Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Did they rip me off?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 24, 2002 5:19:36 PM

Just yesterday I bought a computer, supposedly with an Athlon XP 2100 cpu. When I got it home and started using it, I noticed that the bios thought it was a 1733mhz. Is that right? I don't really know much about this kind of thing so maybe it's normal for something to show up smaller than it is. If not is there a way for me to test for sure what the processor and wether or not I've been ripped off?

I appreciate any help yous guys can offer.

More about : rip

October 24, 2002 5:35:17 PM

PR rating 2100 = 133 * 13.5 MHz = 1733MHz.

your PC is OK.

the athlon XP`s PR rating isn`t its actual CPU clock, but the performance rating compared to the thunderbird athlon.

"Is Celeron good?"
"No. Celeron is bad."
LOL
October 24, 2002 5:43:12 PM

No, you didn't get ripped, only Intel advertises a (ie) 1.7 machine which is actually 1.7, a 1.8=1.8 etc. AMD does what tbirdXPplus said!!!!

:wink: They can't fire me,slaves have to be sold !!! :wink:
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
October 24, 2002 6:46:14 PM

Thanks guys.
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2002 7:14:13 PM

Yes, you got ripped off. By AMD. They claim the XP+ scale is based on original Thunderbird speeds. But if you test a system with a 1000B thunderbird against an XP2000+, you'll find out it's a lie.

What they actually did is base their scale on the performance of the P4. And it holds up fairly well to about 2200+. Not because the XP processor is "that good" but because the P4 performs "that bad" compared to previous processors.

You really can't do anything about AMD ripping you off. Just like you can't do anything about the percepted "rip off" of the P4 underperforming the PIII, clock for clock. What you can do is console yourself by remembering "performance ratings have nothing to do with MHz" and try to forget that they use similar numbers to fool you into believing they do.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
October 24, 2002 7:22:06 PM

Crashy you make it sound like its a bad thing.

-Jeremy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2002 7:54:21 PM

LOL, I hate dishonesty. Sure, Intel was dishonest by telling people in their adds that the P4 was "much faster" than previous processors. But AMD more than made up for it by using deceptive numbers in their XP rating system. Both facts irritate me.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
October 27, 2002 7:25:55 PM

they did make the rating system very public. if they had not said anything about it i would feel a bit cheated.

how do you shoot the devil in the back? what happens if you miss? -verbal
a b à CPUs
October 27, 2002 9:31:28 PM

It's impossible to make it public enough, people read the big print, not the fine print. Nothing on the system would indicate the true nature of this deception.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
October 27, 2002 10:28:55 PM

Yeah, just about everyone thinks the PR is vs. the P4.

...And all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put my computer back together again...
October 27, 2002 10:52:54 PM

It currently in benchmarks, is.

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
a b à CPUs
October 28, 2002 12:50:22 AM

It is, AMD lied about it being based on the T-Bird. Remember how the T-Bird was so much faster, clock for clock, than the P4? If the XP+ rating system were based on the T-Bird, you'd still be seeing that with the XP+ numbers. But you don't, instead you see virtual performance parity between P4 MHz and XP+ ratings up to around 2.4GHz. Yes, AMD lied that it was based on the T-Bird. Yes, it is based on the P4.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
October 28, 2002 12:54:27 AM

However that means Intel could've either sued them or used many things against them. They chose the way so no one can use any case against them. Besides you are forgetting that it would not be linear had it been for P4s. Current P4 Bs have about 20-30% better IPC, bringing them fairly close to Athlon Tbirds, therefore an XP2400 does perform as a Tbird 2.4GHZ or close, as the P4 is clock for clock quite up there against Tbirds.

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
a b à CPUs
October 28, 2002 2:23:01 AM

Well yes, they did have a legal reason to lie about which processor the numbers were based on.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
October 28, 2002 3:49:53 AM

Yeah. Except it was so blatantly obvious they were directly comparing it tho the willy P4.


<b>Cogposto tomsa, ergo sum - <i>Descartes</i>
</b>Translation:<b> I post at Toms Hardware, Therefor I am. :smile: </b>
October 28, 2002 7:24:12 AM

The marketing strategy can be confusing sometimes.I spent countless hours a decade ago explaining that a DX100 was a clock tripled 33MHZ processor,and not a clock quadroupled 25MGH.The jest was simply that the marketing folks didn't like the sound of 99MHZ,and simply bumped it up to 100MHZ.....:) 

If ya don't ask..How ya gonna know.
October 28, 2002 9:49:55 AM

While talking processorspeeds, I kind of hate that Intel skipped the 666 processor
and made it a 667...weak.

<font color=red>I need a sig</font color=red>
October 28, 2002 6:24:47 PM

Yes, we all could not figure out why! :wink:

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
October 28, 2002 6:34:51 PM

ya i agree with you.

But i think Intel rushed the pentium 4 to quick. With the northwood and the coming HT i think they are "bug" fixes and "patches" to get the P4 up to par to what they wanted it to be at first. Thats what i think. I think prescott is what they wanted all along but couldn't get it done.

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
October 28, 2002 6:56:20 PM

It's true because Intel HAD to compete, so they rushed a product which was supposed to be out 2 years later, therefore the P4 had to contend with 2 years less of technologies, and we've seen the results with the 1.3GHZ Wilamettes!

--
I guess I just see the world from a fisheye. -Eden
a b à CPUs
October 28, 2002 8:30:15 PM

Agreed.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
!