Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU FAQ Beginners, Unofficial

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 14, 2002 7:19:49 PM

CPU FAQ #1 [Beginners]
Acronyms and other definitions
------------------------------
BIOS = Basic Input/Output System (this is the operational
configuration for your motherboard)
CPU = Central Processing Unit
ECC = Error Correction Code, or Error Checking and Correction
FCPGA = Flip Chip Pin Grid Array (interface for some Pentium CPU's)
FPU = Floating Point Unit
FSB = Front Side Bus (also referred to as the system bus)
GHz = GigaHertz (billion cycles per second)
MHz = MegaHertz (million cycles per second)
MMX = MultiMedia eXtensions
PPGA = Plastic Pin Grid Array
SECC = Single Edge Contact Cartridge
SECC1 = Slot interface for some Pentium2 CPU's (233Mhz=450)
SECC2 = Slot interface for some Pentium2&3 CPU's (currently up to 1Ghz)
aka = "Also Known As"

Now, this is the beginners' FAQ, so many of you savvies may find this ridiculously easy. But for the ones to whom this may be of assistance,
enjoy!

Q: What do the MHz and GHz actually mean?

A: These numbers literally mean how many cycles, or complete calculations, can be made in one second. The higher the number, the faster the chip...BUT these numbers are most significant when comparing the same types of processors. For example, a 1.6GHz Duron, even though the speed matches, is not as powerful as a 1.6GHz Athlon chip. A Pentium 4 1.6GHz is not as powerful as the same speed Athlon. But a 1.6GHz Athlon would be half as powerful as a 3.2GHz Athlon CPU of the same core architecture. So you can use these numbers as a guide, but only when comparing them to similar chips. These numbers aren't as helpful as they used to be, and they will only become less helpful in the future as CPU architecture makes some radical changes.


Q: Why do the Athlon processors use numbers different from their actual clock speed for their titles?

A: Here's where a little further explanation of the last question comes in. Athlons, due to their different architecture, can out perform a Pentium 4 chip of the same speed. This brought about some problems, since the average consumer knew little more than "the higher the Hertz, the better". So, to bring this difference to our attention, they have used numbers such as 1800+ for a 1533MHz (or 1.53GHz) chip to show that when tested, the chip could compete with an 1800Mhz Pentium 4. To check out one of the many benchmark tests done here on THG, pitting Intel vs. AMD, check out <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q2/020610/thoroughbre..." target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q2/020610/thoroughbre...;/A>


Q: What are these "second" names on these processors, such as Thoroughbred, Coppermine and all the others?

A: This is where architecture comes into play. Consider "Athlon" the last name of the processor, and "Thoroughbred" would be its first name. Athlon is the family of chips, and Thoroughbred would be a spawn of that family. As the chip changes slightly, the first name will change. The last name will only change when the company feels that the architecture has changed enough so that the chip is no longer anywhere close to its predecessor. When this happens, new chipsets are often required and completely new motherboards are needed to support the processor. The Pentium families are similar, but rather than completely changing their last name they have been merely adding numbers. The Pentium 3 is of a different family of CPU's from the Pentium 4. Changes in architecture that result in a new first name for the chip are often the fsb and die size. Changes in the internal design of the chip itself will result in a new family.


Q: I want to upgrade my processor; how do I pick out a proper CPU?

A: There are three important things to consider when upgrading a CPU: interface, frontside bus speed, and clock speed. You must be sure to match these numbers with your motherboard's compatibility list. If you have a Socket A, aka Socket 462, interface on your motherboard, then you must get a matching processor. If your motherboard supports 100/200 & 133/266 fsb, then you can get any current Socket A Athlon processor. If your motherboard only supports 100/200 fsb, then you must be sure your processor does not exceed these numbers for its frontside bus. With the clock speed, your best bet is to be sure your motherboard will handle that high of a speed. Many motherboards will be compatible with clock speeds higher than originally listed in their documentation, since the chip just wasn't out yet to list. But this isn't always true, so the first place to check is your motherboard's manual. If it does not list the clock speed you're looking for, then contact the manufacturer's website and try to locate any information on the motherboard, and it being compatible with the higher clock processors. If you're still unable to locate an answer, try calling the motherboard mfg, or a retailer/vendor and asking them if the board will take the chip you want, or if they will at least guarantee you can return the CPU risk free if it is not compatible with your motherboard. Often, a BIOS flash is released that will allow a board to use chips it was previously incompatible with.


Q: What is "µ"?

A: µ Stands for micro, meaning it is a number multiplied by 10 to the negative sixth power [10^ -6]. 1 µ is equal to .000001. This number is most often affiliated with the processor's die size. The smaller, the better, when we're talking about the chip's physical size. For further explanation, research electronics fundamentals.


Q: Why is a smaller processor better?

A: Well, the smaller they get the manufacturing down to, the more they can squeeze into a smaller space. Also, when dealing with such high-speed electronics, a smaller size allows for shorter distance in the circuits. The shorter the distance, the quicker the electrons can complete their trip.


Q: What is cache and do I need to be concerned with it?

A: Yes, cache is an important feature of processors. You want more, and faster both. Cache is a very small amount of memory (usually between 128K and 512K) that is used by your CPU to store very important information so that it doesn't need to store and fetch this information from your slower system RAM. It's like your desktop at work. You have plenty of room to file all around your office (hopefully), but the items you are currently working on (or will be working on shortly) are kept on the desktop in front of you because it's closer and faster to access. I think that means I have a couple gigs of cache on my desk at work, because I usually can't see much of the wood finish.


Q: What is the difference between slot and socket processors?

A: This is the interface of the processor. A slot processor, or SECC, will plug into your motherboard in a similar fashion to RAM and PCI cards. These processors can look a lot like a cartridge to a gaming console. It will be a single edge card that will slide into a single slot, and often have retention mechanisms to hold it tight. A socket processor, or PGA (pin grid array), is the more popular these days; it consists of a lot of pins underneath, with the chip and bridges showing on top. And then there are different types of slot and socket processors. Socket A is an Athlon or Duron chip with a 462-PGA, Slot A is an Athlon or Duron chip with a SECC interface. Slot 1 is a Pentium 2 and Pentium 3 interface, FC-PGA is a Pentium3 and Celeron socket interface with a 370-PGA. Some Intel processors have a Slot2 interface, and there are some with a FCBGA (flip chip ball grid array, much like PGA, but short rounded ball like interface versus long skinny pins). Socket 478 is the Pentium4 PGA interface. These interfaces are not interchangeable. Though there are some adapters that will convert a FC-PGA to a Slot1.

Here is a good article on CPU's from the one and only THG:
<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/00q2/000412/" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/00q2/000412/&lt;/A>


I'm not really human, I just play one on TV
June 14, 2002 9:00:12 PM

You realize this is just going to die out and be several pages back in a couple weeks, right?

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 14, 2002 9:02:27 PM

I was gonna say that.
It's very informative but sadly it won't work. He needs to give it to you or whoever will put and stick the post on top!

--
Meow
Related resources
June 15, 2002 12:29:30 AM

feel free to make it official, or append it to the official one if you wish. This is free for THG to publish as they wish, so long as a reference to it's creator is given.

It is also incomplete, but I mentioned some of the more important facts.

I'm not really human, I just play one on TV
June 17, 2002 9:25:11 PM

Bye Bye FAQ...the powers that be say "Be Gone!" They don't want you!

If you find this usefull, post a thx to keep it around...have any questions you would like added? Post em or PM them to me, and I will throw it in there.

TatA!

I'm not really human, I just play one on TV
June 17, 2002 9:44:53 PM

Problem is we cannot keep bumping it up. FatBurger currently has good contacts with Fredi, who granted him the RAM forum FAQ. Instead of bumping, PM it to Fat, then Fredi will stick the FAQ on top, which can never anymore be gone no matter how many topics are created after it. It'll stay on top.

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2002 10:23:38 PM

it is only an assumption but are you the webmaster?


:smile: i like toasted cpus but not AMD-inside. :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2002 10:23:43 PM

it is only an assumption but are you the webmaster?


:smile: i like toasted cpus but not AMD-inside. :smile:
June 17, 2002 10:57:19 PM

Nope, that job belongs to <font color=red><b>Fredi</b></font color=red>

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 18, 2002 12:43:49 AM

i only read a bit of it and i spoted some rather large mistakes for example;

"Why is a smaller processor better?"

your answer is not wrong, but certainly not right, smaller process is better because it means less distance for electrons to travel which means lower resistance which means lower voltage needed which means less power needed which means less heat generated and we all know what that means (i know i do because my overclocked tbird 1400 must be using about 80watts!!!!!!)

but great idea though, with a bit more input it could be really good.



I need a 1.5 Ghz Athlon + 512mb ddr ram to write emails......honestly
June 18, 2002 1:50:45 AM

brooo ha ha

yodlei eeehhhhoooooo

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com" target="_new"><b><font color=green>Go To My Site</A>
June 18, 2002 9:03:52 PM

Well, for one, this is beginners...for two, I did say:

"Also, when dealing with such high-speed electronics, a smaller size allows for shorter distance in the circuits. The shorter the distance, the quicker the electrons can complete their trip."

But that is a nice quick rundown of the advantages you gave there. Though, they are not exactly accurate themselves...the chip's architecture will make more of a difference there (vs. die size). But that stuff gets complicated...and belongs in electronics FAQ, or advanced CPU FAQ.

What else do you disagree with?


I'm not really human, I just play one on TV
June 25, 2002 4:26:31 PM

Well, were's that FAQ project you mentioned some weeks ago?

A little slow, are we? Only took an hour to put this together...what in the heck are ya's doing?

Left, Left, Left, Right, Left...

I'm not really human, I just play one on TV
June 25, 2002 5:20:10 PM

Quote:
Q: Why do the Athlon processors use numbers different from their actual clock speed for their titles?

A: Here's where a little further explanation of the last question comes in. Athlons, due to their different architecture, can out perform a Pentium 4 chip of the same speed. This brought about some problems, since the average consumer knew little more than "the higher the Hertz, the better". So, to bring this difference to our attention, they have used numbers such as 1800+ for a 1533MHz (or 1.53GHz) chip to show that when tested, the chip could compete with an 1800Mhz Pentium 4. To check out one of the many benchmark tests done here on THG, pitting Intel vs. AMD, check out http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q2/020610/thoroughbre...

just a minor detail...the athlon xp 1600+ is supposed to mean that it will perform at the same level as the older athlon (t-bird) at 1.6 ghz....not a P4 at 1.6 ghz (either way...the t-bird will still outperform the P4 at the same speed)...
at least thats what i heard...this makes more sense...for legal reasons...

:eek:  <b>Who fixed <font color=red>ATI</font color=red>'s leaky faucet??</b> :eek: 
June 26, 2002 2:16:43 PM

Alright, it's time to get rude. If you want to disagree, how about an educated argument? Taken from AMD's own FAQ:

"Q: What do the 2200+, 2100+, 2000+, 1900+, 1800+ and 1700+ numbers mean?

A: These are model numbers. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz, such as the 2200+, 2100+, 2000+, 1900+, 1800+ and 1700+ versions. Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors. The AMD Athlon XP processor 2200+ can outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 2.2GHz on a broad array of end-user applications. "

This can be found at the following url:
<A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/..." target="_new">http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/...;/A>

For a hardware forum, there seems to be a shortage of expertise around here. That took an entire 30 seconds to locate.

<font color=red>01010011010</font color=red>
June 26, 2002 3:53:51 PM

Quote:
For a hardware forum, there seems to be a shortage of expertise around here. That took an entire 30 seconds to locate.


You think you're the only person working on an FAQ right now?

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 26, 2002 6:57:51 PM

Who said I'm working on an FAQ?

Am I supposed to be? I let this one die, since you did not seem interested in my help in the matter...so why waste my breathe, eh? And surely you haven't been working on it all this time!? No human is that slow.

<font color=red>01010011010</font color=red>
June 26, 2002 7:25:38 PM

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't read it close enough to realize you were talking to pr497. My bad, I'll go back to watching Intel and AMD play chess against each other :redface:

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
July 9, 2002 4:19:09 PM

<bump>

Man, this forum has quite the traffic flow. This thing was burried 6' under.

But just to offer my hand in getting some official FAQ up and posted. And again, there is much more than this to be included, but I'm not going to waste my time if it's not going to be locked into the head thread for easy review.

<font color=red>01010011010</font color=red>
July 9, 2002 5:36:45 PM

Ok, I'm gonna nitpick here.

Quote:
A: These numbers literally mean how many cycles, or complete calculations, can be made in one second. The higher the number, the faster the chip...BUT these numbers are most significant when comparing the same types of processors. For example, a 1.6GHz Duron, even though the speed matches, is not as powerful as a 1.6GHz Athlon chip. A Pentium 4 1.6GHz is not as powerful as the same speed Athlon. But a 1.6GHz Athlon would be half as powerful as a 3.2GHz Athlon CPU of the same core architecture. So you can use these numbers as a guide, but only when comparing them to similar chips. These numbers aren't as helpful as they used to be, and they will only become less helpful in the future as CPU architecture makes some radical changes.

Somewhat true but the explaination is....lacking. A CPU clock cycle is not 1 complete calculation. A CPU's clock cycle can be defined in may ways. Think of it as a "pass". In the olden days, a CPU did only 1 thing at any given time. It could first fetch the instruction from memory, then decode it, then execute it, and then release it. Each would take several passes through the CPU (with each pass using different parts of the CPU) to do. Each "step" would be a single clock. At times, it would take somewhere around 100 clocks to finish a single instruction. Then came pipelining. Instead of the CPU only working on 1 thing at once, it would work on multiple things and using different parts of the CPU at once. Each time an instruction goes from one stage to another (until it gets to the very end) that is a "clock". Now, in modern hyperpipelined CPU's, a single step no longer does just 1 thing. Rather, multiple steps are used to do 1 thing (such as decode). This means that the "GHz" can be high when you divide the process up into many steps, but each step would do less. The processor would still be doing as much work per "clock" because although it is working on smaller parts, it is working on twice as many parts (in a 20-stage vs 10-stage, the 20-stage would do half as much stuff in each stage, but since there are 20 stages, can work on 20 things at once). The problem comes from data dependencies. In a 20-stage pipeline, the results from 1 instruction takes 20 cycles to complete and another instruction may depend on the results of the previous instruction. So you have to wait till that instruction finishes. This brings about idle-time in the processor where "MHz" is wasted. The CPU can predict how the instruction would turn out and start the instruction, but if the prediction was wrong, time was wasted and that instruction would have to be started again. Suffice it to say, this hurts the average work per "MHz" somewhat (although in the P4, a lot of other things hurt it as well), however the benefit would be that you can make the CPU run at a lot faster clockspeed (and since it does have the potential to produce the same IPC as a 10-stage design), and also make the processor as a whole run faster. All you have to do is make refinements to the core to optimize for data dependencies.

Quote:
A: This is where architecture comes into play. Consider "Athlon" the last name of the processor, and "Thoroughbred" would be its first name. Athlon is the family of chips, and Thoroughbred would be a spawn of that family. As the chip changes slightly, the first name will change. The last name will only change when the company feels that the architecture has changed enough so that the chip is no longer anywhere close to its predecessor. When this happens, new chipsets are often required and completely new motherboards are needed to support the processor. The Pentium families are similar, but rather than completely changing their last name they have been merely adding numbers. The Pentium 3 is of a different family of CPU's from the Pentium 4. Changes in architecture that result in a new first name for the chip are often the fsb and die size. Changes in the internal design of the chip itself will result in a new family.

Not quite. "Thoroughbred", "Palomino" and "Northwood" are all code-names. They're names the company uses internally when refering to a core. "Athlon" and "Pentium" are commercial names. They're the names the company uses when selling these chips. Two completely different cores can have the same commercial name (Palomino and Thoroughbred were both called Athlon and the upcomming Clawhammer will be called Athlon as well). There is no rule as to when a commercial name should be changed. It's just marketing.
July 10, 2002 9:24:06 PM

Quote:
Each time an instruction goes from one stage to another (until it gets to the very end) that is a "clock".

So you're saying that one of these stages is not in itself a complete calculation? They're designed to be complete in their own designation. I consider those stages to be calculations, because, well, that's what they are! Lots of little logic gates arranged to perform multitudes of operations/calculations as efficiently as possible. Of course other words can be used to explain the process. That's a nice big speal, but I was aiming for some simplicity, being both FAQ and that for beginners. It's a conceptual thing, not a step by step explaination for your Thesis (though even for that, your explaination is lacking about 20 more pages of technical details). And ya went a bit of topic, as well. But hey, it's a forum! We are allowed to nitpick, flame, rant, scribe, and yes, even troll...though many may not like them all.

As for the rules with the naming...you don't see the pattern so far? Sure, they could change their patterns, but have they? And the Clawhammer has not yet been released on the market, so they haven't "officially" chosen a name, eh? And from what they've been saying they're going to adobt a suffix or prefix, much like Intel, to distinguish it from the previous family of Athlons.

Anyway, I think it's a good explanation for those beginners out there wondering what the MHz really is in the PC's they're looking at. Your paragraph is...for a completely different question.

<font color=red>01010011010</font color=red>
July 10, 2002 9:34:54 PM

Back in the days, when each pipeline stage was used to do one whole task, that may be true. But in modern hyper-pipelined MPUs, tasks are split between stages. On the P4, for example, the 20-stage integer pipeline means that the decoding stage is split into 2 or so stages (can't exactly remember) and so are the fetch and issuing stages. The only stage that does 1 complete thing is the execution stage and that's only 1 out of 20 stages in the integer pipeline. So no, they do not do 1 calculation. They don't even do calculations. Only 1 stage out of 20 in the integer pipeline does calculations, all the other stages are either issuing or fetching or decoding, etc. some are simply there just as relays (2 of them I think) to just take the signal and send it again.

As for the naming. Intel doesn't consider "Northwood" or "Willamette" suffixes or prefixes. Intel uses the "a" and "b" suffixes to indicate a different in models. "Northwood" and "Willamette" are internal code names for the core. They were never meant for commercial use. Of course, being the enthusiaste community, we get news a lot earlier than normal people and at the time we get them, only the internal code-names are available. Oh, and btw, if you look on AMD's roadmap, you'll see "Athlon" in there and below the name you'll see "Clawhammer based".<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by imgod2u on 07/10/02 02:38 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 10, 2002 11:32:35 PM

Bump.
It would be great to address the ever popular AMD vs Intel question.

"Just the facts ma'am"
July 10, 2002 11:46:33 PM

AKAIK this forum has never has a sticky. But it REALLY REALLY needs some stickies. The 1st post would be a great one.
Good job Silicon.

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
July 11, 2002 12:58:45 AM

<b>short term sticky bump</b> :smile:

Proud owner of the <b>Beige Beast</b> :lol: 
July 11, 2002 6:21:34 PM

THx u guys! I PM'd Fredi...but he didn't reply!

I've actually found a few other forums that seem to me more tech orientated than this one...so I don't come around here much anymore. It's a bit slow (man, can it take a while sometimes to load a page) and completely unmanaged. And it's mighty rude for a mod to just delete a post offering a helping hand as if it were spam...


<font color=red>01010011010</font color=red>
July 11, 2002 6:38:53 PM

Quote:
They don't even do calculations. Only 1 stage out of 20 in the integer pipeline does calculations, all the other stages are either issuing or fetching or decoding, etc.


Decoding & Encoding ARE calculations. Fetching & Issuing require calculations...perhaps the numeral "1" and complete are not to your liking...I can see that argument. It's a figurative term in the sense in which I was using it, not a literal breakdown. So just spit out your better answer...much more briefly and clearly than previously, please.

And I fail to understand how your argument with the naming technique is valid. Perhaps you should rethink that argument. You say that one is commercial, and the other is code? That makes no sense to me, as they would both be commercial if they're released to the public. Not to mention where did I mention code or commercial? And the prefixes that Intel does use are merely their abbreviations they use of the same notation (though not really much of a resemblance of the larger name). So you're saying that even though they (the single letters and longer names) denote the same part(s) of the CPU, they're not the same? And even in your last sentence you note that AMD denotes the Clawhammer structure...It's not just plain "Athlon", is it!?

I would have to say that just from your handle alone, your head is a bit to thick for intellectual argument. Perhaps a leather couch environment would be better for you to debate in. To be honest, I'm only arguing with you because I enjoy debate...your arguments are very weak, but do have a few points that some other readers may inadvertently question (even though you're not very clear either).

Perhaps you would prefer the word "Process" be used in place of "Calculation"? Would you argue against this? I think you could have shortened your argument by just stating a change in the "1" and "calculation" need be made for a slightly more accurate description. As for complete, one pass of the all CPU's functions is as complete as it gets. Complex calculations may require more usage.

Why did I even respond to this argument? I must be bored...and feel like rambling, i guess.

<font color=red>01010011010</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
July 12, 2002 12:57:15 PM

bump

I aint signing nothing!!!
July 12, 2002 3:55:40 PM

Quote:
Decoding & Encoding ARE calculations. Fetching & Issuing require calculations...perhaps the numeral "1" and complete are not to your liking...I can see that argument. It's a figurative term in the sense in which I was using it, not a literal breakdown. So just spit out your better answer...much more briefly and clearly than previously, please.

The process of fetching and decoding go through a logic die that doesn't do any real math, which is what calculations are.

Quote:
And I fail to understand how your argument with the naming technique is valid. Perhaps you should rethink that argument. You say that one is commercial, and the other is code? That makes no sense to me, as they would both be commercial if they're released to the public. Not to mention where did I mention code or commercial? And the prefixes that Intel does use are merely their abbreviations they use of the same notation (though not really much of a resemblance of the larger name). So you're saying that even though they (the single letters and longer names) denote the same part(s) of the CPU, they're not the same? And even in your last sentence you note that AMD denotes the Clawhammer structure...It's not just plain "Athlon", is it!?

The difference between commercial and internal code name is pretty obvious. One is the official name of the thing and the other is what Intel engineers and possibly even market people call it before it is released. "Athlon" is a patented, commercial name. AthlonXP denotes that it is the single-processor palomino line. Intel chose to denote their processors with suffixes "a" and "b". In absolutely no marketing campaign has the word "Northwood" or "Palomino" ever been mentioned. Nor does either company use them to market to the consumer. The "Athlon" name has been used for both the "Athlon classic" and "Athlon t-bird". AMD chose to give it a new marketing name for the Palomino line because it felt it needed a boost in marketing. There is no set reason for "hey, the core's changed, maybe we should change the name". Pentium 4 is still the official name for the P4 processors. Celeron has been the official name of the budget processors from Intel since the days when it was based on the old P2 design. The marketing name has not changed since.

Quote:
I would have to say that just from your handle alone, your head is a bit to thick for intellectual argument. Perhaps a leather couch environment would be better for you to debate in. To be honest, I'm only arguing with you because I enjoy debate...your arguments are very weak, but do have a few points that some other readers may inadvertently question (even though you're not very clear either).

And yet you're the one to pick up insulting me. I enjoy nitpicking once in a while as I indicated what I was doing in my first post. Why you even care is beyond me.

Quote:
Perhaps you would prefer the word "Process" be used in place of "Calculation"? Would you argue against this? I think you could have shortened your argument by just stating a change in the "1" and "calculation" need be made for a slightly more accurate description. As for complete, one pass of the all CPU's functions is as complete as it gets. Complex calculations may require more usage.


If you'd read my whole post you would've seen what I said about modern hyperpipelined MPU's not actually doing one whole task in one stage of the pipeline. There are 2 pipeline stages in the P4 that do nothing more than just to relay the signal. So no, each "clock" does not do 1 thing. The only stage that is always guaranteed to do 1 complete thing is the execution stage.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by imgod2u on 07/12/02 08:58 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 12, 2002 5:18:32 PM

heh heh

I thought it was fun...did you? And, since I was "lacking", you must now explain all the pipelines for every cpu that uses a MHz rating, and exactly what pipelines have been used in the rating, as you only have mentioned the P4. And you say that decoding & encoding are not calculations? A calculation, in my opinion as fact, is not merely the completion of a mathematical equation. It is:

Main Entry: cal·cu·la·tion
Pronunciation: "kal-ky&-'lA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : the process or an act of calculating b : the result of an act of calculating
2 a : studied care in analyzing or planning b : cold heartless planning to promote self-interest

and as for calculate:

Main Entry: cal·cu·late
Pronunciation: 'kal-ky&-"lAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin calculatus, past participle of calculare, from calculus pebble (used in reckoning), perhaps irregular diminutive of calc-, calx lime -- more at CHALK
Date: 1570
transitive senses
1 a : to determine by mathematical processes b : to reckon by exercise of practical judgment : ESTIMATE c : to solve or probe the meaning of : FIGURE OUT <trying to calculate his expression -- Hugh MacLennan>
2 : to design or adapt for a purpose
3 a : to judge to be true or probable b : INTEND <I calculate to do it or perish in the attempt -- Mark Twain>
intransitive senses

I see more than just mathematical computation in there for a definition that applies to many of the functions of a cpu, eh? I consider logical functions to be types of calculations, but I see you do not. We also have analyze, planning (fetching & prefetching), solve or probe the meaning of (encoding & decoding), to judge to be true (logic), to design...I just happen to agree with Webster.

As for the marketing, you seem to think that only one marketplace exists for the computer hardware world. Are we not of a different market than that of the uninformed BestBuy'ers. No, they don't plaster all the names on their packaging and posters. They let us savvies use our own marketplace...makes us feel smarter...which we generally are. We use their "code names" in the guru marketplace (after all, do you not see them when ordering from so many vendors? and if not, I bet you might ask!).

Man, I was just going to reply with a ":p PPPP", but darn if I didn't ramble again...but one last thing. So what exactly are you saying? Really...what???

Quote:
There is no set reason for "hey, the core's changed, maybe we should change the name".

kind of just happens...no, they don't usually change the "general consumer" advertising, because the general consumer is already pretty lost in the computer world. But if they're not changing the name...then...???? Thunderbird, Palomino, Coppermine, etc,etc,etc??? Yes, there's just a pattern, eh...no reason?

smoke a cig, you'll feel better


<font color=red>01010011010</font color=red>

[EDIT]

Man, what planet are you from??? Where do you see anything in my post(s) about marketing? I'm not going to argue with an idiot as such any further...you're wasting time and forum space. I'd rather see pointless posts than a pointless post that thinks it's an omniscient post. Oops...that sounded like a FatBurger comment...I retract back to "...wasting time." Scratch the latter. Ya know what...scratch the idiot thing to...I actually think I'm enjoying this argument. But ya do go a bit of course in your argument...
July 12, 2002 9:45:50 PM

I'm gonna have to play the evil guy here, cuz I should add that a local shop here advertised in a magazine the core names in BIG!
One was "AthlonXP with the PALOMINO core!!!" Other was "New Pentium 4 with Northwood Core!!!" Or something like that, it was pretty hyped though.

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
July 12, 2002 11:03:17 PM

Quote:
I see more than just mathematical computation in there for a definition that applies to many of the functions of a cpu, eh? I consider logical functions to be types of calculations, but I see you do not. We also have analyze, planning (fetching & prefetching), solve or probe the meaning of (encoding & decoding), to judge to be true (logic), to design...I just happen to agree with Webster.

And if you'd read my post, you would've seen me mention that each stage in hyperpipelined MPU's don't even do 1 complete task. So even if a task such as decoding does count as a "calculation" as you seem to prefer to make this a symantec arguement, 1 stage STILL doesn't do one whole calculation. Not to mention the 2 stages in the P4 that don't really do anything but relay the signal.

As for the naming. You said Intel and AMD included these suffixes (or was it prefixes you called) to indicate small changes. In order to be a suffix or prefix, they'd have to be in the same catagory. IE, Mustang GT are both marketing terms. If GT was simply an internal code the engineers used (you don't see anyone saying "whistler" is a suffix to WinXP now do you?), it would not be part of the name and would not be a "suffix". Whether individual vendors choose to use the internal code to market or not is irrelevent. They are not "suffixes" or "prefixes". The code-names have absolutely no relation to the marketed names.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by imgod2u on 07/12/02 04:04 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 13, 2002 12:09:51 AM

Quote:
And if you'd read my post, you would've seen me mention that each stage in hyperpipelined MPU's don't even do 1 complete task. So even if a task such as decoding does count as a "calculation" as you seem to prefer to make this a symantec arguement, 1 stage STILL doesn't do one whole calculation. Not to mention the 2 stages in the P4 that don't really do anything but relay the signal

Yes, but the MHz only applies to how complete of a calculation the chip is capable of making is one stroke, or pass. It may require more than one Hz, or cycle, for the CPU to complete the necessary calculation, but that is part of the POWER of the chip, not the speed. Since you bring cars into it, MHz is the Horsepower, and the Power of the CPU is the torque. You won't be able to complete one trip in your car on one cycle of the cam, unless maybe the torque is so ungodly it instantly rockets you to mach1. But that doesn't make the completion of all cyclinders firing any less complete, eh?

And the windows thing...we are talking about CPU's...but still, let's give an example. The Pentium 3: Coppermines are denoted with an "EB" suffix, Katami 133Mhz FSB are denoted with a "B" suffix. As for the GT, is too is an abbreviation for a very large list of differences in the product. I don't understand what you mean by they're not in the same catergory. Again you throw the "marketing" in there. We're talking technical, not general advertising & marketing...quite the difference there is. My intial post was relating the naming techniques to child & family naming here in America...not marketing. And just because AMD doesn't launch a massive television ad campaign with the core names mentioned, does not mean they do not exist or have nothing to do with the CPU.

<font color=red>01010011010</font color=red>
July 13, 2002 12:30:01 AM

Quote:
It would be great to address the ever popular AMD vs Intel question.

And what is that question? Which is better? I really don't think there's much difference. Our PC power, though quite empressive to us consumers, is still relatively weak. I don't think there is a whole lot of difference between the two. AMD does have a more powerful chip, but Intel has taken the lead in speed. Most of the differences are personal opinion, having to due with their loyalty of having already dealt successfully with one, and perhaps not with the other. But they're both equally compatible these days. I prefer AMD because I have dealt with more AMD systems. But If AMD just all the sudden dissappeared, I wouldn't mind a P4...in fact, I wouldn't mind one anyway just to have a good variety.

I'm pleased with both companies and chips...and you HAVE to have competition in this world to ensure progress and quality. But that's just my $.02

And I'm glad to see dealers/vendors using the core names for marketing. Our user market needs some serious training in the art of computers (anyone in tech support will back that one up). Now if we could just get some requirements to complete some sort of course/training/tests before they're allowed to even speak with a technician...

j/k...that would never work.

<font color=red>01010011010</font color=red>

[EDiT]

on an added note...I wonder how long this debate will ensue. (crap, no spell checker on this PC...doh!)
July 13, 2002 4:48:35 AM

Quote:
Yes, but the MHz only applies to how complete of a calculation the chip is capable of making is one stroke, or pass. It may require more than one Hz, or cycle, for the CPU to complete the necessary calculation, but that is part of the POWER of the chip, not the speed. Since you bring cars into it, MHz is the Horsepower, and the Power of the CPU is the torque. You won't be able to complete one trip in your car on one cycle of the cam, unless maybe the torque is so ungodly it instantly rockets you to mach1. But that doesn't make the completion of all cyclinders firing any less complete, eh?

I believe your exact statement was each "Hz" completes one calculation. Which is not true. As for the ability of each stage to do work, that's really a part of the average IPC.

Quote:
And the windows thing...we are talking about CPU's...but still, let's give an example. The Pentium 3: Coppermines are denoted with an "EB" suffix, Katami 133Mhz FSB are denoted with a "B" suffix.

And the Coppermines with 100MHz FSB was denoted with the "E". Both "E" and "EB" are coppermines. The "coppermine" was suppose to correlate to the "e" suffix, but it is not a suffix in of itself. Intel used the "e" suffix as an indication in the model number, never mentioning Coppermine. That is merely the name the engineers use.

Quote:
As for the GT, is too is an abbreviation for a very large list of differences in the product. I don't understand what you mean by they're not in the same catergory. Again you throw the "marketing" in there. We're talking technical, not general advertising & marketing...quite the difference there is.

I'm making the true distinction between the "Coppermine" and "Northwood" names and the commercial "Athlon" and "Pentium" names. That's what they really are. This suffix thing you brought up is total nonsense. In no way was "Coppermine" ever a suffix or prefix for the "Pentium 3" line used by Intel. It was merely something the enthusiastes liked to throw around to sound smart (and avoid explaining the change with every mention).

Quote:
My intial post was relating the naming techniques to child & family naming here in America...not marketing. And just because AMD doesn't launch a massive television ad campaign with the core names mentioned, does not mean they do not exist or have nothing to do with the CPU.

I said they have nothing to do with the commercial name, not the CPU. And as I pointed out, that is the main difference between "Athlon" and "Palomino". Athlon is marketing, Palomino is what the engineers use. THAT is the difference. Whether you want to talk about marketing or not is your choice. But the correct answer to what is the difference between the "coppermine" name and "pentium 3" name is that one is the internal code and the other is the marketed name. THAT is the difference. They are not suffixes or prefixes. The "a" and "b" and "e" are suffixes.
July 13, 2002 5:57:12 AM

In reply to:
------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be great to address the ever popular AMD vs Intel question.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what is that question? Which is better? I really don't think there's much difference. Our PC power, though quite empressive to us consumers, is still relatively weak. I don't think there is a whole lot of difference between the two. AMD does have a more powerful chip, but Intel has taken the lead in speed. Most of the differences are personal opinion, having to due with their loyalty of having already dealt successfully with one, and perhaps not with the other. But they're both equally compatible these days. I prefer AMD because I have dealt with more AMD systems. But If AMD just all the sudden dissappeared, I wouldn't mind a P4...in fact, I wouldn't mind one anyway just to have a good variety.

I'm pleased with both companies and chips...and you HAVE to have competition in this world to ensure progress and quality. But that's just my $.02
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The "Which cpu should I get?" is a FAQ.



"Just the facts ma'am"
July 14, 2002 3:32:05 AM

Quote:
The "Which cpu should I get?" is a FAQ.


I don't know if I would be able to answer that question in a manner that would apply to all, or even the majority, of the consumers round yonder parts.

As for Impathetic2u...you're WRONG. Get over it...bring up some right points, and the argument will continue. Too many incorrect points to continue to post...


<font color=red>01010011010</font color=red>
July 14, 2002 3:52:29 PM

"As for Impathetic2u...you're WRONG. Get over it...bring up some right points, and the argument will continue. Too many incorrect points to continue to post..."

You're a real sore dude. I think ImGod had a good argument. You dont agree with him so you get viscious.....not cool man. For the record, fetch and prefetch arent calculations, they're setting up info to be digested. Each stage isnt a calculation, it's part of a calculation as a whole. The Athlon "family" IS just marketing, and not a "family" of similar cores as you stated.....The Hammer isnt a little core change.
Calling someone names is pretty easy eh?

This sig runs too hot.
July 14, 2002 5:06:28 PM

This post is for everyone.I dont seem to find a drop down menu with all the available posting options that some other boards have.At any rate,this discussion reminds me of something at the Anandtech site.Way too many attitudes.
Someone took the time to make a F.A.Q that they thought might be helpful to some,and immediately the wolves attack.While the document might not be 100% technically correct,it does supply enough information to help out a "newbie",and if memory serves,he initially stated that this WAS the target audience. Furthermore,there was no intent in the original post to "dazzle" us with brilliance,nor to "talk down" to the masses.For all intents and purposes,it was just an attempt to provide a useful tool that was met with a "piss poor greeting".He has every right to be upset.If you dont like the quality of the document,then write better one, or be quiet.People that like to criticize,but are too lazy to do something themselves,make a forum look real bad,real quick.....:( 

If ya don't ask..How ya gonna know.
July 15, 2002 3:57:03 AM

yeah i agree with vetplus40. i started reading a nice post for beginners and ended up getting my eyes crossed trying to figure out what you guys were talking about! sure, there were a few errors, i guess, but it was a good FAQ and i wish i would have seen it earlier. i suppose it got buried and i overlooked it a few times...

pekstein

<i> Garth, marriage is punishment for shoplifting in some countries. </i>
July 15, 2002 5:41:23 AM

Nobody ever said it wasn't a good FAQ. I nitpicked some things that weren't correct. It started out with the poster calmly disputing that his post was indeed correct. After a while he turned bitter either because he realized he was wrong but just didn't like it being pointed out or is truely that arrogant. I don't know. I would've thought he would welcome some additional info to improve his FAQ.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by imgod2u on 07/14/02 10:42 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 16, 2002 2:24:25 AM

Sometimes the bigger issue is not what you say,but how you say it.Positive correction is generally better received than "nitpicking".I understand that you were just trying to be helpful.I also understand that incorrect information need to be corrected.Sometimes what we say is interpreted in a different manner in which it was intended.This appears to be the case with this post..:) 

If ya don't ask..How ya gonna know.
July 16, 2002 1:33:10 PM

Seems no "CPU FAQ Beginners, Unofficial" anymore ...

Bump.

DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!
July 17, 2002 2:06:12 AM

doin my bit...
Bump-itty-bump

Ego: Check
Rose hued glasses: Check
Fanboy Button: Check
CPU forum, here i come! :smile:
!