Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX 57 ripoff?????

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 12, 2006 9:57:02 PM

ok i'll get straight to the point..

an FX55 is 2.6ghz with 200mhz fsb and 13x multiplier UNLOCKED

so...

if u go buy and fX57 ur getting 2.8ghz with 200mhz fsb and 14 multiplier UNLOCKED

so..

UR BUYING AN OVER CLOCKED FX-55 for 200 more friken buks...!!!!!!!!

WHY ARE ENTHUSIASTS SO STUPIDE????

More about : ripoff

January 12, 2006 10:35:48 PM

In a way, yes you are right. But if you think about it, what's the difference between a Pentium D 840 and 830? 200mhz clock speed. And yet there's a $200 difference in price! HOWEVER, there is a process in testing cores and a reason enthusiasts go for the highest clocked cores.

Not all cores are created equally (this is the reason for so many different clock speeds). For example, one tested core might be rated/test to run at 2.8Ghz while another is weaker and cannot perform at 2.8Ghz so they clock it at 2.6Ghz and it runs fine.

So generally speaking, if you get a FX 57 2.8Ghz, you're going to be able to overclock it higher than say a FX-55 2.6Ghz. Also, there's no guarantee that you'll get the 2.6Ghz up to 2.8Ghz because again, it's a weaker core.

Make sense?

-mpjesse
January 12, 2006 11:04:01 PM

thx for the input!

so an fx57 is just vanilla +200mhz with a warrantee

:p  o ya one more thing..y are the scores on future mark's site so bullshit..theres guys with 6600gt with 8000 in 3dmark 05.. impossible..

Athlon 64 3000+ @ 2.6ghz 1.52v (939 E3 venice)
asus a8n - e mobo
1gb kingston value ram 3-3-3-8 2t
msi nvidia 6600gt
Related resources
January 12, 2006 11:07:40 PM

lol so has amd passed the 3ghz mark yet,
or are they still making 2 ghz cpus?
January 12, 2006 11:09:28 PM

still i nthe 2 ghz range..whocares they own intel anyday
January 12, 2006 11:11:57 PM

i just think its funny when people want to "upgrade" their 3.0 ghz intel for a dual amd core... that runs at 2.6 ghz. Esepecially that the dual core doesn't really help that much in games that are gpu limited.
January 12, 2006 11:15:14 PM

Quote:
i just think its funny when people want to trade in their 3.0 ghz intel for a dual amd core... that runs at 2.6 ghz.


"flame bait"

WHAT??? are u a fricken??? NOOB???
some master u are..hmm..2.6 dual core.. thats teh fx60!!!!!
i'd trash that piece of crap intel 3.0ghz for an fx60 any day!
January 12, 2006 11:20:14 PM

amd fan boys :roll:
want to show off their e-penis and yet still cant reach 3.0 ghz. :tongue: :mrgreen:
January 12, 2006 11:48:12 PM

The results speak louder than spec sheets, dude. GHz != speed, remember more is involved. What if there were a SATA II 4200RPM hard drive? Or a 15000RPM UltraATA33 drive? Intel's gotta bigger GHz rating that in reality is limited by their suckey chipset/Northbridge designs. Whatever--rant all you want about it, I'll just ignore you.
January 13, 2006 12:04:58 AM

ghz is not a measurement of length!
and even if your intel is higher clocked .. it doesnt even coem close to my 2.6 ghz athlon..performance wise..(in bed as well)

notice that im useing value ram in my OC not oc ram and my cpu is single core u douche

themaster is a n00b!
January 13, 2006 12:19:40 AM

since when is 3200 or DDR 400 overclock ram?!?
i was just lucky that corsair has a bit of overhead.

ok so my cpu is slower than yours... but only theoretically. (3 > 2.6)
Your video card would still bottleneck my 4 year old pc!
wtf would you get a 6600 for such an uber machine?

Get a better video card. n00b.
January 13, 2006 12:22:48 AM

ok im going to ignore u like bourgousdude
btw i believe 6600gt is better than the 9800pro by a bit
January 13, 2006 12:38:54 AM

ok ur one noob...click next on the link u gave me..

1st. the game on the link ive never even heard of..
2nd. the only other bench your 9800p wins in is a D3D
3rd. 9800p gets stomped in everyother bench

also dont look at the low settings bench cuz they are bull
January 13, 2006 1:14:18 AM

Hmmm...interesting. My AMD Athlon X2 4800+ clocked at 2.62GHz with 2GB of RAM and dual evga 7800 GTs outperforms your PC on any game or benchmark.
January 13, 2006 1:33:55 AM

Please keep the forum posts to topics at hand guys. I come here to learn, not to see some idiot, and look ever more like one.

Let’s all just laugh at the people that still buy Intel chips because they are faster only in MHZ, ONLY. Us people who know how to read really know the truth. No need for flame wars.

Besides, my Dual Voodoo2 owns you all, with my Celeron 3billion gigacrap Intel chip. I run F.E.A.R. on Ultra High setting on my Windows 95 with no lag at all on my 33.6k modem.

Come on guys, lol.
January 13, 2006 1:34:14 AM

Quote:
Hmmm...interesting. My AMD Athlon X2 4800+ clocked at 2.62GHz with 2GB of RAM and dual evga 7800 GTs outperforms your PC on any game or benchmark.


no really? our speecs are miles apart
January 13, 2006 1:35:23 AM

Quote:
Please keep the forum posts to topics at hand guys. I come here to learn, not to see some idiot, look ever more like one.

Lets all just laugh at the people that still buy Intel chips because they are faster only in MHZ, ONLY. Us people who know how to read really know the truth. No need for flame wars.

Besides, my Dual Voodoo2 owns you all, with my Celeron 3billion gigacrap Intel chip. I run F.E.A.R. on Ultra High setting with no lag on my 33.6k modem.

Come on guys, lol.

Yeah, you're right. But I find it funny people arguing about it, when both PCs are really not that good.
January 13, 2006 1:35:47 AM

Quote:
lol so has amd passed the 3ghz mark yet,
or are they still making 2 ghz cpus?


Hurray!!!! That's what this forum was lacking for a while.. A troll!!!

Welcome!

We have a new troll!! Celebrate!!!
January 13, 2006 1:48:43 AM

Quote:
Yeah, you're right. But I find it funny people arguing about it, when both PCs are really not that good.


True, but my computer is a AMD 3200barton, 9700pro, NF7-2.0, 1gig dual. 2, 20gig 10k rpm raid drives. 80gig 7200 W.D. It's well over a year old build now. I run all game fine on med to high settings. I play all games and I'm alway in the top 10 in each round or map. I am going to be going to 64 bit once more programs catch up. Or more games go 64bit.

I just built my bro his first computer, 64bit x800xt, which i was very impressed, but not for the price to get that quality yet!

I've tried that x800xt AGP in my system, sure I got a kick ass bench on GL-excess, 19000's, but it's not worth the $250 for that kind of visual upgrade. So really, it's all about braggin rights.
January 13, 2006 2:00:58 AM

Quote:

Yeah, you're right. But I find it funny people arguing about it, when both PCs are really not that good.


at least im making the most outa wat i got
January 13, 2006 2:12:07 AM

you guys argue about the difference between amd/intel like you could even tell the difference. $50 says a blind test of two computers running each similarly equiped processor and NO ONE could tell the difference or know which was which.

You guys are too hyper about this stuff. Both processors kick ass and are leaps beyond what things were a year or two ago. I believe each processor has slight strengths over each other so it depends a little on what you are doing. Let's all just kiss and make up.

Personally I had bad experiences with AMD chips and thought they seemed unstable so I switched a few years ago to intel and have been happy as a plum. Probably will never go back. Right or wrong, we make decisions based on past experience. Someone here probably had just the opposite experience.
January 13, 2006 2:19:39 AM

Quote:
since when is 3200 or DDR 400 overclock ram?!?


When it's CAS 2. I've gotten my CAS 2 DDR400 over 230Mhz/460Mhz easily.

-mpjesse
January 13, 2006 2:25:03 AM

True, but my computer is a AMD 3200barton, 9700pro

^
|
|

So you run F.E.A.R. on 800 X 600 ?
That must look worse than wolfenstein 3d... :mrgreen:

that is definately worth an upgrade.

and yes i agree, most of you couldnt tell the difference
between an overpriced 7800gtx running FEAR at MAX on an amd or intel.
January 13, 2006 2:31:07 AM

my fsb is 800 mhz, stock. i have an intel not an amd.
it runs in dual channel mode, unlike the measely 400mhz bus on an amd.

if i wanted oc ram i'd get something higher rated than ddr400.. obviously.

400x2 = 800

I dont look at manufacturer spec sheets to buy memory.
January 13, 2006 2:43:01 AM

I'm with you on this one. Bothe are San Diego cores, and Amd's binning has never been that exact. I'm sure that it depends more on the individual, and luck, as to which will OC higher.
January 13, 2006 3:47:18 AM

Amd through out the years have feigned being the victim, thereby securing a mass of brain dead protective mongrels.

Amd puppies like to wag their tails when ever they see green...

Amd is clearly ripping off their fan base.
January 13, 2006 4:00:22 AM

Quote:
Amd is clearly ripping off their fan base

As compared to say Intel, who charges more for lower performance?

I'm glad you are back also. I was afraid you might have been banned.
January 13, 2006 4:12:20 AM

Quote:
my fsb is 800 mhz, stock. i have an intel not an amd.
it runs in dual channel mode, unlike the measely 400mhz bus on an amd.

if i wanted oc ram i'd get something higher rated than ddr400.. obviously.

400x2 = 800

I dont look at manufacturer spec sheets to buy memory.

That's why all the computer gaming magazines use AMD cpu's and the benchmarks are way faster with everything the same except cpu. I guess you just can't stand it can you?
January 13, 2006 4:32:10 AM

I have a 3.0 Northwood C. Learn the difference.
before you call me a prescott mongerer.

I agree. Prescott = Steaming Pile of Crap.
January 13, 2006 4:56:13 AM

You should check out Amdmeltdowns posts. When it comes to trolling he truly is your master.
January 13, 2006 4:58:33 AM

Quote:
True, but my computer is a AMD 3200barton, 9700pro

^
|
|

So you run F.E.A.R. on 800 X 600 ?
That must look worse than wolfenstein 3d... :mrgreen:

that is definately worth an upgrade.

and yes i agree, most of you couldnt tell the difference
between an overpriced 7800gtx running FEAR at MAX on an amd or intel.


F.E.A.R. runs fine at 1024x768, on my 9700pro, newb, it's the same as a 9800pro.

Learn to read before you make a stupid remark about ones system!

Here, i'll give you a link, my 9700pro is the oldest card out there to be able to still play the newest games. Even at high level, LMFAO, your name should be changed to the noob!! http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/07/05/vga_charts_vii/
January 13, 2006 5:47:00 AM

Quote:


F.E.A.R. runs fine at 1024x768, on my 9700pro, newb, it's the same as a 9800pro.

Learn to read before you make a stupid remark about ones system!

Here, i'll give you a link, my 9700pro is the oldest card out there to be able to still play the newest games. Even at high level, LMFAO, your name should be changed to the noob!! http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/07/05/vga_charts_vii/



Dear mr. n00b.
You consider "playable" to be 20 fps at 1024. please stfu mr. n00b.

And next time include benchmarks with FEAR in it... as there obviously are no links to FEAR there.

ohh and whats this radeon9700 does 19 fps w/ no AA or AF in riddick... pathetic mr. n00b.
whats that mr. noob? you say thats playable?



Sincerely,

The Master
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2006 6:13:05 AM

well b4 you go further note this quote from THG

Quote:

You might be asking, "What is the cause for this disparity among gamers?" In November, we published an article testing all consumer processors from the Intel Pentium 4 (Northwood) 2.0 GHz and AMD Athlon (Thunderbird) 1.4 GHz single core processors all the way up to the Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 840 (Smithfield) 3.2 GHz and AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4 GHz dual core processors. Of the 28 tests, only 8 of those were won by an Intel processor, and of those 8 victories, 7 were in synthetic benchmarks leaving only one real world application victory. Combine this with a price point that is attractive to performance-hungry but budget-limited gamers, and AMD becomes clearly the way to go. Even with the debut of Intel's 65 nm process and the Pentium D 900 series added to the lineup, there wasn't a major improvement in the situation.


this is from the latest gaming machine review from THG....

and i think that this should be brough to you attension



and since i'm not good with the graphic card thing i can't really help there except to say that maybe a newer driver with less "optimized"crap would run faster? or else an older one that don't have newer "optimization"
January 13, 2006 11:21:40 AM

when you say the people "upgrade" to 2.6ghz amd, it's like km/h vs mph, where miles per hour is amd, 1 mile per hour is more then 1 kilometer per hour.

1 amd ghz is equivalent to more than 1 intel ghz... or so i think... even though ghz is the same unit, amd get's more done then intel

Ara
January 13, 2006 11:45:51 AM

Quote:
my fsb is 800 mhz, stock. i have an intel not an amd.
it runs in dual channel mode, unlike the measely 400mhz bus on an amd.

if i wanted oc ram i'd get something higher rated than ddr400.. obviously.

400x2 = 800

I dont look at manufacturer spec sheets to buy memory.


Your P4 run a quad pumped bus, so it id rather 4x200MHz=800 .. and it is even not MHz, this is data transfer. Dual channel doesn't add speed, but bandwidth.

Bandwith is a must with Intel CPU. Their innefficient netburst architecture need high speed and high bandwidth to maintain an acceptable level of performance. Hyper threading use wasted pipeline level to execute another thread.

Now, if you take a look at the Intel Pentium M, this CPU is clocked at a much lower speed, but, out perform your beloved Northwood. Because it uses a different internal way of doing thing that don't rely only in MHz. The processor do more for each clock cycle so it needs less. Just like the other company that produce CPU, that I won't name becuse this instructive post will the be called fanboyism.

But, the problem with troll like you, opposed to fanboy, is that they don't have a clue about the thing they are trolling for. At least, fanboy knows their stuff.

Troll post then become innacurate and would likely mislead new one that come here to look for information. That's why unlike fanboy, trolls are not really welcome here. There is enough misleading information running on these forum by ignorance, we surely don't need more cause by purpose.

I suggest to get mature or go out and get a life.
January 13, 2006 12:00:32 PM

Hmmm..."FX 57 ripoff?????" has gotten a little off subject I think... :x
January 13, 2006 12:30:53 PM

Yea.
Proce$$ors $eem to be a $ore $ubject becau$e .......
(I'll let the next one go here)
January 13, 2006 3:30:46 PM

Quote:
my fsb is 800 mhz, stock. i have an intel not an amd.
it runs in dual channel mode, unlike the measely 400mhz bus on an amd.

if i wanted oc ram i'd get something higher rated than ddr400.. obviously.

400x2 = 800


Wow. I dunno where to even begin with these statements.

Let's start with your 400x2 = 800 statement. The Pentium 4 architecture (northwood in this case) achieves actually runs on a 200mhz FSB x4. (4 pipelines at 200mhz each). The theoretical bandwidth of such a system is 1x800mhz. But make no mistake, the FSB only runs at 200mhz. The same is true w/ the Athlon 64's. They speak to the RAM at 200mhz (400mhz DDR) with dual channel.

Now the AMD Athlon 64 runs on a 2Ghz bus. It speaks to the Northbridge at 2Ghz (DDR) while the Intel Pentium 4 speaks to it's northbridge at 800mhz.

So how exactly is AMD's FSB "measly"? The Pentium 4 and Athlon speak to the RAM at the exact same speed (200mhz) and the Athlon64 actually has a faster system bus compared to the Pentium 4.

-mpjesse
January 13, 2006 4:32:05 PM

@ Jesse My 2x1GB sticks run 280mhz @ 3-3-3-7. Love my PDP.


@ Master. Your FSB IS 200, just quad pumped = 800mhz, dont be fooled.

Athlon64's are FSB integrated. But the HT is 200x5 =1000mhz effective.

Clock speeds mean about nothing in today's work. Its about instructions per CPU cycle. Also, the A64 doesnt "speak" to the NB about memory instruction, hense the integrated memory contoller.

Pentium 4's are bandwith starved, which is the result of how Intel lengthed the pipes to drive up clock speed. Another reason why their so inefficient is the lack of cache in the L1. Ranging from 8-16kb....thats a joke. So in order to compensate, need alot of L2.

As for the question in the topic "FX 57 ripoff" --Hell yes.
As much as I love AMD, I can buy a 4000+ for half the cost and produce the same frame rates.

P.S. I've seen BF2, WoW, FEAR etc benchies @ higher resolutions on AMD and Intel systems. Sometimes the difference can be as much as 25FPS, in AMD's favor. Then Intel claims a 5% preformance gap(25FPS lower when compared to 60FPS isnt 5%...I see a broken keyboard)

( I kinda blame compiling, but thats for another day)


@ PAT *claps* Very nice, good to see somebody with the same track of thinking.
January 13, 2006 5:06:47 PM

Quote:
Also, the A64 doesnt "speak" to the NB about memory instruction, hense the integrated memory contoller.


I never said it did. Re-read my post carefully.

-mpjesse
January 13, 2006 5:38:23 PM

8000+ on 3dmark05 with 6600's...

its a sli setup oc'd...
January 13, 2006 5:47:56 PM

or when it's like mine...tccd labeled as 3200, good and tested to fsb 330...
January 13, 2006 6:16:49 PM

Seems there's quite a few mis-informed people here, let me lighten things up (that sounds arrogant, but bear with me please).

mpjesse - not to insult you, but when you said "4 Pipeline 200MHz FSB", that's no where near right. What it is is Intel's Front Side Bus sends 200MHz 4 times per clock cycle (also referred to as Quad Pumped) because it uses 4 sides of the Square Wave (I don't know alot about the Square Wave, but I know how it's used). AMD on the other hand, sends 200MHz 5 times per clock cycle, it would appear that either the Square Wave has to have 5 sides or more, or something else is happening (I don't know what).

For the "2GHz AMD FSB", what it really is is 1GHz Full Duplex or Dual Channel. It sends 200MHz x5 both ways (Sending and Receiving from the CPU to NorthBridge) at the same time, thus producing a 2GHz effective system speed. Whereas Intel has 200MHz x4 1 time and cannot send/receive at the same time. Also HyperTransport (AMD's FSB) uses 64-Bit Packets (Nothing to do with 32/64-bit computing) and Intel's FSB uses 3 parts of Command/Data/Address whereas HyperTransport combines those into it's 64-bit packets. (Also makes HyperTransport take longer to send the packet which would explain why 1GHz AMD FSB !> 800MHz FSB on Intel)

For Caches, Intel needs to be bumping up that L1 Cache, that is the most important cache in a CPU (basically it determines what the CPU is to process and the order in which to process it in). But Intel hasn't realized that more L2 Cache is a no-no. More L2 Cache, theoretically, means faster CPU, but when you're already as inefficient as Intel and you have a pipeline of 31 (the fastest Presscott) whereas AMD has pipeline of 10 (fastest FX, and most Athlon 64's if not all), you have no chance.

And to clarify it, GHz is nothing. I myself, yes, use AMD, but because I spent years researching and learning physically how both architectures work, and come to the conclusion that AMD is more efficient and faster. Intel relies on MHz to sell, since their marketers for one, demanded they do it, and because AMD was creeping on them.

One thing I have come to find, is that the Onboard Memory Controller also has it's cons. Such as for Bus Mastering. Bus Mastering (For those who do not know) is loading data directly from Hard Drive into RAM w/o CPU intervention, it appears though that for an AMD CPU, the CPU must reserve a few clock cycles and would almost eliminate Bus Mastering all together (I may be wrong, if I am, please inform me). So Intel would have an edge on AMD in loading times, but with HyperTransport, that would almost nullify that I believe.

For those interested in the latest AMD news, AMD does have HyperTransport 2.0 which raises clock speeds to 1.4GHz x2 (2.8GHz Effective System Bus) which I hope will be implimented into M2's or Socket 1207 Opterons, that would be really nice.

For the RAM discussion, both companies (AMD/Intel) kept their system clock at 200MHz for 1:1 ratio with RAM (Intel eliminated that with DDR2, stupid move in my book). And the RAM is simply Dual Channel (Grabs from 2 sticks at 200MHz simultaeously) and both companies have Dual Channel CPU's (Though Intel is trying Quad Channel with Xeon's, going to be a disaster). That is also, I believe, the reason for the wait on M2. AMD will have 1:1 Ratio with FSB to RAM at 333MHz with DDR 2 667, whereas Intel DDR 2 platforms have 200MHz FSB to 333MHz (w/ DDR 2 667) and produces something like 16:5 RAM/FSB Ratio.

As to the topic, I believe the higher-end CPU's from AMD/Intel are higher priced because they only want enthusiasts (rich people) to be purchasing them (also because they're greedy). The reason AMD released the Opteron 254 (2.8GHz) was because they said their clients (companies) wanted faster Opteron's for their servers. I myself chose an AMD Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego and am very happy with it, overclocking to 2.8GHz stable with 250MHz FSB x4 is just fine for what I need. Hope this helped, and I didn't mean to offend anyone or sound arrogant (though nearly impossible to avoid). Some information here may be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, it should be correct.

Peace.
January 13, 2006 7:29:01 PM

Quote:
mpjesse - not to insult you, but when you said "4 Pipeline 200MHz FSB", that's no where near right. What it is is Intel's Front Side Bus sends 200MHz 4 times per clock cycle (also referred to as Quad Pumped) because it uses 4 sides of the Square Wave (I don't know alot about the Square Wave, but I know how it's used). AMD on the other hand, sends 200MHz 5 times per clock cycle, it would appear that either the Square Wave has to have 5 sides or more, or something else is happening (I don't know what).


Yes, the Pentium 4 bus is Quad Data Rate. Excuse my lack of exact technical terms, but I think everyone knows what I meant. Here's a block diagram of the Pentium 4:

http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/2004/volume08issue0...

I do remember saying the P4's FSB was 200Mhz x4.

Quote:
For the "2GHz AMD FSB", what it really is is 1GHz Full Duplex or Dual Channel. It sends 200MHz x5 both ways (Sending and Receiving from the CPU to NorthBridge) at the same time, thus producing a 2GHz effective system speed. Whereas Intel has 200MHz x4 1 time and cannot send/receive at the same time. Also HyperTransport (AMD's FSB) uses 64-Bit Packets (Nothing to do with 32/64-bit computing) and Intel's FSB uses 3 parts of Command/Data/Address whereas HyperTransport combines those into it's 64-bit packets. (Also makes HyperTransport take longer to send the packet which would explain why 1GHz AMD FSB !> 800MHz FSB on Intel)


Again, thanks for further breaking that down for us. I really didn't want to get in a long drawn out post on exactly how the bus systems of AMD and Intel work. I was going for effect.

The point is that an Athlon 64's bus architecture is far superior (and faster) to that of a Pentium 4.

Seriously though, thanks for the lesson in bus architectures. :-)

-mpjesse
January 13, 2006 7:42:00 PM

Wow, finally someone who knows what they're talking about.
You've convinced me Master ColdBreeze.
January 13, 2006 8:06:24 PM

Quote:
Seems there's quite a few mis-informed people here, let me lighten things up (that sounds arrogant, but bear with me please).

mpjesse - not to insult you, but when you said "4 Pipeline 200MHz FSB", that's no where near right. What it is is Intel's Front Side Bus sends 200MHz 4 times per clock cycle (also referred to as Quad Pumped) because it uses 4 sides of the Square Wave (I don't know alot about the Square Wave, but I know how it's used). AMD on the other hand, sends 200MHz 5 times per clock cycle, it would appear that either the Square Wave has to have 5 sides or more, or something else is happening (I don't know what).



What.. While you're right about the Intel, The AMD dont use 200x 5 for the FSB.. The memory bus run at 200x2. 200 MHz is the base clock for the system. The memory run at 200, but data are sent at raising edge and at falling edge of the wave, so two time the the amount of data for one clock cycle. On the intel, the data is sent at the"low to going high" edge, from the "going high to high", from the "high to going low" and from the going low to low" edge.

There is no such crap as 5 side wave.. 5 is only a multiplier for the hypertransport bus that take the base clock of 200 and multiply it by 5 (actualy, you divide the signal in 5 in order to raise the frequency, but I think you far from figure that out..). That's why when you overclock, you raise the base clock 200 MHz, and then the memory run faster and the HT bus too. So, in order to keep everything at specs, you use divider and/or lower multiplier to adjust the component clock.

Quote:


For the "2GHz AMD FSB", what it really is is 1GHz Full Duplex or Dual Channel. It sends 200MHz x5 both ways (Sending and Receiving from the CPU to NorthBridge) at the same time, thus producing a 2GHz effective system speed. Whereas Intel has 200MHz x4 1 time and cannot send/receive at the same time. Also HyperTransport (AMD's FSB) uses 64-Bit Packets (Nothing to do with 32/64-bit computing) and Intel's FSB uses 3 parts of Command/Data/Address whereas HyperTransport combines those into it's 64-bit packets. (Also makes HyperTransport take longer to send the packet which would explain why 1GHz AMD FSB !> 800MHz FSB on Intel)


Damn.. what a non sense again... First, there is no FSB on amd. it is either the memory bus or tha HT link.

Quote:
And to clarify it, GHz is nothing. I myself, yes, use AMD, but because I spent years researching and learning physically how both architectures work, and come to the conclusion that AMD is more efficient and faster. Intel relies on MHz to sell, since their marketers for one, demanded they do it, and because AMD was creeping on them.


Seriously, you should have spent more time...

Anyway, you have the "whole idea" about how thing works, but has no clue about buses timing..

Don't want to seem arrogant, but when I was talking about false information, post like yours is a good exemple.
January 13, 2006 8:20:26 PM

Wow, Pat, I am speechless. Everything you said was about as wrong as it can be (besides the thing about AMD FSB not being one). I said FSB instead of HT Link because people understand that better, and yes, it does run at 200MHz x5, and yes, it uses a diff. bus for Memory. The memory runs at 200MHzx2 because it's Double Data Rate, you're right, meaning it runs on Falling and Rising signals. One thing I must fix, is I said it uses 64-bit packets, that is incorrect, it uses 32-bit packets but HyperTransport 1.05 has an option allowing an additional 32-bit control packet to be prepended when 64-bit addressing is required.

For the "crap as 5 sided wave" I said I wasn't right about that, so don't put words into my mouth. The "Memory Bus" as you refer to, is the Memory Controller that resides next to the HT Link (physically on the chip). And it does operate at 200MHz in DDR 400MHz Dual Channel mode, whereas the "Memory Bus" on an Intel platform resides inside the Northbridge.

I think because you've had 3000+ posts that you must be special, sorry, you're not. And no, I do no want a flame war because I usually avoid forums because of such things, do not respond to this to simply rag or flame on me, as it is not necessary. And if you caught at the end, I said "Some information may be wrong, but to my knowledge, it's right". Means "Hey, don't quote me buddy". So don't.
January 13, 2006 8:30:03 PM

Thank you for elaborating a bit. As I didnt have the time to do so (In the middle of an Economics class)

Just to add to the downside of an integrated memory controller.
A64's in my experience have some issues with RAM and the controller.
Examples, if your running a 3200+, and you are using all the DIMM slots, the memory contoller defaults the RAM to a 2tcommand line. Dont ask why, but it does (I know becuase my 3200 does it lol)

Then, not running dual channel can really hurt.
Most of us who own A64's came up from AXP, I had a 2500M (RIP)
Where dual channel, not even required, made a maximum 5-6% preformance increase. Where on 939, anywhere from 6-15% preformance increase. So not having matched sticks can really hurt.
Also, I said 4 DIMMs puts you @ 2t....having 3Dimms can mean occasional cold boots. I realize this is 99.9% of the time a mobo/PSU issue, but I've switched out so many boards and supplies, I've ruled that one out.

@jesse

didnt quite fully comprehend...my apologies.
January 13, 2006 8:30:49 PM

Thank you for elaborating a bit. As I didnt have the time to do so (In the middle of an Economics class)

Just to add to the downside of an integrated memory controller.
A64's in my experience have some issues with RAM and the controller.
Examples, if your running a 3200+, and you are using all the DIMM slots, the memory contoller defaults the RAM to a 2tcommand line. Dont ask why, but it does (I know becuase my 3200 does it lol)

Then, not running dual channel can really hurt.
Most of us who own A64's came up from AXP, I had a 2500M (RIP)
Where dual channel, not even required, made a maximum 5-6% preformance increase. Where on 939, anywhere from 6-15% preformance increase. So not having matched sticks can really hurt.
Also, I said 4 DIMMs puts you @ 2t....having 3Dimms can mean occasional cold boots. I realize this is 99.9% of the time a mobo/PSU issue, but I've switched out so many boards and supplies, I've ruled that one out. You'd have to troll online to find the many things people have come up with on the issue of RAM and A64's 939's.

@jesse

didnt quite fully comprehend...my apologies.
!