Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why is the athlon 3200+ cpu clock speed 2000mhz??? plz help

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 1, 2006 3:21:58 PM

I just ordered my athlon 64 3200+ CPU. was so happy to get it home and pop it in... then when i booted my pc in the bios and in dxdiag it says that the clock speed is 2.0ghz is there any thing i can do or is that what i have to deal with=(~!!!


Also when i mounted the heat sink and fan the silver bar that holds the heatsink and fan on went on so tight when i snapped it in it wouldnt allow me to snap the black bar over to secure it down but it is so tight that i cant even get it off that sucks but i hope its ok plz awnser my 1st question first..

Thx for all the input and help
Sincerely,
Daniel
June 1, 2006 3:43:49 PM

2G is the proper speed of that processor, I think.

If you can't get the HS clips on right then your probably have done something wrong.
June 1, 2006 3:54:36 PM

Pain is correct - 2.0ghz is the actual clock speed for the A64 3200+. The 3200+ is a Power Rating AMD started using 5-ish years ago - its about as fast as a 3200mhz (3.2ghz) P4 (not the actual comparison but close enough for us).

Those clips are reported to be pretty hard to get on. Don't have one, so I can't help there.

Mike.
Related resources
June 1, 2006 4:22:11 PM

A long time ago, AMD rated its processors at an equivalent speed as Intel processors. It seemed very confusing to most people, and finally AMD stopped. Then they started doing it again. Their idea is that even though their CPU runs fewer clock cycles, they perform as much work. That would be both a simple explanation and a confusing one, depending on how you look at it. So you 3200+ only runs at 2 ghz, but is rated as the same speed as an Intel 3.2 ghz. To makes things worse is that a few AMD CPU's actually ran slower clock cycles than other AMD CPU's even though their numbers were higher or the same. Thus a 3200+ might run at 2000 cycles, while a 3000+ ran at 2200 cycles. To make things worse, when it came to testing on games and such, a 2700+ like that in my old Alienware might perform better than a 2800+, 3000+, and even some 3200+'s. AMD has finally gotten some order back to their processors, but not much. Personally, I wish they would start labeling them in a more logical fashion, but they have seen no need.

The heat sink problem is terrible, but there are some heatsinks that go on very easily. The heatsink on my 4400+ uses a lever to tighten, similar to the lever that holds the CPU in, so it is very easy to put on. Some heatsinks I've seen have a specific "U" shaped notch where a screwdriver is to be inserted for pressing the snaps down. Most are just hard to use.

Anyway, hope that I explained the CPU rating/clock cycle thig well enough to understand. It doesn't make sense to me why AMD does this, but at least their CPU's are good.
June 1, 2006 5:03:51 PM

When did AMD start doing this originally? AFAIK (and can remember) they started using a PR rating after the release of the P4 about 5 yrs ago, they're still using it and they've never stopped. Oh, wait! Do you mean those 486's? I didn't see those as a PR rating per se.

The PR Rating as currently used is not related to Intel (at least, you won't get AMD to admit that). My understanding is it was how fast an original Athlon (the 500-ish mhz thru 1.4ghz version) would have to be to get the same performance. However, for purposes of comparison, the Athlon XP ratings correspond to early P4's, Athlon 64 (single core) ratings correspond to recent P4's (aka Prescott) and Sempron ratings correspond to Celerons. So, an Athlon XP3200+, an Athlon 64 3200+ and a Sempron 3200+ are all different clock speeds. Even worse, an A64 3200+ on socket 754 is a different clock than an A64 3200+ socket 939 or AM2. Dual core I haven't figured out.

Mike.
a c 471 à CPUs
June 1, 2006 5:28:41 PM

Regardless of the history behind the PR rating, AMD was ahead of it's time. Their CPUs are more efficient than Intel's CPUs so a slower clocked Athlon 64 can compete very well against a higher clocked Pentium. For the longest time Intel was beating the drum for "Faster is better.", but AMD has proven them wrong.

Intel has learned from AMD though and are no longer quoting CPU speeds anymore. Thanks to the design of the orginal Pentium M, Intel had a performance sleeper on their hands. While it is clocked slower than the Pentium 4, the Pentium M has been benchmarked to be quite a good performer. As luck would have it, the Pentium M core became the basis for Intel's salvation since Conroe is very much unlike the Pentium 4.

Conroe is clocked lower than current Pentium 4s, which is the same situation for the Athlon 64s. But they can execute 4 instructions per cycle, unlike the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 where they can only do 3 instructions per cycle. For a very, very simplistic example, say for every 100MHz Conroe can execute 4 instructions, while the Athlon 64 can only do 3. A 1.8GHz Conroe can execute 7,200 instructions, and a 2.4GHz Athlon 64 also execute 7,200 instructions in the same time frame. Conroe may be clocked lower, but it can execute the same number of instructions as the Athlon 64. This means that a 1.8GHz Conroe is just as fast as a 2.4GHz Athlon 64.

Nowadays it the architecture that counts, not the Giga-Hertz of the CPU.
June 1, 2006 5:43:43 PM

At least the AMD practice of naming related to something...unlike what Intel recently did. Maybe intel did it to complicate the AMD naming convention. :wink:
June 1, 2006 5:51:18 PM

Lol. Posts like this gotta make ya laugh.
Anyways I believe the speed rating originally came from Cyrix. I remember selling Cyrix processors, they were cheap (fairly reliable) and offered about 2/3 the processing power of the Intel and AMD processors of the day. They rated their whimpy cpu's with a speed rating, which wasnt even near as close as the rating a AMD uses.
June 1, 2006 7:00:54 PM

Quote:
I just ordered my athlon 64 3200+ CPU. was so happy to get it home and pop it in... then when i booted my pc in the bios and in dxdiag it says that the clock speed is 2.0ghz is there any thing i can do or is that what i have to deal with=(~!!!


Also when i mounted the heat sink and fan the silver bar that holds the heatsink and fan on went on so tight when i snapped it in it wouldnt allow me to snap the black bar over to secure it down but it is so tight that i cant even get it off that sucks but i hope its ok plz awnser my 1st question first..

Thx for all the input and help
Sincerely,
Daniel

Go to AMD site and FAQ yourself!!!!
June 1, 2006 8:16:08 PM

Quote:
When did AMD start doing this originally? AFAIK (and can remember) they started using a PR rating after the release of the P4 about 5 yrs ago, they're still using it and they've never stopped. Oh, wait! Do you mean those 486's? I didn't see those as a PR rating per se.

Yes, I was referring back to the days of the 486-586 and early 686 CPU's. I know that's ancient hestory, but that's when I first noticed it. Cyrix and a few other companies did similar things. Don't know which was first.

The PR Rating as currently used is not related to Intel (at least, you won't get AMD to admit that).
Quote:


You're right, AMD won't admit it, but I'm sure that's what is in their minds and what they want to be in the minds of their customers.

So, an Athlon XP3200+, an Athlon 64 3200+ and a Sempron 3200+ are all different clock speeds. Even worse, an A64 3200+ on socket 754 is a different clock than an A64 3200+ socket 939 or AM2. Dual core I haven't figured out.

Mike.

And this is what can drive people crazy. The poor guy that doesn't know much about computers can but a CPU that he thinks has a good clock, yet then finds out it doesn't. Then he's mad at AMD and he feels cheated. My opinion is that it would be better is there were more numbers in the system, so as to identify the chip's speeds better, say like a 3200, 3210, 3250, and so on to differentiate their clock speeds. Then the customer would have a better idea of what he was buying in relation to the other chips. But tha's my opinion and others might think I'm the one who's crazy, so I don't push it.

I'm well aware that clock speeds don't tell teh whole story by any means, and that's one reason why AMD avoids talking about them. It has more to do with how much work is done with each tick of the clock. Yet I think that some standard needs to be in place to better separate and identify the chips so people don't get confused and buy chips that don't do what is expected.
June 2, 2006 12:38:52 AM

Quote:
Pain is correct - 2.0ghz is the actual clock speed for the A64 3200+. The 3200+ is a Power Rating AMD started using 5-ish years ago - its about as fast as a 3200mhz (3.2ghz) P4 (not the actual comparison but close enough for us).


Wrong!!!! This CPU is slower than a 2.8Ghz P4........
June 2, 2006 1:17:40 AM

I hate those rating numbers they are not very informative (well maybe to some one who says "hmmm 3500 is bigger then 3000 so it must be better") I now have to wonder if AMD will stick with the same numbers when Intel is out performing them... I mean a 3500 being beat by a 2Ghz proc would be realy confusing lol
June 2, 2006 1:32:11 AM

Quote:
Pain is correct - 2.0ghz is the actual clock speed for the A64 3200+. The 3200+ is a Power Rating AMD started using 5-ish years ago - its about as fast as a 3200mhz (3.2ghz) P4 (not the actual comparison but close enough for us).


Wrong!!!! This CPU is slower than a 2.8Ghz P4........
I agree. I had both with similar setups. But who cares with some seconds?
I don´t give a sh*t, since there's always OSX to work.
I had pcs that were faster than my macs, but for what? Sometimes Windows fu*ked up my work...
June 2, 2006 1:43:01 AM

Quote:
Pain is correct - 2.0ghz is the actual clock speed for the A64 3200+. The 3200+ is a Power Rating AMD started using 5-ish years ago - its about as fast as a 3200mhz (3.2ghz) P4 (not the actual comparison but close enough for us).


Wrong!!!! This CPU is slower than a 2.8Ghz P4........
I agree. I had both with similar setups. But who cares with some seconds?
I don´t give a sh*t, since there's always OSX to work.
I had pcs that were faster than my macs, but for what? Sometimes Windows fu*ked up my work...

Why would we not care about what's faster when this whole forum is basically devoted to the fastest hardware available? Mac's will always be more stable in general and I'll tell you why. PC's get built with all sorts of crap inside and by all sorts of fools.

You could have a cheap and crappy case that doesn't give good cooling, a crap PC with flaky power, cheap crappy RAM, cheapest system board you can get..... and so on. This is because in 3 years time when your average person goes to get another PC they'll probably find that this company doesn't exist anymore and they'll just go somewhere else. Whereas with a Mac the whole computer is built from and tested and is made with a view to operating as flawlessly as possible for years and years. I reckon if you put Mac OSX on a cheap crappy generic mainboard with a cheap crappy PSU, cheap crappy RAM and finish it all off with a case with poor airflow that sucks lots of dust in you'll have similar stability to that which a poorly built PC with XP achieves.

So XP didn't screw up your work. It was probably a flaky PSU or dodgey memory.....
June 2, 2006 1:54:32 AM

you are (almost) right. Even if you pay $5000 for a pc there alre always some kind of hardware and software incompatibilities. I´ll keep my G5 and final cut pro :) 
June 2, 2006 2:32:23 AM

Quote:
Pain is correct - 2.0ghz is the actual clock speed for the A64 3200+. The 3200+ is a Power Rating AMD started using 5-ish years ago - its about as fast as a 3200mhz (3.2ghz) P4 (not the actual comparison but close enough for us).


Wrong!!!! This CPU is slower than a 2.8Ghz P4........
no way! the 3200+ is at least equal to a 3.2p4 and competitive with a 3.4p4 (in games mind you)
June 2, 2006 2:43:05 AM

Quote:
Pain is correct - 2.0ghz is the actual clock speed for the A64 3200+. The 3200+ is a Power Rating AMD started using 5-ish years ago - its about as fast as a 3200mhz (3.2ghz) P4 (not the actual comparison but close enough for us).


Wrong!!!! This CPU is slower than a 2.8Ghz P4........
no way! the 3200+ is at least equal to a 3.2p4 and competitive with a 3.4p4 (in games mind you)


http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/06/23/bidding_adieu/pa...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/05/13/high/page23.html

Straight from the Toms review......

"XP 2800+ would have been a more realistic label for the processor, which wouldn't have been a problem for anyone, if AMD still wants to go toe-to-toe with Intel's P4. But the 3200 label is much too aggressive - especially since Intel will be introducing an increased FSB clock for its lower-clocked P4 CPUs."

I think it's fairly safe to say that the AthlonXP 3200+ was roughly equal to a P4 2.8C except in price where it was much more expensive :) 
June 2, 2006 2:47:11 AM

the actual speed for athlon 64 3200++ is 2GHz. while athlon 64 3000++ is 1.8GHz. so there's nothing wrong with the speed rating of your processor.
June 2, 2006 2:53:49 AM

Quote:
Pain is correct - 2.0ghz is the actual clock speed for the A64 3200+. The 3200+ is a Power Rating AMD started using 5-ish years ago - its about as fast as a 3200mhz (3.2ghz) P4 (not the actual comparison but close enough for us).


Wrong!!!! This CPU is slower than a 2.8Ghz P4........
no way! the 3200+ is at least equal to a 3.2p4 and competitive with a 3.4p4 (in games mind you)


http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/06/23/bidding_adieu/pa...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/05/13/high/page23.html

Straight from the Toms review......

"XP 2800+ would have been a more realistic label for the processor, which wouldn't have been a problem for anyone, if AMD still wants to go toe-to-toe with Intel's P4. But the 3200 label is much too aggressive - especially since Intel will be introducing an increased FSB clock for its lower-clocked P4 CPUs."

I think it's fairly safe to say that the AthlonXP 3200+ was roughly equal to a P4 2.8C except in price where it was much more expensive :) 

Now I've just read my post and I wonder why I assumed it was an AthlonXP 3200+ that was being discussed. :?

WTF? Can tell myself to STFU? :roll:
June 2, 2006 4:05:16 AM

Pentium 4 = small high reving V6 = 3.2ghz
Athlon 64 = large low reving diesel = 2.0ghz = same amount of work as Pentium 4 @ 3.2ghz :lol: 
June 2, 2006 4:13:50 AM

Wish I was a smart as you, Jerk! You really schooled a 10 year-old. Is your next trick beating up an elderly person in a wheel chair?
June 2, 2006 4:48:54 AM

That's why you have to do some reasearch before you buy. I just got a 3200 and motherboard from one of the local's who also thought 2.0 Ghz wasn't fast enough for only 100 canadian. Put it up against his new 3.2 a
nd blew his new 2000 dollar system away boy is he ever pissed now.Big improvment over my old 1.7 willy
June 2, 2006 5:21:05 AM

Back when 500 mhz => 1 ghz Athlons went up against 500 mhz to 1 ghz P3s clock speed was +/- representative of actual relative performance. (A 800 mhz P3 was a tad faster than a 800 mhz Athlon, but it was pretty close)

The along came the P4.

Th first 1.5 ghz P4 were only marginally faster than a 1.0 ghz P3 or 1.0 ghz Athlon.

A 1.4 ghz AMD TBird would clober say a 1.8 ghz P4, and was a heck of a lot cheaper beacause AMD was using early DDR versus the massively overpriced RAMBUS that Intel was using at the time.

So AMD had a new naming plan where thay called a 1.4 ghz TBird a 1800+

The "official" position is that a 1800+ never was meant to imply it was the equal of say a 1.8 ghz P4, but "defacto" this is what AMD was really doing.

The accuracy of AMD's 2200+ = 2.2 ghz has varied wildly over time.

In the early days, if anything, AMD was lowballing and a 1800+ was actually a good bit faster than a 1.8 ghz Intel part.

In the Netburst heyday when the Northwood C's went to the 800 mhz FSB it reversed and a Athlon 2800+ got beat up pretty bad by a 2.8 gig 800 mhz FSB Northwood C.

Intel stalled in Prescott Land and despite going to first 1 meg, and then 2 megs of Cache, The actual real word advantage of say a 3.4 ghz P4 Prescott versus a 3.4 ghz Northwood is very small. (I still have a 3.4 ghz Northwood in one machine, and it's fully competative still today)

A fairly good rule of thumb comparing Intels to AMD's is to either multiply the actual AMD core speed by 1.5, (or divide the Intel core by 1.5) and the result is a pretty good aproximation of relative performance.

The diferences in cache, AMDs with 1 meg vs 512k or 1 meg versus 2 in Intels case make +/- one speed grade in difference or so.
June 2, 2006 4:00:18 PM

Quote:
Wish I was a smart as you, Jerk! You really schooled a 10 year-old. Is your next trick beating up an elderly person in a wheel chair?

and why´s that as*hole?
He´s able to buy a cpu but he's so dumb that only after he check the specs?
That FAQ thing was only a joke. If he doesn´t want to hear this kind of language, tell him to put his age in the sig, or tell his parents to keep him away from the net.
c´mon. Do me a favour and go f*** yourself mother teresa!
June 2, 2006 4:11:48 PM

thought it was a xp too.
you misleaded me :D 
June 2, 2006 4:41:13 PM

Quote:
Regardless of the history behind the PR rating, AMD was ahead of it's time. Their CPUs are more efficient than Intel's CPUs so a slower clocked Athlon 64 can compete very well against a higher clocked Pentium. For the longest time Intel was beating the drum for "Faster is better.", but AMD has proven them wrong.

Intel has learned from AMD though and are no longer quoting CPU speeds anymore. Thanks to the design of the orginal Pentium M, Intel had a performance sleeper on their hands. While it is clocked slower than the Pentium 4, the Pentium M has been benchmarked to be quite a good performer. As luck would have it, the Pentium M core became the basis for Intel's salvation since Conroe is very much unlike the Pentium 4.

Conroe is clocked lower than current Pentium 4s, which is the same situation for the Athlon 64s. But they can execute 4 instructions per cycle, unlike the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 where they can only do 3 instructions per cycle. For a very, very simplistic example, say for every 100MHz Conroe can execute 4 instructions, while the Athlon 64 can only do 3. A 1.8GHz Conroe can execute 7,200 instructions, and a 2.4GHz Athlon 64 also execute 7,200 instructions in the same time frame. Conroe may be clocked lower, but it can execute the same number of instructions as the Athlon 64. This means that a 1.8GHz Conroe is just as fast as a 2.4GHz Athlon 64.

Nowadays it the architecture that counts, not the Giga-Hertz of the CPU.


Then why not those cpu manufacturers increase the number of instruction/cycle to its highest level (say 50) and lower the frequency down to 10MHz for lower power consumption. I think they can do it, they just want to suck up all the juice from the consumers. What do you guys think? May be we should all joint venture and create our own cpu and never let our company goes public. Well its just my stupid thought.
June 3, 2006 3:59:37 AM

Quote:

tell him to put his age in the sig, or tell his parents to keep him away from the net.


There is a novel idea. Let’s have kids post their age on the internet, especially on public forums. Child predators could be twice as efficient.

Also "Daniel" can be a boy or a girl’s name.

Sorry for the hypocrisy, it seems I am also bullying a child. Should have known by your reading comprehension skills.
June 5, 2006 2:42:07 PM

Quote:
Now I've just read my post and I wonder why I assumed it was an AthlonXP 3200+ that was being discussed. :?

WTF? Can tell myself to STFU? :roll:

Good catch. Saved me the trouble. Especially since I was very clear in my specification of an Athlon 64.

Mike.
June 5, 2006 3:16:44 PM

Quote:
Now I've just read my post and I wonder why I assumed it was an AthlonXP 3200+ that was being discussed. :?

WTF? Can tell myself to STFU? :roll:

Good catch. Saved me the trouble. Especially since I was very clear in my specification of an Athlon 64.

Mike.

My apologies :) 
!