is merely claiming 2600 (2.6GHz) is the
> *effective* performance compared to a 2.6GHz Intel CPU. Fact or fiction?
> You decide.
>
> HTH
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> "esara" <esara123@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fd7d27e7.0404101103.716fdb2c@posting.google.com...
>
>>Accroding to this diagaram
>>http://www.viatech.com/en/k7-series/kt600.jsp
>>
>>If for example My computer has DDR 400 and the CPU FSB is 400. In this
>>case I am wasting my memory speed. I mean the memory can send/receive
>>data to/from the chipset at speed 800Mhz(400*2) but the CPU which
>>suppose to handle these data can only work at FSB =400Mhz (I know the
>>internal speed is more than 400Mhz) but what I want to say is that
>>while the memory can supply data to the CPU at speed 800 the FSB of
>>the CPU can only take data at speed 400Mhz (so the FSB will slow down
>>the traffic). In this case this is not good design, the better is to
>>have CPU with FSB 800 or Why I bother to install memory DDR400, while
>>DDR200 will give the same performance provided that the CPU is FSB400.
>>
>>Am I right?? any help would be very much apprciate it. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>Thanks
>
>
>


--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo
April 13, 2004 4:35:58 AM

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

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:01:39 -0700, "Jim" <null@null.com> wrote:

>Ok, one problem here is that the marketing hype leads the advertising people
>to not quite state things correctly. Let's forget the details of that ad,
>and talk as accurately as possible.
>
>The CPU FSB is more correctly stated as 200MHz (actual), but since it
>employs DDR technology, it's *effective* rate is 400MHz. The "400MHz"
>number you see in the ad is actually misleading, the CPU FSB does NOT
>physically *run* at 400MHz, it runs at 200MHz (that's what would show up on
>a scope!), *but*, because the DDR technology it employs allows data to
>travel BOTH on the up and down side of each cycle (per MHz), it's *behaving*
>as if it data was traveling on ONE side of the cycle, but at 400MHz! Get
>it? It's a marketing gimic, the CPU isn't actually *faster*, it's more
>*efficient* (2x in fact) at the same speed of a 200MHz processor (1x) that
>does NOT employ DDR technology.

The clock is just that. It's just a clock. It might run at 'just' 200
MHz, but it's _NOT_ the speed of the bus! The speed of the bus is
400MHz, and there's no marketing gimmick about that. That is indeed
the _speed_!
Now what purpose does the clock have?
It's like this: When data is transmitted on the FSB, data is
represented on the 72 pins (64 + ecc) out by voltage levels.
But as the data have to change to a new value, how do we know _when_
to read the data? When are all the leads ready, and the data correct?
That's where the clock comes in. The clock syncs the transfer. And
that is the _ONLY_ purpose of any clock. The clock tells _when_ the
data is supposed to be ready, and ok to read.
Now, you can sync on the clocks rising flank, or you can sync on the
falling flank. ... - Or, _both_!
AMD's FSB is the DEC Alpha EV6 protocol bus. And this happens to sync
on both rising and falling flanks.

So for a bus speed of 400MHz, - a 200MHz clock is _required_!
The data on the pins change 400 million times per second. That's the
_SPEED_ of bus! And that's only thing that matters, and marketing is
entirely 100% correct in stating that FSB speed is 400MHz.
That is not marketing hype or a gimmick.

I suppose I have to blame Intel marketing for everybody to be so damn
hung up on clockrates. - Hey, guys, - it's just a clock!

As for DDR ram, I don't know how it works, but I assume the actual
transfer is something similar to the EV6 bus. But there are more
complex things involved with memory access.
DDR speed only affects the bandwidth that memoryblocks can be
transferred with. An actual access is slower. A long chain of things
need to respond,

>AMD did the same thing w/ their processors. Is an AMD
>Athlon 2600+ actually running at 2.6GHz? No way, that's the hype, it's
>actually 2.08GHz "on scope", AMD is merely claiming 2600 (2.6GHz) is the
>*effective* performance compared to a 2.6GHz Intel CPU. Fact or fiction?
>You decide.

It's not quite the same thing. But it's the same in the sense that the
clockrate is not the "speed" of any cpu. A clock is still just a
clock. The clock doesn't do the actual work.
Since Intel went for misleading the market with the P4, -

(The P4 is unique, since it's _less_ efficient per clockcycle than
preceding cpus, Pentium, PII, PIII. All other new generation cpus,
have always been more efficient per clockcycle than previous. That's a
natural outcome of an increased number of transistors. In the case of
the P4 and Prescott, their increased transistor counts are dedicated
to make it possible to run a higher clock. Not to do more work. This
is not good engineering. The P4 is engineered, intentionally, to run
at as high clock as possible. Certainly sacrificing performance! And
_THIS_ is indeed entirely marketing hype. A "gimic".)

, - AMD went for a 'rating' naming system instead. ...And so will
Intel shortly...

ancra
April 13, 2004 4:36:44 AM

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

On 10 Apr 2004 12:03:21 -0700, esara123@hotmail.com (esara) wrote:

>Accroding to this diagaram
>http://www.viatech.com/en/k7-series/kt600.jsp
>
>If for example My computer has DDR 400 and the CPU FSB is 400. In this
>case I am wasting my memory speed. I mean the memory can send/receive
>data to/from the chipset at speed 800Mhz(400*2) but the CPU which
>suppose to handle these data can only work at FSB =400Mhz (I know the
>internal speed is more than 400Mhz) but what I want to say is that
>while the memory can supply data to the CPU at speed 800 the FSB of
>the CPU can only take data at speed 400Mhz (so the FSB will slow down
>the traffic). In this case this is not good design, the better is to
>have CPU with FSB 800 or Why I bother to install memory DDR400, while
>DDR200 will give the same performance provided that the CPU is FSB400.
>
>Am I right?? any help would be very much apprciate it. Thanks.

Theoretically, you could have the same maximum bandwidth on that 2 X
DDR200. And you will have a better advantage of dual channel on slower
ram, of course. But latency will be slower with slower ram. And
there's the question of alignment of the channels. And actually, it's
latency that gives a general effect on your cpu application
performance. Bandwidth only affects performance during those instants
the application bottlenecks in memory bandwidth.
When, and if, that will be, is up to the application and the cpu. A
faster cpu would bottleneck more often, and needs faster buses.

ancra
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
April 14, 2004 9:41:25 AM

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

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:24:29 +0200, somebody wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 09:19:18 GMT, Wes Newell
> <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:35:58 +0200, somebody wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:01:39 -0700, "Jim" <null@null.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ok, one problem here is that the marketing hype leads the advertising people
>>>>to not quite state things correctly. Let's forget the details of that ad,
>>>>and talk as accurately as possible.
>>>>
>>>>The CPU FSB is more correctly stated as 200MHz (actual), but since it
>>>>employs DDR technology, it's *effective* rate is 400MHz. The "400MHz"
>>>>number you see in the ad is actually misleading, the CPU FSB does NOT
>>>>physically *run* at 400MHz, it runs at 200MHz (that's what would show up on
>>>>a scope!), *but*, because the DDR technology it employs allows data to
>>>>travel BOTH on the up and down side of each cycle (per MHz), it's *behaving*
>>>>as if it data was traveling on ONE side of the cycle, but at 400MHz! Get
>>>>it? It's a marketing gimic, the CPU isn't actually *faster*, it's more
>>>>*efficient* (2x in fact) at the same speed of a 200MHz processor (1x) that
>>>>does NOT employ DDR technology.
>>>
>>> The clock is just that. It's just a clock. It might run at 'just' 200
>>> MHz, but it's _NOT_ the speed of the bus! The speed of the bus is
>>> 400MHz, and there's no marketing gimmick about that. That is indeed
>>> the _speed_!
>>
>>Bus speed is measured by the clock cycles.
>
> What is that "Bus speed"? And why is it "measured by the clock
> cycles"?

Because that's been the standard for years and it's the only thing that
makes any sense. Using a data throughput can not define the properties
of the bus.

> Who does this? - Certainly not AMD or Intel. That's just the thing here.

Oh yes they do. You should check data sheets instead of advertising. AMD
defines the bus speed in clock cycles. But I really don't care how they
want to define it. They are not a defining agency.

> If that "bus speed" is measured in clock cycles, then it's because that
> "bus speed" is the bus clock speed. We're running in circles.
>
>>The speed is 200MHz, not double
>>that or 4 times that. That is the data rate. Data rates are measured in
>>Bps or bps, not MHz.
>
> Frequency of data transfers should be measured in MHz (Hz), just like
> any frequency of any event. Clocks do not own the unit MHz. But sure,
> data rate is fine to measure in Bps.
>
No, data transfers don't have frequencies as defined by the meaning of
Hertz. You are right about one thing. Clocks don't own Hertz. It's also
designated for radio frequencies. And that's it. These were the two fields
that were given the Hertz symbol to honor him for his work in
electromagnetic fields. read your history. there's no mention of data
rates. That's why Bps and bps were defined.

>>Granted, that the bandwidth no longer depends on bus speed, but data
>>rate. The cpu clock speed does however depend on the bus speed. Every
>>cpu has a multiplier that sets the cpu clock speed in accordance with
>>the FSB speed. And now just a few problems that can arise from calling
>>the data rate the the FSB speed.
>
> You can forget about stupid, and idiot too, - well, at least in the IQ
> sense.
> But: - Stubborn? - Oh most certainly. I'm not married! So here goes:
>
> The bandwidth does depend on a 'speed'. How could it possibly not? And
> the 'effective FSB speed' is not the same thing as data rate. Data rate
> is width of bus times 'effective bus speed'.
>
So what's the real clock speed of a bus running an effective speed of
400Mhz? Be careful now because you can't answer this question with any
certainty. Why? because effective clock speed is relative to, yep, the
reall FSB clock speed. I tend to let people slide that use the term
though, but it's just as bogus as using the data rate as the speed. At
least when it's used, one can tell that it's not real.

> (And I could disagree, if I wanted to, what we see are some few problems
> arising from calling 'FSB clock speed' 'FSB speed' ;-).)
>
> 'Bus speed' is an unfortunate term, since AMD and Intel use it as short
> for 'effective bus speed', in the case of FSB, while it's also
> established in use as short for 'bus clock speed'. I only used that term
> (bus speed) once in my post, and I propose that we henceforth are
> explicit about this and use 'effective FSB speed' respectively 'FSB
> clock speed', or our argument will indeed be stupid. So ok, I agree,
> maybe marketing haven't made us any immediate favor here.
>
Like I said, although I don't like the term effective speed, I can live
with it, even though it doesn't really provide any real information
without knowing it's efectiveness conpared to what.:-)

> I think I primarily used the term 'speed'. Also as in 'speed of the
> bus', which you interpret as 'clockspeed' at every turn. Please don't do
> that. I meant speed as speed. As does AMD and Intel.
> "Speed" is speed. 'Clock speed' is just a term for the frequency of
> the clock pulses. It doesn't own 'speed'.
>
As I said earlier. Standard practices that have been in place for years
state that bus speeds are measured in clock cycles. Data speeds over that
bus are measured in throughput. And if you want to narrow it down to one
line of the bus, then it would be in bps.

>>Tell an engineer to build you a MB with a 400MHz bus do you think
>>they'll know that you really only mean 100, or 200 in AMD's case.
>
> - But isn't that pretty much exactly what DEC did? "Give us a 200MHz
> bus" and they came up with the Alpha bus at a 100MHz clock? I would
> think anyone actually asking for a 'speed'(sic) is concerned with speed
> in terms of performance.

The way the data is taken off the bus has nothing to do with the clock
cycle. The clock cycle is constant. The bus didn't change. Only the way
the data is transported across it.

> (And I think any engineers building a mobo would have to work from very
> detailed specs, not just a loose MHz figure.)
>
Unfortunately, they do now.:-)

>>Use that 400MHz to calculate your cpu speed and see how far off you'll
>>be.
>
> Why should I? If I know enough to calculate cpu 'clock speed', I'd know
> I need a multiplier and an external _CLOCK_. Why should I grasp blindly
> for any and all MHz figure floating around?
>
Yes, you know, I know it, but there's millions or billions that don't. And
that's where the problem is using bogus numbers for the FSB speed.

> The DDR rates and "effective bus speed" again in MHz, are terms and
> concepts established in language and specs. It might not be to your
> liking, but they are technically motivated, and insisting on your ways
> is not very constructive. The concepts needs explaining, not dismissing.

And if they hadn't used bogus BS, nothing would need explaining except the
data rates. People new to this wouldn't be all confused by ther bogus
numbers and why things don't add up, etc.

> To more often strictly employ 'data rate' and 'Bps' is excellent. I
> think you're right about that (still there's a possibility for another
> mixup with 'data transfer rate' here). But language develops as language
> will. There's not terribly much we can do about it, but explain and try
> to avoid misunderstandings. Not using 'speed' when you really mean
> 'clock speed' is also helpful.
>
I'm tired of explaining it, over, and over, and over again. Ah, something
else to put on my website when i get time.

> SNIP
>
> Frequency of pulses on a clock is measured in MHz. Frequency of data
> transfers occurring on a bus is also measured in MHz. I'm perfectly
> aware of which one of these is the 'clock speed' or 'bus clock speed'.

Hertz was not designated as a measurement for these pulses of data bits,
and using it as such in error.

deleted some stuff which I don't care about.

>>And as my last comment on this. When I pinned AMD to the wall, they
>>admitted that their bogus FSB speeds were just that, by saying that it's
>>the effective clock rate when compared to a non DDR bus.
>
> I'm pretty sure though, that they didn't admit to any "bogus"? But
> rather tried to explain what it meant, in terms of relevant properties?
>
Maybe I've still got a copy of it..... Nope. Must have trashed it last
time I cleaned out my archive. Might find it in google groups somewhere.
I've posted it before. Yep, Here it is.

From - Tue Nov 5 13:52:15 2002
From: hw.support@amd.com
To: w.newell@verizon.net
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:06:17 -0800
Subject: Re: Front Side Bus (KMM136148V18444L0KM)

Hi Wes,

Thanks for contacting AMD's Technical Service Center. The stated FSB
speed is the effective frequency. The physical frequency is half the
effective frequency - 100, 133, or 166MHz. Most motherboards will state
this physical frequency rather than the effective frequency.

The reason for this is that, in the past, chipsets would transfer data
once per clock cycle. With the introduction of the Athlon's chipset,
they began transferring data twice per clock cycle, effectively doubling
the amount of data transferred even though the physical frequency
remained constant. This is similar to DDR (Double Data Rate) Technology,
which is used in DDR SDRAM. You will also find similar technology used
in other products as well, such as RDRAM.

Hope this helps.
Best Regards,
Jeff Hanaoka
AMD Technical Service Center


Original Message Follows:
------------------------
You refer to the Athlon FSB speeds as 200mhz, 266mhz, and 333mhz. Is
this really the front side bus speed? I can't find a motherboard that
supports front side bus speeds higher than 166mhz. What gives?

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
April 16, 2004 3:38:02 AM

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

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 05:41:25 GMT, Wes Newell
<w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

> Clocks don't own Hertz. It's also
>designated for radio frequencies. And that's it. These were the two fields
>that were given the Hertz symbol to honor him for his work in
>electromagnetic fields. read your history. there's no mention of data
>rates. That's why Bps and bps were defined.

A quick check in my Physics handbook, confirms what I thought I knew:

Derived SI Units:

Quantity: frequency
Definition: s^-1
Unit: Hz Herz

There's no note from IUPAP about Hz being reserved for only some
special purposes.
(Which I'm absolutely confident there would have been, if you actually
were right).
Also, SI does not have any other unit for frequency. Sorry, but I take
that to mean that it is in fact an universally employable unit for
frequency. (just consider AC, sound and light, for instance)

You're entirely right of course, that data rate cannot be measured in
Hz, but I've never claimed anything like that. If you thought that,
then I lost you somewhere.

ancra
!