Please explain AMD's clock speed nomenclature?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Maybe you should start thinking about returning it....



dk


"Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" <larwe@larwe.com> wrote in message
news:608b6569.0410120806.24612843@posting.google.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I'm investigating a weird issue with this ECS Desknote from Wal-Mart.
> It is advertised as having an AMD Athlon XP 1800+, but all the tests
> I've found show it running at 1.2GHz. In fact, if you flash with the
> latest BIOS off their Taiwanese web site, it shows 1.20GHz. If you
> flash with the latest BIOS off their American web site, it shows
> "1600+" as the CPU speed. The PowerNow tables in BIOS max out at
> 1195MHz according to a recent Linux kernel.
>
> The CPU bay is covered by a warranty seal, so I can't get in and look
> at the physical chip or jumpers (if any). I'm beginning to think that
> ECS encountered heat problems and underclocked their machines. Either
> that or they plain and simple cheated me and gave me a slower CPU than
> what was advertised.
>
> ECS is not giving me answers and I've complained to Wal-Mart telling
> them to lean on their vendor. But I would like to know if I am
> analyzing the situation correctly. AFAICS, the real clock speeds of
> AMD chips are:
>
> "1800+" = 1533MHz.
> "1600+" = 1400MHz.
> "1500+" = 1300MHz.
> "1400+" = 1200MHz.
>
> So it looks like my machine actually has a 1400+ CPU, or is
> underclocked to resemble one. Any other possible explanations, or
> should I tear a new one in ECS and Wal-Mart?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Start tearing a new one, I run a Athlon XP1800 and it runs at 1533Mhz.

Mind you, the mobile/laptop chips might be different? And maybe there's some
speedstep-style thing going on....

--

Regards,

Stuart

PS remove the obvious to e-mail me.
"Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" <larwe@larwe.com> wrote in message
news:608b6569.0410120806.24612843@posting.google.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I'm investigating a weird issue with this ECS Desknote from Wal-Mart.
> It is advertised as having an AMD Athlon XP 1800+, but all the tests
> I've found show it running at 1.2GHz. In fact, if you flash with the
> latest BIOS off their Taiwanese web site, it shows 1.20GHz. If you
> flash with the latest BIOS off their American web site, it shows
> "1600+" as the CPU speed. The PowerNow tables in BIOS max out at
> 1195MHz according to a recent Linux kernel.
>
> The CPU bay is covered by a warranty seal, so I can't get in and look
> at the physical chip or jumpers (if any). I'm beginning to think that
> ECS encountered heat problems and underclocked their machines. Either
> that or they plain and simple cheated me and gave me a slower CPU than
> what was advertised.
>
> ECS is not giving me answers and I've complained to Wal-Mart telling
> them to lean on their vendor. But I would like to know if I am
> analyzing the situation correctly. AFAICS, the real clock speeds of
> AMD chips are:
>
> "1800+" = 1533MHz.
> "1600+" = 1400MHz.
> "1500+" = 1300MHz.
> "1400+" = 1200MHz.
>
> So it looks like my machine actually has a 1400+ CPU, or is
> underclocked to resemble one. Any other possible explanations, or
> should I tear a new one in ECS and Wal-Mart?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

> Maybe you should start thinking about returning it....

The thing is, I can't replace it with an equivalent machine for the
same price ("equivalent" here including the 1 year of warranty).TBH I
would probably have bought it anyway if it had been advertised as
1.2GHz, but the reason I'm het up about it is that I paid more for a
faster machine, and maybe would have been better off with the $100
model!

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

> Start tearing a new one, I run a Athlon XP1800 and it runs at 1533Mhz.
> Mind you, the mobile/laptop chips might be different? And maybe there's some
> speedstep-style thing going on....

AMD's SpeedStep equivalent is called PowerNow! - according to a dump
of the PowerNow speed/voltage tables:

powernow: PowerNOW! Technology present. Can scale: frequency and
voltage.
powernow: FSB: 99.605MHz
powernow: Table version: 0x12
powernow: Flags: 0x0 (Mobile voltage regulator)
powernow: Settling Time: 100 microseconds
powernow: Has 1 PST tables. (Only dumping ones relevant to this CPU).
powernow: PST:0 (@c00f1eb0)
powernow: cpuid: 0x762 fsb: 100 maxFID: 0x2 startvid: 0xd
powernow: FID: 0xa (8.0x [796MHz]) VID: 0xe (1.300V)
powernow: FID: 0xc (9.0x [896MHz]) VID: 0xe (1.300V)
powernow: FID: 0xe (10.0x [996MHz]) VID: 0xe (1.300V)
powernow: FID: 0x2 (12.0x [1195MHz]) VID: 0xd (1.350V)
powernow: SGTC: 10000
powernow: Minimum speed 796MHz. Maximum speed 1195MHz.

Testing in Windows XP verifies that it never gets above 1.2GHz.

In practical terms, the missing 333MHz probably doesn't matter,
because this laptop doesn't spend much time even at 1.2G - heat makes
it throttle way down _real_ quick (30 seconds from stone cold powerup,
it will be running the CPU fan full blast). But I want what I paid for
 

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

> I'm investigating a weird issue with this ECS Desknote from Wal-Mart.
> It is advertised as having an AMD Athlon XP 1800+, but all the tests
> I've found show it running at 1.2GHz. In fact, if you flash with the

Followup on this item: Wal-Mart referred me to 800-242-1922, which
they described as ECS's tech support number. Actually, though, it is a
third-party company "J.Mason and MTS Products". The 800 number is only
staffed from 0830-1700, M-F, Pacific time.

I spoke to these people this morning, and had quite a positive support
experience (no actual answer yet though). The guy I spoke to was on
the ball, seemed to be familiar with the product in question, and said
that after he asks around, he might have me pop the warranty seal and
check what is physically on the processor.

Further update to be posted here... I have a few more days to decide
whether to return it.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

AMD XP 1800 should have a clock 1.533GHZ
You may have one of 2 problems:
1.-You do not have a XP 1800
2.-or the system board is set the multiplier wrong.

"Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" <larwe@larwe.com> wrote in message
news:608b6569.0410120806.24612843@posting.google.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I'm investigating a weird issue with this ECS Desknote from Wal-Mart.
> It is advertised as having an AMD Athlon XP 1800+, but all the tests
> I've found show it running at 1.2GHz. In fact, if you flash with the
> latest BIOS off their Taiwanese web site, it shows 1.20GHz. If you
> flash with the latest BIOS off their American web site, it shows
> "1600+" as the CPU speed. The PowerNow tables in BIOS max out at
> 1195MHz according to a recent Linux kernel.
>
> The CPU bay is covered by a warranty seal, so I can't get in and look
> at the physical chip or jumpers (if any). I'm beginning to think that
> ECS encountered heat problems and underclocked their machines. Either
> that or they plain and simple cheated me and gave me a slower CPU than
> what was advertised.
>
> ECS is not giving me answers and I've complained to Wal-Mart telling
> them to lean on their vendor. But I would like to know if I am
> analyzing the situation correctly. AFAICS, the real clock speeds of
> AMD chips are:
>
> "1800+" = 1533MHz.
> "1600+" = 1400MHz.
> "1500+" = 1300MHz.
> "1400+" = 1200MHz.
>
> So it looks like my machine actually has a 1400+ CPU, or is
> underclocked to resemble one. Any other possible explanations, or
> should I tear a new one in ECS and Wal-Mart?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

>> I'm investigating a weird issue with this ECS Desknote from Wal-Mart.
>> It is advertised as having an AMD Athlon XP 1800+, but all the tests
>> I've found show it running at 1.2GHz. In fact, if you flash with the
>
>Followup on this item: Wal-Mart referred me to 800-242-1922, which
>they described as ECS's tech support number. Actually, though, it is a
>third-party company "J.Mason and MTS Products". The 800 number is only
>staffed from 0830-1700, M-F, Pacific time.
>
>I spoke to these people this morning, and had quite a positive support
>experience (no actual answer yet though). The guy I spoke to was on
>the ball, seemed to be familiar with the product in question, and said
>that after he asks around, he might have me pop the warranty seal and
>check what is physically on the processor.
>
>Further update to be posted here... I have a few more days to decide
>whether to return it.

Sandra will tell you exactly what it's running at. She detects my
mobile Barton upgrade correctly,1350 MHz as a 1700+.
http://www.sisoftware.net/
Many notebooks are now setup to only run at full speed while plugged
in.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

> Sandra will tell you exactly what it's running at. She detects my
> mobile Barton upgrade correctly,1350 MHz as a 1700+.
> http://www.sisoftware.net/
> Many notebooks are now setup to only run at full speed while plugged
> in.

This is while plugged in, see earlier postings where I'm pretty sure I
specified that.
I'll try that utility, but I'm pretty convinced that the CPU is
actually running at 1.2.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Further followup: "Phil" at MTS Products told me today that he
believes the CPU is supposed to be running at 1.2GHz, and that it's an
"XP-M" which accounts for the difference.

I'm returning this laptop, I STRONGLY advise nobody else to buy it,
and I'm writing to the Better Business Bureau to coerce Wal-Mart into
either advertising it accurately or taking it off the web site.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

larwe@larwe.com (Lewin A.R.W. Edwards) wrote in
news:608b6569.0410141054.6210f89@posting.google.com:

> Further followup: "Phil" at MTS Products told me today that he
> believes the CPU is supposed to be running at 1.2GHz, and that
> it's an "XP-M" which accounts for the difference.
>
> I'm returning this laptop, I STRONGLY advise nobody else to buy
> it, and I'm writing to the Better Business Bureau to coerce
> Wal-Mart into either advertising it accurately or taking it off
> the web site.

If you are concerned that it is not running at the 1800 speed, don't.
AMD (If their mobiles are like the desktop chips) gives the model
number as an equivalent number. If you have an 1800, then it
signifies that the chip performs the same or better than an Intel P4
1.8 Ghz. I have in my desktop an AMD K7-2 2400+. It runs at 2 Ghz,
but the performance is equivalent to an Intel P4 at 2.4Ghz.

You probably couldn't tell the difference anyway, so why return it as
you seem to believe it is a good deal.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

> > Further followup: "Phil" at MTS Products told me today that he
> > believes the CPU is supposed to be running at 1.2GHz, and that
> > it's an "XP-M" which accounts for the difference.
>
> If you are concerned that it is not running at the 1800 speed, don't.

I know that AMD's processors have a better IPC, so the processor
numbers don't indicate clock speed. However, according to AMD's tech
support, the Mobile Athlon XP 1800+ is supposed to be running at
1.4GHz. Since this laptop only runs at 1.2GHz, I've been cheated (I
got a 1600+, in other words). I didn't get what I paid for. It really
doesn't matter if it was good value or not, the fact is that it was
falsely advertised.

AMD said to me precisely what I said to Wal-Mart's (MTS) tech support:
"contact your vendor for a BIOS update or jumper settings, because
it's supposed to be running at 100MHz FSB with a x14 multiplier".

> You probably couldn't tell the difference anyway, so why return it as
> you seem to believe it is a good deal.

I think that I almost certainly could never tell the difference,
because this laptop spends all its time heat-throttled below its max
speed anyways. But it's the fraudulent advertising that p's me off.

For the purposes for which I bought this machine, a PIII-900 would
have been more than fast enough. But it's really not the point at
stake here.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

I just saw this thread for the first time today. Interesting comments. I
happen to have an AMD Athlon AXDA1800DL T3C on an ECS K7S5A Pro motherboard
which has no CPU jumpers. Both the BIOS and my OS (Windows XP Home Edition)
see this CPU as one running at 1.15 GHZ, even though the CPU part number
indicates 1.8 GHZ. Attempts at getting a higher speed by adjust the CPU
settings in the BIOS just results in a computer that will not boot, forcing
me to clear CMOS. Apparently the only CPU BIOS settings that will work are
100/100MHZ. Trying for 166/133 or 133/133 will not work. Another setting,
100/133, was not tried, so I am not sure about it.

"Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" <larwe@larwe.com> wrote in message
news:608b6569.0410160701.3a3a3fb6@posting.google.com...
>> > Further followup: "Phil" at MTS Products told me today that he
>> > believes the CPU is supposed to be running at 1.2GHz, and that
>> > it's an "XP-M" which accounts for the difference.
>>
>> If you are concerned that it is not running at the 1800 speed, don't.
>
> I know that AMD's processors have a better IPC, so the processor
> numbers don't indicate clock speed. However, according to AMD's tech
> support, the Mobile Athlon XP 1800+ is supposed to be running at
> 1.4GHz. Since this laptop only runs at 1.2GHz, I've been cheated (I
> got a 1600+, in other words). I didn't get what I paid for. It really
> doesn't matter if it was good value or not, the fact is that it was
> falsely advertised.
>
> AMD said to me precisely what I said to Wal-Mart's (MTS) tech support:
> "contact your vendor for a BIOS update or jumper settings, because
> it's supposed to be running at 100MHz FSB with a x14 multiplier".
>
>> You probably couldn't tell the difference anyway, so why return it as
>> you seem to believe it is a good deal.
>
> I think that I almost certainly could never tell the difference,
> because this laptop spends all its time heat-throttled below its max
> speed anyways. But it's the fraudulent advertising that p's me off.
>
> For the purposes for which I bought this machine, a PIII-900 would
> have been more than fast enough. But it's really not the point at
> stake here.