Tons of AMD chips at the same clock speeds but with different PR

[Gomce]

I'm not a newbie,
But c'mon look at what they did with the whole PR mess.
They can't break the 2.4/2.6 GHZ speed and they just boost the PR. Don't tell me the 3% speed difference between socket 754/939 is justifiable to bump the PR from 3800 to 4000.

 

[ComatoseDelirium]

Ok. We won't tell you. 😀 *Coma tries to block Gomce's view of his Pentium 4 3.0E 800 FSB System. Running at cpu core temp of 38 Idle, and 45 loaded.*

 

[jvarszegi]

Little dumbass, Google is your friend! The 4000+ is not the same chip. It has 1MB of L2 cache, for starters. Maybe you should hang out at Tom's.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

im more worried bout the counterfit AMD chips that TechReport reported on the otherday

something like 60,000 fake/counterfit/remarked AMD chips were found....suspected stolen faulty processors or something

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Gomce
I'm not a newbie,
But c'mon look at what they did with the whole PR mess.
They can't break the 2.4/2.6 GHZ speed and they just boost the PR. Don't tell me the 3% speed difference between socket 754/939 is justifiable to bump the PR from 3800 to 4000.

Well, there are many differances. Some of the Chips for 939 rated at 3500+ (winchester and newcastle) run at 2.2ghz but are made using differant manufaturing proceeses. Other chips running at the same speed have differant features, like dual channel memory controller or a larger cache. All of these have an effect on speed in the same way sheer clock speed GIGA-HuRTS do.

The 4000+ is the same chip as FX53, except the FX53 has unlocked multiplers and a few fabrication tricks.

P.S. this is basic info and you are a newbie.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: ComatoseDelirium
Ok. We won't tell you. 😀 *Coma tries to block Gomce's view of his Pentium 4 3.0E 800 FSB System. Running at cpu core temp of 38 Idle, and 45 loaded.*

Originally posted by: jvarszegi
Little dumbass, Google is your friend! The 4000+ is not the same chip. It has 1MB of L2 cache, for starters. Maybe you should hang out at Tom's.

Be nice, your attitude is defeating the purpose of a forum.

 

[imported_NoGodForMe]

The chart helps.
http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/

 

[LTC8K6]

I actually believe the PR rating system is one of the things that is holding AMD back. People don't like to see an asterisk and then small print at the bottom explaining that the actual speed of the CPU is X.Xghz. It doesn't matter if the chip is actually faster.

Then again, what do I know? 😀

 

[Pandamonium]

Christ go easy on the guy.

I wouldn't consider myself a newbie either, but citing differences in fabrication techniques as a reason for PR boosts is new to me. I was only aware that 1MB cache CPUs gettings 200pt boosts. Not everyone cares about the nitty gritty of CPU architecture and design anymore. I, for one, stopped caring around the 2Ghz mark. I'm more an enthusiast of quiet computing now =)

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Gomce
I'm not a newbie,
But c'mon look at what they did with the whole PR mess.
They can't break the 2.4/2.6 GHZ speed

Highly speculatory comment; Can't and no need to at the moment are drastically different concepts 😉 Considering how improved AMD's financial health is, I'd say their strategy of maximizing profits is more fiscally prudent than maximizing clockspeeds :light:

Also, Intel has started putting the emphasis on model number over MHZ, and as Opteron also uses a model number it may just be a matter of time before they drop the PR in favor of extending the model number scheme to the whole line. After all, with Intel abandoning their mhz marketing campaign that has been their bread&butter the last few years who's mhz will AMD have to compare their PR to? :laugh:

 

[Gothgar]

Originally posted by: Gomce
I'm not a newbie,
But c'mon look at what they did with the whole PR mess.
They can't break the 2.4/2.6 GHZ speed and they just boost the PR. Don't tell me the 3% speed difference between socket 754/939 is justifiable to bump the PR from 3800 to 4000.

there are like 8 different processors that run at 3.0 ghz from Intel

oh, and you are a newbie, s754 is single channel memory and s939 is dual channel, along wiht other things listed in this thread

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Gomce
I'm not a newbie,
But c'mon look at what they did with the whole PR mess.
They can't break the 2.4/2.6 GHZ speed

Highly speculatory comment; Can't and no need to at the moment are drastically different concepts 😉 Considering how improved AMD's financial health is, I'd say their strategy of maximizing profits is more fiscally prudent than maximizing clockspeeds :light:

Also, Intel has started putting the emphasis on model number over MHZ, and as Opteron also uses a model number it may just be a matter of time before they drop the PR in favor of extending the model number scheme to the whole line. After all, with Intel abandoning their mhz marketing campaign that has been their bread&butter the last few years who's mhz will AMD have to compare their PR to? :laugh:

After all, with Intel abandoning their mhz marketing campaign that has been their bread&butter the last few years

For the last few years? Just about their entire exitance has been all about MHz!
All the way back to 386/486.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Googer
For the last few years? Just about their entire exitance has been all about MHz!
All the way back to 386/486.

Certainly, but they didn't need to rely on it to make sales until the 1GHZ race put clockspeed in the limelight and even mainstream media were reporting on it.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Pandamonium
Christ go easy on the guy.

I wouldn't consider myself a newbie either, but citing differences in fabrication techniques as a reason for PR boosts is new to me. I was only aware that 1MB cache CPUs gettings 200pt boosts. Not everyone cares about the nitty gritty of CPU architecture and design anymore. I, for one, stopped caring around the 2Ghz mark. I'm more an enthusiast of quiet computing now =)

Sounds to me like the next thing you are going to do is convert yourself into a buddist monk and move far far away from civilizaton in the middle of an open green pasuture surrounded by flowers, hippies, and butterflies.

 

[PingSpike]

Its confusing to the average consumer, there's no doubt about that. But now that Intel can't just keep ramping up the clock speed while retarding the amount of work done any longer, the consumer will get educated or get celerons.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Its confusing to the average consumer, there's no doubt about that. But now that Intel can't just keep ramping up the clock speed while retarding the amount of work done any longer, the consumer will get educated or get celerons.

Celerons? What do you mean by that statement? They are far more retarded than the P4, which is already a dumb design compaired to AMD or their previous offerings.

It was a pretty dumb move for intel to dump yamhill in favor of netburst; but it was a smart one to have killed tejas.

2005 will be a great year for AMD but a bad one for Intel.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

That's what he's saying Googer, that the uneducated consumer ends up buying a Celery 🙂 Although the new Delerons ain't bad for the money and the mobile is nice now too.

 

[PingSpike]

^ What he said. Some one goes to the store, says Wow, this PC costs $750 and has a P4 2.2 GHZ...but this one costs $500 and has a celeron 2.8ghz! Woah, faster clock speed for less money!

Yeah, celerons aren't bad chips for some things but I bet Intel's dirty little secret is that lots of celerons sales go just like that...Celerons give stupid people something to brag about. Don't tell me you haven't met that guy who has a celeron 2.5ghz or something with 128mb of ram running windows XP and a taskbar full of spyware telling you your XP2500+ is sh|t and you got ripped off. That guy is everywhere! He's joe computer buyer.

 

[LTC8K6]

Wow, this PC costs $750 and has a P4 2.2 GHZ...but this one costs $500 and has a celeron 2.8ghz! Woah, faster clock speed for less money!

These days though, the 2.8 Celeron would be a Deleron, a much better chip than the previous embarrassing P4 based Celerons.

 

[boshuter]

Celerons give stupid people something to brag about.

Kinda like PR ratings give other stupid people something to brag about :roll:

 

[batmanuel]

Even Intel admits you can't determine the performance of a processor based solely upon its clock speed. Doing so is like trying to figure out which car engine will be more powerful just looking at the engine's max RPMs and ignoring more important features like horsepower and torque.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: boshuter

Celerons give stupid people something to brag about.

Kinda like PR ratings give other stupid people something to brag about :roll:

Pretty much yeah. 😕 Although PR ratings do suck, at least they're a measure of overall performance rather than just one aspect of performance.

 

[Ahill]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
^ What he said. Some one goes to the store, says Wow, this PC costs $750 and has a P4 2.2 GHZ...but this one costs $500 and has a celeron 2.8ghz! Woah, faster clock speed for less money!

Yeah, celerons aren't bad chips for some things but I bet Intel's dirty little secret is that lots of celerons sales go just like that...Celerons give stupid people something to brag about. Don't tell me you haven't met that guy who has a celeron 2.5ghz or something with 128mb of ram running windows XP and a taskbar full of spyware telling you your XP2500+ is sh|t and you got ripped off. That guy is everywhere! He's joe computer buyer.

Hey! Quit talking about my inlaws!

 

[cubby1223]

Just look at all the crap on the Athlon XP vs. Sempron on socket A!

1.83GHz, 333fsb, 512kb L2 = XP 2500+
1.75GHz, 333fsb, 256kb L2 = Sempron 2500+


AMD, you try & try so hard with spectacular hardware, yet you continue to dissapoint in most every other area conceviable!!! Finding a direct comparison between t-bred XP's & t-bred Sempron's is even more depressing. Basically, you have to drop 300 points off all Semprons to get the equivilent XP. Why? It's very obvious these numbers no longer give us a performance comparison, so why are the numbers still used?

Can anyone tell I really want both companies to go back listing the cpus by their actual clock speed? Screw the "MHz myth", atleast that is a factual number accurrately describing a part of the cpu.

 

[patsfan33]

Ping Spike~ you are ohhhhh so right about "Joe the computer buyer". All he knows is his "friend said AMD sucks and intel rocks". You try explaing the benefits of the A64 to him vs a Prescot. Plus its cheaper and has the option for him to some day do the 64 bit thing on windows. But all he sees is the 2.8 Delery and he still thinks its faster than the lower clocked A64. He shouts " I just like Intel". I ask what does he like about Intel?
"I just do ". So you sell him the Delery.

But whats even worse is when a guy I know who does SOHO networking, virus/spyware removal(very well from what I hear), calls me to get a new system for a business customer( an exec. who wants a high end desktop), something reliable, a P4 he mentions. I ask " he won`t consider an A64(lower cost of ownership I suggest) ? My Tech friend says " No, I like the P4 because the AMD`s run too hot". Obviously hardware is not his expertise and he is unaware that its the Prescott that runs toasty, not todays AMD CPU`s. I wish AMD spent a few bucks on marketing and employed a top ad agency. Life would be so much simpler.