Ok, here's my question. The CPU is rated at 266 FSB, the mobo is rated at 333/266/200 and the RAM can go up to 400. I've seen some people use similar hardware and have settings like 12.5 Multiplier with 179 FSB. Here's my question: Wouldn't it be better to set the FSB at 266 and set the Multiplier at around 8? Forget overclocking, I'm just interested in why people have lower FSB settings and higher Multiplier settings. It seems to me that if the CPU and Mobo have 266 ratings, then that is the FSB I should select. Any ideas? Thanks.
If you are not interested in overclocking, set the FSB, Multiplier and RAM speeds on Auto and forget about them.
This gets real confusing real fast because AMD <b>lies</b> about their FSB speeds. They use a clock edge technique that doubles the <i>apparent</i> speed and they advertise it as a 266fsb when in reality it is merely a 133fsb with dual edge detection.
AMD also <b>lies</b> about their CPU speeds, using a performance rating instead of the actual cpu speed. The XP2400+ actually runs at 2000mhz, not 2400.
So the truth is that your FSB is 133 and with a multiplier of 15 you get 1995mhz.
This gets real confusing real fast because AMD lies about their FSB speeds. They use a clock edge technique that doubles the apparent speed and they advertise it as a 266fsb when in reality it is merely a 133fsb with dual edge detection.
so arent intel also lying about their fsb speeds? they claim a 533MHz fsb.. its actally a quad pumped 133MHz.
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.
i only mentioned it cos you sounded like you were sayin that only amd did it. anyway it refers to their effective clock speed. the athlons fsb is 133 x 2 as you said which means that it can transfer the same amount of data as a 266mhz bus.. they have same bandwidth.
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.
Oh, I see... I wrote it that way because we were talking about an AMD chip. Sorry for the confusion.
Frankly, I'd be a lot --and I mean a <i>lot</i>-- happier if they'd advertise these chips as what they are...
Celeron 2000mhz, with 100mhz quad accelerated FSB.
Athlon Xp2000, with 133 Dual rate FSB, 2400 Performance rate.
THEN we wouldn't get all this -beep- confusion about numbers and people could rationally compare products.
This whole thing reminds me of the 100watt Zoltrix Speaker a friend of mine purchased used without a power supply. Opening the main one up revealed a 2.5watt chip that runs best on 14vdc. The manufacturer's power rating was 100w PEMP (Peak Effective Music Power)... not a bad numbers game for a 2.5 watt per channel speaker system.
Well, I, for one, understand the reason for AMD's PR rating on their chips and, to me, it makes sense. The typical Joe Consumer is not going to take time to educate himself on the differences between processors. He's going to walk into Best Buy, and he's going to meet up with Biff the Retarded Computer Salesguy. Despite the fact that selling computer stuff is Biff's job, Biff will really be no more educated than Joe Consumer. So Joe Consumer will ask Biff, "What's the fastest computer you have?" And Biff, being the genius he is will walk over to the Pentium 4 system and see 2.4 Ghz. And then he will walk over to the AMD and see 2.083 Ghz. And he will then tell Joe Consumer, "Sir, this here fine piece of Intel hardware is the fastest durned 'puter in this here warehouse! And cheaper too! Yup, them durned AMD 'puters are shore a rip-off!" And Joe Consumer will purchase the 2.4 ghz Pentium 4 and leave, never knowing that the AMD system Biff told him was slower, was actually quite a bit more powerful.
Okay, maybe that's the worst-case scenario, but there is some reality to it. The fact is, AMD has a point when they say megahertz isn't everything. And it is also true that the typical consumer wants to know how fast one processor is relative to another. They wouldn't understand (or even want to understand) the concept of instructions-per-cycle, and Floating Point Units, or any of that. People think of processors in terms of megahertz, and AMD's PR system is the easiest way to compare--and it is also pretty accurate.
I agree with you about misrepresenting the FSB speed. That's just plain dumb. Yes, I know it's DDR, but why not call it a 2.7 GIG FSB, or a 3.2 GIG FSB, or something that is at least accurate.
What's accurate is what I see when I stick a frequency counter probe on a motherboard.
Still your point about uneducated salesmakers and customers is well taken. Your average "I really want to catch chickens for a living" salesmaker, putting in his 3 hours a day, part time at Future Shop is simply not motivated to understand a product line that changes weekly on basis of clearances, end of liners and refurbs... Why bother, next week what he learns will be useless on the sales floor and what he really cares about is better ways of scooping up the most birds that night.
I guess I'm lucky doing the work I do. Most people hire me because I will take no the sh-t jobs no computer store will touch... quieting things down, building computers in to coffee tables, onsight upgrades, monitor adjustment, and such. I tend to get a very educated customer base and find myself spending as much time teaching as learning... It's a very interesting thing I do :smile: .
I do tend to forget that, on average, most people don't really know a computer from a television... I just don't have a lot of professional contact with the kind of people who put black tape over the clocks on their VCRs. So every once in a while I guess I need to be reminded.
I don't think AMD was ever trying to mislead consumer with the PR rating. If they were trying to mislead consumers, they could have easily called the 3000+ a 3300+. After all, according to their own measurements, the PR rating is supposed to correspond to an equivalently clocked Athlon T-Bird. Right? But AMD has dutifully kept their PR ratings more in line with P4 clock speeds--because they know to do anything else would be viewed as misleading by those who know better.
I've always felt that people somewhat misunderstood the true significance of PR ratings. As a man who worked retail for six years long ago, I feel certain AMD was trying to protect themselves from ignorant retailers. After all, if the retailers are knowledgeable, then there's really nothing to fear from clockspeeds disparity, right? You've seen some of the questions from people who post here who are smart enough to find THG's forum and slap out a message--yet you just know they are not informed. If a newbie asks: "What's the best processor for my new 8RDA+ motherboard???" You just know that if the first guy to respond said, "A Celeron 1200," and if no one corrected the bad advice, that newbie would merrily run off and buy a Celeron 1200 for his nForce2 motherboard. Consumers don't KNOW. Retailers are SUPPOSED to know, but they know very little. I think AMD was getting tired of losing sales to ignorance.
<-----Insert witty sig line here.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Twitch on 03/05/03 07:58 PM.</EM></FONT></P>