AMD 3Ghz

[MercenaryForHire]

Dear Moron,

Please read the other threads you have created before posting another.

Text

Now quit trolling or I'll kill you - for free.

Love,

- M4H

 

[charloscarlies]

Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper

Originally posted by: Dacalo
LOL at this thread.

Intel and AMD chips are different, AMD's number scheme is based on Intel.

And get rid of that crappy card please.

No it is not. AMD's number scheme is based totally on their own design with 0% reference to Intel.

But ur right on the second part, he insulted his computer by putting in that 7000

That's what AMD says...but I have a hard time believing it.

 

[KDKPSJ]

DELL IS YOUR ONLY WAY TO GO!!

 

[Zebo]

No it is not. AMD's number scheme is based totally on their own design with 0% reference to Intel.

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiight.

For sale: bridge, 1 each. Location: NYC $5 OBO. Inquire within.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Zebo

No it is not. AMD's number scheme is based totally on their own design with 0% reference to Intel.

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiight.

For sale: bridge, 1 each. Location: NYC $5 OBO. Inquire within.

I agree Zebo... what is that guy talking about. It is based off of Intels chips why else would they have it based on VIA!?!? You get some people in here these days

However does this poster have ANY CLUE what he is talking about or is he just trying to be an idiot.

People these days *sigh*....

-Kevin

 

[SinfulWeeper]

Their numbering scheme came from comparing the first XP's to their soon to be phased out Thunderbird line-up. If you remember correctly back in the Thunderbird days, they still used MHz's as their CPU speed indicator. So an Althon XP 1600+ was slated to work @ the same speed as a Athlon Thunderbird @ 1600MHz, when in fact the 1600+ was only 1400MHz. Nothing has changed today. A A64 3500 is supposed to do the same amount of work as a Athlon T-Bird @ 3500MHz. As I said, never once was their XP line-up to compare to Intel.

Well enough education for you folks. While what I said is true, I have a hard time beliving it myself... But if you want to believe they call their CPU's Rating to match against Intel's MHz's go right ahead. This thread is plain stupid as M4H pointed out. And NO!!!, I will never lower myself to the level of buying a Dell :disgust:, my home rigs are far superior to anything they offer, but... I think jamesb needs one

 

[Gamingphreek]

Its not based on the thunderbird. The reason it is not competing well with intel is because it was never meant to compete with the rev C's. The bartons were meant to compete with the B's at max.

Where are you pulling these things from!?!?!??! It was all based on Intels processors... where in the hell did you come up with comparing them to the thunnderbirds!?!?

-Kevin

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
Their numbering scheme came from comparing the first XP's to their soon to be phased out Thunderbird line-up. If you remember correctly back in the Thunderbird days, they still used MHz's as their CPU speed indicator. So an Althon XP 1600+ was slated to work @ the same speed as a Athlon Thunderbird @ 1600MHz, when in fact the 1600+ was only 1400MHz. Nothing has changed today. A A64 3500 is supposed to do the same amount of work as a Athlon T-Bird @ 3500MHz. As I said, never once was their XP line-up to compare to Intel.

Well enough education for you folks. While what I said is true, I have a hard time beliving it myself... But if you want to believe they call their CPU's Rating to match against Intel's MHz's go right ahead. This thread is plain stupid as M4H pointed out. And NO!!!, I will never lower myself to the level of buying a Dell :disgust:, my home rigs are far superior to anything they offer, but... I think jamesb needs one

We all know what they said, SW.

Now explain why a A64 3200 absoluty destroys a A-XP 3200 is it's supposed to be based off of a Tbird.

Next explain why a Sempron labeled as 3100 get beat by a A64 2800?

And they best question of all is why label them at all with a PR rating?

 

[SinfulWeeper]

You got me... since AMD never put a Thunderbird out above 1.4GHz, they got a little happy with their numbering scheme. As many people have said in the past. They no longer agree with it. I think their model numbers needs a new make over completly different than the current scheme. Give them a name instead of a number... something. Maybe I need

 

[Carskick]

The Semprons are on a different ratting system than the Athlons, as they are budget CPUs.
Sempron 2800+ < AthlonXP 2800+

It's har to believe people who claim to be computer literate still don't know an Athlon 3000+ doesn't run at 3Ghz. Those people should by a Dell. I think you can get A 2.8 Ghz for $500 after rebates.

Some of you may think it's funny I jokeingly reccomend buying a Dell when I own an HP. Well, let's just say I was on a very tight budget at the time. Next will be a build. At least it's an athlon.

BTW, don't you just love the dell comercials that say a 2.5 Ghz machine for $499 that they say is fast, only to find out it includes a Celeron, 128MB RAM, Intel Extreme w/no AGP, etc. Total rip off. I got my HP (without the video card) last august for $600, when a comparable dell was going to be $1000, of course a P4. Oh well. Some just don't get it.

And dude, your system is slow because you are using a 3-4 year old video card. Radeon 7000 is a DX7 cards, so it will play DX7 games and office programs fine. But if you are running modern games, you are in desperate need of an upgrade. A 9600 or FX5600/5700 should be a good minimum.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: iversonyin
nice, you can play warcraft 3 on ur rig, wouldnt go any further with that card

g/l with ur "AMD 3ghz"

He could play warcraft III... but due to the video card he'd require powerpoint would be required.

 

[Dacalo]

Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper

Originally posted by: Dacalo
LOL at this thread.

Intel and AMD chips are different, AMD's number scheme is based on Intel.

And get rid of that crappy card please.

No it is not. AMD's number scheme is based totally on their own design with 0% reference to Intel.

But ur right on the second part, he insulted his computer by putting in that 7000

I know people who work at AMD.

Bah, believe what you want.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

Then ur friend that works @ AMD needs more training lol

you can believe what you want to also

 

[igblack]

nub

 

[BigBadBiologist]

this guy just must be doing fishing expeditions. He really can't be that... naieve. He should have read his previous thread. In any case, this was some funny stuff.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
You got me... since AMD never put a Thunderbird out above 1.4GHz, they got a little happy with their numbering scheme. As many people have said in the past. They no longer agree with it. I think their model numbers needs a new make over completly different than the current scheme. Give them a name instead of a number... something. Maybe I need

It's real obvious IMHO.

If you look at the past benchmarks AMD was very accurate in thier "pentium equivalent" ratings until the P4C came about.

Pal and then T-bred was matched very well against A and B pentiums repectivly.

Then the C 800 quad pumped FSB came out and obilterated the ratings. AMD tried to make up ground adding 256 mb lvl2 in the Barton to no avail it still got smoked at thier, by then, bogus ratings.

The A64 is speed ratings are again in-line and accurate to both the C and E's pentium has out now.

They even do it this "pentium equivalent" in their value line of processors
If you look at the Sempron 2400 (which BTW is the exact same speed/cache 1.667 as T-bred 2100 which matched a ~ P4B 2100 way back when) matches the CeleronD 2400Mhz in the benches. Coinisidence? I don't think so.

But you can continue to believe it's off the T-bred if you want. It still does'nt explain why a 3100 semp, running at the exact same speed but with less cache as the A642800, has a higher number.

 

[justly]

I doubt the PR debate will ever be settled. Of course there are many opinions on this matter and some of what has been said I have heard before, there are also some things I have heard that have not been mentioned.

The idea that the PR number reflects the P4s performance has to be true to a point even if it is derived from a benchmark suite. I mean what good would it do to rate a processor way above or way below the competition. Also how could a processor be rated against their competition if their competition had nothing that compared? Benchmarks have to be involved at some point.

I have also heard that the XP line was supposed to be a comparison against a Thunderbird (maybe the 1.4GHz, but I am not sure). This would explain why the PR got screwed up as Intel increased performance without changing actual GHz (as with the shift from the P4A to P4B then finally the P4C). Can we really say how an AXP 2400+ compares to a 2.4GHz P4 without specifying what letter follows, I think not.

On to the A64, here I have heard that the benchmarks used in the XP line where getting to aged and needed updating. As a result, a new benchmarks suite was implemented and the A64 uses these. Since new benchmarks are now being used a new baseline also had to be determined. The new baseline for the A64 is supposed to be an AXP 1800+ if I remember correctly. I know, I know ? where did I hear this, to be honest I don?t remenber, but I think it was mentioned in a early Anandtech review of the A64, but I could be wrong.

Finally the Sempron, I have heard that this PR is also based on a benchmark suite, one that only tests for more mundane tasks (tasks common to a non-enthusiast rig). As for what it uses as a baseline processor I have no clue it might be an Intel Celeron for all I know.

I am not saying that I can prove any of this, its just what I have heard, but I think it sounds reasonable. All in all it probably isn?t even worth the time it took to write this

 

[BespinReactorShaft]

About that 140GB HDD, which brand is it anyway? The capacity looks a bit non-standard.