Why AMD? WHY???!!! (FBS Question)

[ECUHITMAN]

Maybe someone can explain something to me. Why does AMD come out with a new chip that has a much slower FBS (Nforce 2 with only a 333 FBS) when Intel seems to be coming out with a new FBS of 800 MzH (ok maybe Intel is not coming out with it for a while but..)? Maybe I don?t understand how FBS works (how they are clocked) but isn?t the quad FBS just 4 cycles per clock cycle? And if that is true, what sets that (the speed) the chip or the mobo? I just don?t think I understand FBS enough (anyone know where there is info that explains how this all works?). Also, if Intel?s FBS is so much higher than AMD's why would anyone buy an AMD based system? Does a 333 MhZ FBS compete with a 512 mzh (or what ever the current Intel FBS is)? Anyway, maybe someone can answer some of these questions. Thanks

 

[Wolfsraider]

perhaps you need a hammer.


mike

 

[Peter]

First of all, it's Front Side Bus, FSB. If you believe in marketing bull, then at least get it right

The major point everyone is overlooking is that P4's performance heavily depends on the performance of the system RAM. With Athlon, this by far isn't as relevant.
Besides, AMD's 166 MHz DDR front side bus is here now. Intel's 200 MHz QDR, so far, is just hype.

 

[OverclockTHIS]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Maybe someone can explain something to me. Why does AMD come out with a new chip that has a much slower FBS (Nforce 2 with only a 333 FBS) when Intel seems to be coming out with a new FBS of 800 MzH (ok maybe Intel is not coming out with it for a while but..)? Maybe I don?t understand how FBS works (how they are clocked) but isn?t the quad FBS just 4 cycles per clock cycle? And if that is true, what sets that (the speed) the chip or the mobo? I just don?t think I understand FBS enough (anyone know where there is info that explains how this all works?). Also, if Intel?s FBS is so much higher than AMD's why would anyone buy an AMD based system? Does a 333 MhZ FBS compete with a 512 mzh (or what ever the current Intel FBS is)? Anyway, maybe someone can answer some of these questions. Thanks

Man...you are a moron...its people like you who are driving AMD's business down because you believe everything you read on paper...

Bloody noobies...burn in hell! :|

 

[OverclockTHIS]

Originally posted by: Peter
First of all, it's Front Side Bus, FSB. If you believe in marketing bull, then at least get it right

The major point everyone is overlooking is that P4's performance heavily depends on the performance of the system RAM. With Athlon, this by far isn't as relevant.
Besides, AMD's 166 MHz DDR front side bus is here now. Intel's 200 MHz QDR, so far, is just hype.

Don't forget the upcoming Barton with 200mhz(raw FSB)...thats 400mhz for the freakin' noob!

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: OverclockTHIS

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Maybe someone can explain something to me. Why does AMD come out with a new chip that has a much slower FBS (Nforce 2 with only a 333 FBS) when Intel seems to be coming out with a new FBS of 800 MzH (ok maybe Intel is not coming out with it for a while but..)? Maybe I don?t understand how FBS works (how they are clocked) but isn?t the quad FBS just 4 cycles per clock cycle? And if that is true, what sets that (the speed) the chip or the mobo? I just don?t think I understand FBS enough (anyone know where there is info that explains how this all works?). Also, if Intel?s FBS is so much higher than AMD's why would anyone buy an AMD based system? Does a 333 MhZ FBS compete with a 512 mzh (or what ever the current Intel FBS is)? Anyway, maybe someone can answer some of these questions. Thanks

Man...you are a moron...its people like you who are driving AMD's business down because you believe everything you read on paper...

Bloody noobies...burn in hell! :|

Let me get this straight: one noob is complaining about another noob, being a noob?

 

[OverclockTHIS]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: OverclockTHIS

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Maybe someone can explain something to me. Why does AMD come out with a new chip that has a much slower FBS (Nforce 2 with only a 333 FBS) when Intel seems to be coming out with a new FBS of 800 MzH (ok maybe Intel is not coming out with it for a while but..)? Maybe I don?t understand how FBS works (how they are clocked) but isn?t the quad FBS just 4 cycles per clock cycle? And if that is true, what sets that (the speed) the chip or the mobo? I just don?t think I understand FBS enough (anyone know where there is info that explains how this all works?). Also, if Intel?s FBS is so much higher than AMD's why would anyone buy an AMD based system? Does a 333 MhZ FBS compete with a 512 mzh (or what ever the current Intel FBS is)? Anyway, maybe someone can answer some of these questions. Thanks

Man...you are a moron...its people like you who are driving AMD's business down because you believe everything you read on paper...

Bloody noobies...burn in hell! :|

Let me get this straight: one noob is complaining about another noob, being a noob?

WHA?

 

[techietam]

Bloody noobies...burn in hell! :|

Words from soneone with 16 posts... Is it just me or
something IS wrong with this picture...

 

[foofoo]

hi ECUHITMAN,
the frontside bus indicates how often the cpu is clocked. the amount of processing done by the processor in a single clock cycle is based on the design of the processor. (other factors do intrude like memory bandwidth, latency, etc but this seems to be a basics discussion)
the reason that amd processors can keep up (mostly) with intel processors that are clocked more often is that amd processors do more computing per clock cycle. if you look at benchmarks, an amd xp2000+ and a intel p4 2.0ghz score similarly (mostly) even though the xp2000+ is clocked at 1.67 ghz and the p4 is clocked at 2.0 ghz. the performance is shown by how much processing is done, not the speed of the front side bus. this is a very simplified description but i hope that it answers your question.


overclockthis - why not just answer the question with your obvious abundance of knowledge. why be insulting and rude? and it's not "people like him" that are causing amd's woes. plenty of very knowledgable and reasonable people are making the judgement that the p4 is a great and cheap (for what you get ) cpu and are buying it. i've had mostly amd processors until now but i'm very happy with my p4a.

 

[LS20]

who cares about the means.. its the result that counts, right?

in the end, my amd system, dollar for dollar and mhz for mhz, is faster or atleast comparible to its Intel counterpart

 

[AnandtechViolator]

this is an age old debate. Ford vs GM, Apple vs IBM, Intel vs AMD. Where will it end?

 

[MithShrike]

It will end with my world domination! Muahahahahaha! Anyways, I agree with foofoo and um, yah OCTHIS some people are just ignorant, it happens, get over it. Alrighty there you go!

 

[L3Guy]

ECUHITMAN;

FSB is one aspect of a design, and CAN be a limiting factor in the performance.
The Current Athlon gains only about 5% between 266 FSB and 333 FSB.
The reason that the P4 design has (and requires) a faster FSB is its innovative cache design.
The P4 tends to use more memory and FSB bandwidth in order to reduce the effects of memory latency.
The P4 achieves a good cache hit rate, but tend to have more transfers from memory to cache, requiring a higher FSB to allow the increased memory traffic.

The Cache and FSB differences are design choices that are best evaluated in terms of overall performance,
not just this aspect is faster on this processor.

Hope this helps;

Doug

 

[Peter]

Replace "innovative" with "crippled" and it's correct. The P4 as we know it is a cost reduced version of the originally intended design, which would have had a lot more cache, FIFOs and other misc internal trickery that would have reduced the impact of the external RAM speed.

regards, Peter

 

[Don66]

Bloody noobies...burn in hell!

:|
Does that mean you are going to burn in hell?

 

[Tab]

Isnt AMD's new FSB Speed really 332? 166 * 2 = 332? Not 333?

 

[foofoo]

133 is really 133.33333...
166 is really 166.6666....
they round to 333.
guess 166 should really be 167

not that this matters, fsb speeds seem always to be +/- a mhz or two

 

[ECUHITMAN]

ok just so I defend my self:
A) I knew it was Front Side Bus (a typo) sorry
B) this goes out to OC this (and the rest of you a holes that decided to talk s!@t and not at least give the your opinion)....kiss my ass man, it was just a f'in question. I thought this was a place where people could learn how things work and such. Also, what is not to believe if the FSB is reported at 500 mzh for intel then that is what it is whether it matters that much is the topic for debate. Also I own quite a few shares of AMD stock so why the hell would i want their business to go down??? It just didnt seem to make sense for AMD to come out with a new chip with a far slower FSB then the current Intel system. I never said that Intel was better or their chip was better because of this I just wanted to hear opinions from so call "experts". Its people like you that take away from what this message board was created for. 19 posts and all of a sudden you feel you created the first computer....
C) thanks goes out to the other people that actually responded to my question.

 

[Mavrick007]

Intel's current chips have a fsb of 133, and it is quad pumped to be relative to 533.
AMD's current chips have a fsb of 166, and it is doubled to give 333.

AMD hasn't released a slower fsb chip, they have released a faster one because they were previously at 133, which Intel is at now.

 

[AnandtechViolator]

Originally posted by: Mith
It will end with my world domination! Muahahahahaha! Anyways, I agree with foofoo and um, yah OCTHIS some people are just ignorant, it happens, get over it. Alrighty there you go!

heh, maybe mini-you will get to it first!