XP 2500+ says its a 1.83 ghz in system properties !?!?!?!

UnatcoAgent

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
5,462
1
0
I just got my new computer and I go into system properties and general information. Under 'Computer' it says

AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2500+
1.83GHz
512MB or RAM

Does this mean the clockspeed of the chip is 1.83 GHZ !?!?
 

Alkali

Senior member
Aug 14, 2002
483
0
0
Yes.

The way AMD are naming their chips is by using a virtual performance rating. Although they strongly deny it, the rating is linked to the clockspeed of the Pentium 4, so they don't lose any market share from people who buy CPUs only based on clock speed (which is obviously what you did).

Have no worries though, as the XP2500+ is not all that far off the performance of the Pentium 4 2.53Ghz, although the Performance ratings are known to everyone to be a bit over-exaggereted. Compared to a P4, you are probably looking at a performance between the P4 2.4Ghz and P4 2.53Ghz.

The XP3000+ is only 2.17Ghz just so you know.

Ghz isnt the be-all-and-end-all of CPU performance (as Hyperthreading and other techs have proved).
 

UnatcoAgent

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
5,462
1
0
Originally posted by: Alkali
Yes.

The way AMD are naming their chips is by using a virtual performance rating. Although they strongly deny it, the rating is linked to the clockspeed of the Pentium 4, so they don't lose any market share from people who buy CPUs only based on clock speed (which is obviously what you did).

Have no worries though, as the XP2500+ is not all that far off the performance of the Pentium 4 2.53Ghz, although the Performance ratings are known to everyone to be a bit over-exaggereted. Compared to a P4, you are probably looking at a performance between the P4 2.4Ghz and P4 2.53Ghz.

The XP3000+ is only 2.17Ghz just so you know.

Ghz isnt the be-all-and-end-all of CPU performance (as Hyperthreading and other techs have proved).


Ok thank you so much, lord I'm such a n00b. Thanks again guys !
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,890
5,001
126
<sarcasm removed for the faint of heart>

"The worst thing we can do in todays society is hurt somebodies feelings."

 

Confused

Elite Member
Nov 13, 2000
14,166
0
0
Originally posted by: Homerboy
I hope this is a troll by a "senior" member?
If not can I be demoted then?

Geez
rolleye.gif



Uhm, it seems he asked a legitimate question, got a sensible (and correct) answer, and is happy with it.

Not everyone who posts here (even for some months) knows everything there is to know, and some people aren't as "tech" as others.

Some people do only come to AT for Off Topic or Hot Deals.



Confused
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,374
8,499
126
Originally posted by: Alkali
Yes.

The way AMD are naming their chips is by using a virtual performance rating. Although they strongly deny it, the rating is linked to the clockspeed of the Pentium 4, so they don't lose any market share from people who buy CPUs only based on clock speed (which is obviously what you did).

Have no worries though, as the XP2500+ is not all that far off the performance of the Pentium 4 2.53Ghz, although the Performance ratings are known to everyone to be a bit over-exaggereted. Compared to a P4, you are probably looking at a performance between the P4 2.4Ghz and P4 2.53Ghz.

The XP3000+ is only 2.17Ghz just so you know.

Ghz isnt the be-all-and-end-all of CPU performance (as Hyperthreading and other techs have proved).

they didn't start out that way. the performance ratings, when compared to the p4, were way far ahead. compared to the 3 ghz ht northwood the rating falls flat on its face. amd counts performance increasing things like higher FSB and cache toward its rating, and of course intel doesn't because they're marketed using actual hz.

i wonder if the rating is still lined up with a t-bird, like it was supposed to be
 

redhatlinux

Senior member
Oct 6, 2001
493
0
0
AMd's PR department maybe good, but the PR rating has NEVER been based on a P4. Its based on AMD TBIRD. AMD some how 'scales' the power of the TBIRD and compares it with the power of the XP. IIRC they even have 'independant' auditors to verify the results. The PR ratings seemed pretty reasonable when AMD first started doing this, the TBIRD was still pretty fresh and the rating somewhat meaningful. But the BIRDS been gone for quite awile now and everybody tries to compare to a P4.
 

Lord Evermore

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
9,558
0
76
Whatever AMD tries to say and do, the PR rating's intent is to give them numbers that users can compare to a P4 so that they don't feel like they're getting a "slow" processor compared to an Intel system. Therefore their rating comparisons to the Tbird were designed to give them PR numbers that would be about the same as a higher clock speed P4, for marketing purposes only. The PR system wasn't re-introduced until the P4 came out; previous to that, the Athlon was competing favorably with the P3 based on clock speed alone (lower price, higher performance per clock). If the P4 didn't have much higher clock speeds with lower performance per clock, the PR system wouldn't have been used.

While this system has obviously worked in some ways, such as magnum375 buying based on the 2500+ rating, it has also failed in some ways, as evidenced by the apparently severe upset at discovering the true clock speed (which makes the user feel somewhat gyped by AMD and the VAR), and the fact that very few if any OEMs or component dealers give just the PR number without the real speed.

Based on the P4, no, because they can't do that without looking stupid. So they "base" it on a Tbird, in order to come up with numbers comparable to a P4. No one honestly can say they believe the numbers have anything to do with the performance of a 3 generation old core that most consumers don't even know about and that isn't produced anymore. How many people look at a 2500+ rating and go "gee, that's a whole lot better value than my old t-bird!"?

At first the PR numbers were at least mostly valid, but no longer. AMD combines too many factors -- clock speed, bus speed, cache size -- to come up with the numbers to compare with P4's that are increasing by actual performance levels, not just a percentage rating. There isn't a consistent enough (meaning across the board) increase in performance to justify the wider gap between actual freqency and performance rating with the newer Athlons, when the performance rating was already starting to struggle to keep up by the time Barton was released. It's obvious that AMD simply can't get the Athlon's clock speed up to what it needs to be, so they fudge the numbers where they can, pretend not to be trying to compete with Intel's numbers, and keep making money on the fact that they're usually cheaper by a small amount and people hate Intel. I'll almost be surprised if AMD stays in business long enough for us to see affordable Athlon64 systems.
 

Alkali

Senior member
Aug 14, 2002
483
0
0
Now that would be something to behold... a 3.2Ghz Athlon XP..... :p


redhat...
I know AMD say they base the ratings on TBird, but I mean come on, be realistic. If that was true, why on earth do we have an XP3200+ and a 3.2Ghz P4 released at the same time to the market. It is (no my mind) naiive to think they don't mean them to be compared directly to P4's. Don't take that as an insult, its not one, I just don't understand how anyone could think the (3000+ 3Ghz), (3200+ 3.2Ghz) etc, being released in the same time frames are a co-incidence.
 

Alkali

Senior member
Aug 14, 2002
483
0
0
If AMD wanted to do a proper performance rating, they should have taken a bold step, and rated them on their own scale independant of P4's clocks. But obviously they felt they could'nt as they thought they would lose market share, ergo, we have direct P4 comparisons.

Another point is this. If AMD didnt really want us to compare an XP3200+ to a 3.2Ghz CPU, or 3000+ to 3Ghz, they would release a memo to all the review sites specifically stating that the CPU's should not be compared on that basis. As far as I know, no such memo has turned up.
 

Lord Evermore

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
9,558
0
76
Well, it might own, for about 2 seconds before it burned out, and exploded your water cooling system due to the instant conversion to steam. :)
 

Superman9534

Senior member
Aug 8, 2002
272
0
0
um, nobody has mentioned this, but his 2500+ IS underclocked. 1.83ghz is the speed of a 2200+, and unless he has a barton, its underclocked and should be over 2ghz...Try setting the FSB to 166 instead of 133.
 

Alkali

Senior member
Aug 14, 2002
483
0
0
He has a Barton, must have, otherwise he would have said the rating showed as an XP2200+ under windows and in BIOS.

My XP3000+ started life as an XP1600+ I think when I first booted up... then changed FSB in BIOS of course :p
 

Insidious

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 2001
7,649
0
0
yep, yep, yep,

the 2500+ Barton stocks at 1.83GHz

-Sid

(but runs nicely at 2GHz+)
 

Duvie

Elite Member
Feb 5, 2001
16,215
0
71
Originally posted by: shady06
i'm gonna be very dissapointed if I order a 3200+ and i dont get a 3.2Ghz cpu :)

Or how about I chip that performs like a 3.2ghz machine!!!!;)


I think that 2500+ is a Barton chip no less so an actual 2500+xp would have or is higher clocked speed but still 266fsb and 256l2 cache.....As we see in many test that overall speed of the 2500+xp would likely better the 2500+ barton in quite a few apps....Part of AMD's pr problem IMO...
 

Insidious

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 2001
7,649
0
0
As we see in many test that overall speed of the 2500+xp would likely better the 2500+ barton in quite a few apps

I'm not dissin' the post, but if there are actual tests involved... how does the word likely fit into the conversation?

What did the test results say?

Again, this is not meant to be criticism... I truly am curious.

-Sid