AMD

[camcam6740]

whats the deal with my amd prcessor it is a 2800 amd and it gets 1240mhz sholdnt this be higher

[Pent uP Rage]

For example, using the 1800+ processor QuantiSpeed rating:

MHz = (XP rating/1.5) + (500/1.5)

MHz = (1800+/1.5) + (500/1.5)

MHz = 1200 + ~333.33333333...

MHz = ~1533.33

~=approx.


AMD started the speed rating system for their chips to "compare" them to Intel speeds baecause of AMD's "quantispeed" architechture. Basically, they are saying that is their equivalent to a 2.8Ghz Intel...in information throughput...you still have a 1.2 Ghz processor, it just runs differently...

And hence... the infamous AMD vs. INTEL thread.

[napoleonic]

WRONG THERE IS NO 2800+ FROM T-BRED TO SEMPRON AND A64 2800+ ONLY 1240Mhz

at least it should be around 2.1ghz for AXP and sempron(sempron soket A) and 1.8Ghz for A64

did you sure it was your clockspeed? it's too SLOW

[Pent uP Rage]

After doing the math again, this morning, I was wrong..(enjoy that, I don't say it often)...sorry, I'm an Intel guy
XP 2800's run at 2.06Ghz...So yes there is something wrong.
Your chip/motherboard/PSU could be going bad.
Do you know what your temps are?

[Portuguese Rebel]

Originally posted by camcam6740@Apr 8 2005, 03:38 AM
whats the deal with my amd prcessor it is a 2800 amd and it gets 1240mhz sholdnt this be higher

Where are you reading this information? In the BIOS?

[Kanaric]

Actualy AMDs clock speeds are slower then intels as its a different technology. Same reason why a Apple's G5 is 800 mhz yet is faster than a 3.2 ghz pentium.

They just have the 2800+ thing so you can compaire it to the equivellent pentium speed.

I THINK the speed in the first post is normal, but then again i dont own a A64. I know my 3000+ runs at 2.1 ghz though, they could of changed technology.



What you should do is run a benchmarking program and compaire results with someone with the same/similar processor.

[squeaky]

AMD likes to claim that their numbers are comparable with Intel's, but their marketing kinda exagerates with their naming too, so don't take their word for it.
2800+ to 3000+ isn't much of a difference, so 2.1ghz for you may still mean 2.0 or even 2.1 (with different cache?) for the 2800+
since the 3800+ and 4000+ and FX53are bascially only different by cache size, clocks are the same

[Portuguese Rebel]

AMD likes to claim that their numbers are comparable with Intel's, but their marketing kinda exagerates with their naming too

What do you mean by "kinda exagerates with their naming too"? I find that an AMD64 3000+ is roughly equivalent to a P4 3,0Ghz (take or give a bit according to application). Do you mean that calling it 3000 instead of 3,0 the exageration? It's not like they need people to think the processor is running at 3,0 or something. Plus there is a copyright problem from the days when the AMDs had a designation that directly compared them to the Intel processors. They had names like AMD133mhz-P75. The P75 was to compare with Intel.

[squeaky]

3000+ plus is claimed to compare with the intel 3.0 ghz, which it does in most cases, but they cannot be said to be at all equal because both have their different strengths.
IE, in certain benches, the 3000+ is as good and better than the P4, but in others the other way around, but the same is true when comparing a 2800+ to a 3.4ghz, they both have their strengths, so AMD tends to market the numbers high, there's no real way to compare them comprehensively since every user is different