CPU question

[void]

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

Haven't really looked at CPUs in a few years, and now I notice that AMD CPUs
are measured by some number in addition to GHz. For example, I see:

AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (2.08GHz)
AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (2.17GHz)
AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.20GHz)

What do the 2800, 3000, and 3200 mean? I notice that Intel CPUs do not use
these numbers. Thanks.

 

[Guest]

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

void@no.spam.com wrote:

> Haven't really looked at CPUs in a few years, and now I notice that AMD
> CPUs
> are measured by some number in addition to GHz. For example, I see:
>
> AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (2.08GHz)
> AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (2.17GHz)
> AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.20GHz)
>
> What do the 2800, 3000, and 3200 mean? I notice that Intel CPUs do not
> use
> these numbers. Thanks.

Well, officially, it's the speed the original Athlon would have to operate
at to achieve the same performance. Unofficially, it's to compare against
Pentium 4 speeds, since AMD is not on the MHz is everything trip.

Basically, (though they'll never own up to it) it's to infer that a 3200+
runs equivelent to a 3.2 GHz P4 or better, hence the "+". Though that once
held true, it really hasn't held up after speed increases over time, as a
3200+ is about as fast as a 2.8 or 3.0 GHz P4, depending on the benchmark.
However, it's a wonderful bargain compared to the pricey P4.

My first system I built was a P4, and I recommended to all of my friends
that have never built a system before to start with an Intel system.
However, recently I built this very XP system I'm writing from, and I'll
never build anything but AMD in the future...

 

[Guest]

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

I've built a fair number of Intel systems, but hardly any AMD. You make it
sound like AMD systems are harder to put together. Is that so and in what
ways are they trickier?

- Magnusfarce


"Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
news:y1pqd.849$Xv.640@fe37.usenetserver.com...
> void@no.spam.com wrote:
>
> > Haven't really looked at CPUs in a few years, and now I notice that AMD
> > CPUs
> > are measured by some number in addition to GHz. For example, I see:
> >
> > AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (2.08GHz)
> > AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (2.17GHz)
> > AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.20GHz)
> >
> > What do the 2800, 3000, and 3200 mean? I notice that Intel CPUs do not
> > use
> > these numbers. Thanks.
>
> Well, officially, it's the speed the original Athlon would have to operate
> at to achieve the same performance. Unofficially, it's to compare against
> Pentium 4 speeds, since AMD is not on the MHz is everything trip.
>
> Basically, (though they'll never own up to it) it's to infer that a 3200+
> runs equivelent to a 3.2 GHz P4 or better, hence the "+". Though that once
> held true, it really hasn't held up after speed increases over time, as a
> 3200+ is about as fast as a 2.8 or 3.0 GHz P4, depending on the benchmark.
> However, it's a wonderful bargain compared to the pricey P4.
>
> My first system I built was a P4, and I recommended to all of my friends
> that have never built a system before to start with an Intel system.
> However, recently I built this very XP system I'm writing from, and I'll
> never build anything but AMD in the future...
>

 

[Guest]

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

Thanks, fellas, for the insights.

- Magnusfarce


"Magnusfarce" <magnusfarce@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:MJCdneauNKp-2DfcRVn-2A@adelphia.com...
> I've built a fair number of Intel systems, but hardly any AMD. You make
it
> sound like AMD systems are harder to put together. Is that so and in what
> ways are they trickier?
>
> - Magnusfarce
>
>
> "Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
> news:y1pqd.849$Xv.640@fe37.usenetserver.com...
> > void@no.spam.com wrote:
> >
> > > Haven't really looked at CPUs in a few years, and now I notice that
AMD
> > > CPUs
> > > are measured by some number in addition to GHz. For example, I see:
> > >
> > > AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (2.08GHz)
> > > AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (2.17GHz)
> > > AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.20GHz)
> > >
> > > What do the 2800, 3000, and 3200 mean? I notice that Intel CPUs do
not
> > > use
> > > these numbers. Thanks.
> >
> > Well, officially, it's the speed the original Athlon would have to
operate
> > at to achieve the same performance. Unofficially, it's to compare
against
> > Pentium 4 speeds, since AMD is not on the MHz is everything trip.
> >
> > Basically, (though they'll never own up to it) it's to infer that a
3200+
> > runs equivelent to a 3.2 GHz P4 or better, hence the "+". Though that
once
> > held true, it really hasn't held up after speed increases over time, as
a
> > 3200+ is about as fast as a 2.8 or 3.0 GHz P4, depending on the
benchmark.
> > However, it's a wonderful bargain compared to the pricey P4.
> >
> > My first system I built was a P4, and I recommended to all of my friends
> > that have never built a system before to start with an Intel system.
> > However, recently I built this very XP system I'm writing from, and I'll
> > never build anything but AMD in the future...
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <f84kq0dvpb8fl9b7tmlfnlj1ha6hpkc2bb@4ax.com>, says...
> Haven't really looked at CPUs in a few years, and now I notice that AMD CPUs
> are measured by some number in addition to GHz. For example, I see:
>
> AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (2.08GHz)
> AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (2.17GHz)
> AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.20GHz)
>
> What do the 2800, 3000, and 3200 mean? I notice that Intel CPUs do not use
> these numbers. Thanks.
>
It refers to the speed an original Athlon would have to operate at but
it is also an indicator of the equivalent Intel P4.


--
Conor

Greedo shot first. Greedo ALWAYS shot first. You did not see Solo shoot
first.
It never happened. Never, ever. Not in any version. Remember: Greedo
shot first.

 

[Guest]

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

> I've built a fair number of Intel systems, but hardly any AMD. You make
> it
> sound like AMD systems are harder to put together. Is that so and in what
> ways are they trickier?


Hi,

At one time AMD were a bit more precarious to assemble by the heatsink
attachment. One would use a flat bladed screwdriver to press the heatsink
clamp onto the CPU socket retainer. It required a fair amount of pressure
over a small area to slip the retaining clamp over the clamp retaining
finger on the CPU socket. One slight slip of the screwdriver could break the
retainer hook or send the blade of the screwdriver into the motherboard for
a possibly lethal gash to the tracings.
Today AMD has come up with a secure design to attach the clamp and HSF
that makes it easy to retain everything.. Relatively speaking it's nearly
the same putting an Intel and AMD system together.

--
Jan Alter
bearpuf@verizon.net
or
jalter@phila.k12.pa.us
"Magnusfarce" <magnusfarce@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:MJCdneauNKp-2DfcRVn-2A@adelphia.com...
> I've built a fair number of Intel systems, but hardly any AMD. You make
> it
> sound like AMD systems are harder to put together. Is that so and in what
> ways are they trickier?
>
> - Magnusfarce
>
>
> "Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
> news:y1pqd.849$Xv.640@fe37.usenetserver.com...
>> void@no.spam.com wrote:
>>
>> > Haven't really looked at CPUs in a few years, and now I notice that AMD
>> > CPUs
>> > are measured by some number in addition to GHz. For example, I see:
>> >
>> > AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (2.08GHz)
>> > AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (2.17GHz)
>> > AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.20GHz)
>> >
>> > What do the 2800, 3000, and 3200 mean? I notice that Intel CPUs do not
>> > use
>> > these numbers. Thanks.
>>
>> Well, officially, it's the speed the original Athlon would have to
>> operate
>> at to achieve the same performance. Unofficially, it's to compare against
>> Pentium 4 speeds, since AMD is not on the MHz is everything trip.
>>
>> Basically, (though they'll never own up to it) it's to infer that a 3200+
>> runs equivelent to a 3.2 GHz P4 or better, hence the "+". Though that
>> once
>> held true, it really hasn't held up after speed increases over time, as a
>> 3200+ is about as fast as a 2.8 or 3.0 GHz P4, depending on the
>> benchmark.
>> However, it's a wonderful bargain compared to the pricey P4.
>>
>> My first system I built was a P4, and I recommended to all of my friends
>> that have never built a system before to start with an Intel system.
>> However, recently I built this very XP system I'm writing from, and I'll
>> never build anything but AMD in the future...
>>
>
>

 

[overlord]

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

Yeah but lately Intel has been getting into it's own squirrely model numbers
game.


On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:59:26 -0500, void@no.spam.com wrote:

>Haven't really looked at CPUs in a few years, and now I notice that AMD CPUs
>are measured by some number in addition to GHz. For example, I see:
>
> AMD Athlon XP 2800+ (2.08GHz)
> AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (2.17GHz)
> AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.20GHz)
>
>What do the 2800, 3000, and 3200 mean? I notice that Intel CPUs do not use
>these numbers. Thanks.
~~~~~~
Bait for spammers:
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
admin@localhost
abuse@localhost
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
uce@ftc.gov
~~~~~~
Remove "spamless" to email me.

 

[papa]

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

There is no difference at all in the assembly procedures, nor is one more
difficult to assemble than the other. Both Intel and AMD require a small dab
of heat transfer paste between the CPU and the heat sink/fan combo (read the
instructions that come with the CPU), and both are connected to the
motherboard in the same manner. Of course, for either Intel or AMD, you MUST
select a compatible motherboard.