Why isnt my amd xp 2000+ hitting over 1.6ghz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[baker]

I recently purchased a new amd motherboard and processor and also a dvd drive. I well needed this as I was stuck at 450mhz!!!!

Anyhow when I use mother board minder 5 to check my cpu speed is clocks it at 1.6ghz!!!! Even when using dvd2avi!!! By calculating a few things I also believe I am stuck at 1.6 ghz!!! This is a big problem for me as I need every bit of speed i can get as I do loads of processing!

So even if your not sure any help is appreciated.

Baker

[caish5]

correct me if I'm wrong but don't the model numbers of AMD chips have no correlation with speed. Could it perhaps be a 1.6ghz processor.
The good news is that the idea of calling then 2000+ etc etc if the approximate speed it would be if it was a p4. Apparently Mhz isn't everything!

[baker]

Thanks for the quick reply but i just found out that you are infact right. My processsor is clocked at 1.67ghz but it will do the work of a pentium 2ghz and more.

So I aint too woried.

baker

[caish5]

no problem

[musher70]

YOU'RE ANOTHER THAT HAVE BEEN RIPPED OFF BY AMD..
i too bought a 1900+,knew it was a 1.6 though, and really
do you beleive its like a 2.0 p4?if u want a 2.0 go buya 2.0
amd or pentium, any system can run benchmarks, but it
only counts when u not ENCODING....

I threw that 1900 away and got a p4 2.4, bought a new
533 board, now i feel like im up there with the big boys..

[rsuave5]

yes i know lots of people that are ripped by the numbers and then to make themselves feel better they say well its equal to pentium 2.0. i say bull! it is close and its a good processor but an equal it is not!

[baker]

well acccording to a website they actually are quite close.


How sure are you that there was a biug difference? (ps I got my amd chaeap!!! I aint leaving it back to pay 100s more for a new pent!!!)


Baker

[baker]

I just used my 2000+ amd and compared it to a 2.1ghz pent.

Without lying the pent only did slightly better.

Baker

[crahak]

Whoever here says those numbers are BS should know better. Megahertz aren't the only thing. Instructions per clock cycle are just as important, but manufacturers don't state anything like it. That is basic computer knowledge... If you look at benchmarks at any decent sites, you'll see they are just about the same as a "equivalent" P4, give or take a few % depending on what exactly they're doing... Sometimes AMD are faster, even, so you're most definately not ripped off... I mainly buy AMD and it never was a problem. If you look at the prices of P4 and AMD cpu's and mobo's, you'll see a price difference though. My AMD's have the processing power I need, I don't feel like I had to pay an extra say 150$ or so for a machine that performs basically the same.

so rsuave and musher, you're just making yourselves look like fools. You just can't make claims like that, without any facts, and against basic computer theory that just about everyone knows... It also makes you look like those people that will only buy plextor writers and the like. Sure we all have preferences, but it's much like ford and gm in this case...

PS: let's not start a AMD-Intel war please... (so far it's only been intel fans yapping, I only stated facts.) Thread would get locked or deleted anyhow...

[Scar]

No matter the numbers, it's a good sales trick from AMD, i had to explain so many times to ppl that the AMD XP's run at slower speeds then the name suggests.

(bit funny actually, when u buy somthing as important to ur pc as a proc, u could expect ppl to do some homework, but no the majority buys it without even knowing what they spending the money on)

Scar

[Nelson37]

AMD has been using "Pentium equivalency" speed ratings for several years. These have been benchmarked NUMEROUS times, by several labs, some using real-world app suites and tasks. ALL agree that AMD's ratings are in fact accurate.

Use the money saved over Intel for a better video card or more RAM.

Which is better? We could debate that endlessly. Which is more cost-effective? AMD wins, no question.

[Shabubu]

Sorry I just had to reply. The processor speed thing is actually a very clever marketing trick of intel, who made it a common belief that higher clock speed means more power. AMD started the "XP" naming system to try to combat this because the Athlon processors were more powerful than the equivelant speed in Pentium. This is because of some technical blurb dealing with command queus (or however you spell that) and such.

So when it comes down to it AMD HAD to do this with their numbers, because of misconceptions about procesor power spread by intell.

By the way, I use both and I like them both.

[crahak]

Scar: you miss the point. They never said it's megahertz, ever. It's more of an approximation of the equivalent P4 speed. In other words, you need a P4 this fast to do the same job, more or less. It's not a sales trick by any means.

If they wrote the actual megahertz as is, and alone (which is just about useless) lots of people would get tricked into thinking the P4 is sooooooo much faster, whereas it is slower at the same MHz. Most consumers are looking for a "magical" number to quantitize how good or fast something is (just like they do with megapixels in cameras, and megapixels is far from being the only issue there lol) so they did with that "equivalent to a P4 xxxx MHz" thing...

Writing MHz means just about NOTHING. Sure a 2000Mhz cpu will be faster than a 4.77MHz XT, but another 1500 MHz could in fact be much faster than that 2000Mhz.

It's about processor achitechture, and it's also why a say, Duron 1200 is slower than an Athlon 1200. It really is basic stuff.

Most people don't seem to know about this. Maybe they should advertize it in a non-megahertz related processing power unit. It would make more sense after all, and no one would find it misleading.

[pinoy2201]

if this does become a AMD-Intel War ill be sure to close it...we have enough of these..please search if u want a war topic... believe me there is alot of closed ones..lol

[baker]

No matter the numbers, it's a good sales trick from AMD, i had to explain so many times to ppl that the AMD XP's run at slower speeds then the name suggests.

saying amd xp runs slower than the name sudjests is telling a ly.

Using a pc performance test, I rated my amd xp 2000+ against a 2.1ghz pent and the pent just bet it. In fact the amd actually was faster then the pent in some cases.

baker

[Scar]

No matter the numbers, it's a good sales trick from AMD, i had to explain so many times to ppl that the AMD XP's run at slower speeds then the name suggests.

saying amd xp runs slower than the name sudjests is telling a ly.
baker

If i'm not mistaken u urself came to the conclusion that ur XP 2000 doesn't run @ 2GHz..........hence, my remark considering the numbers !

It's just a clever salestrick, i didn't say the P4's outperform the XP's

Scar

[OcTroN]

Dunno if I can explain this well in english, but at least i'm gonna try. 2000+ ain't 2000+, if someone comes at work in my store and says I want a new system, amd preferred, i'm asking the peep why he wants amd. At the end of the list, P4 is usually cheaper.

For video encoding/decoding/transcoding etc P4 would be a lot better than AMD? Why? I'll explain you,

Grovely said this is the difference:
Both CPU's match all day long (match the right word? damn english )
If P4 match 9:8 it will say 1,125 at the end
If AMD does the same this, 9:8 it will say 1,12 and lose the 5.
This is hardly said tho! In reality it is more something like uncountable lot of numbers. But I think you guys know what i'm talking about, if not, reply

This ain't not that big problem tho, untill you gonna work with programs like Adobe Photoshop etc, or in this case, maybe even better example, video stuff.
P4 is like 5/6 times faster in program like Photoshop!

And another thing, AMD 2000+ is the same as P4 2.0Ghz? Screw you... Whatever sites say, and they will all say something different. It just ain't the same. I've seen a lot of both systems and P4 is just faster. When the P4 2.0Ghz comes out for example, AMD comes with 2000+. Hey! People! We are here to with 2000(Mhz). *COUGH*

Well, i'm gonna see if my DVD finally works with UDF Cu peepz l8r

[Edit]
AMD Cheaper? Go do your homework, match a 2GHZ AMD with P4 2GHZ, not AMD 2000+ vs P4 2GHZ....
[/Edit]

[Scar]

if this does become a AMD-Intel War ill be sure to close it...we have enough of these..please search if u want a war topic... believe me there is alot of closed ones..lol

IMO this is not the ole AMD vs Intel war, if anything there's a debate going on which company has the better marketing department....

[crahak]

You're just plain 100% wrong. AMD is cheaper, and it's a fact (unless you start buying motherboards and cpu voluntarily so AMD loses). I can provide a lot of pricings of good systems if need be...

From real life benchmarks, sometimes the AMD is faster, it depends on the task, so again, you're 100% wrong. Need I post links to charts that prove this?

Besides, your post was mostly uncomprehensible...

I guess it's the old AMD vs Intel again. I have no preferences, but when you buy and every time AMD turns out to be cheaper... So I got mainly AMD, and it performs just as much. I don't trust a nobody's opinion that claims out of the blue P4 2.0Ghz are many times faster, no matter what real life tests in controlled environments says. Some loosers know it all.

Go to computing sites, and see for yourself I guess. Man, I hate people that know nothing and bash AMD for things like that. Not that AMD is better or worse, but you don't bash something based on lies and misconceptions...

Is this thread locked yet?

[vitualis]

Calm down everyone!

• Let me start off by saying that both AMD and Intel processors are excellent processors.
• Secondly, the clockspeed is rightly not everything, especially when you are comparing processors from different architectures.
• The AMD number designations are a marketing trick. The numbers themselves don't have any real physical meaning -- other than supposedly being approximately equivalent in performance to a similar clockspeed P4. The AMD's credit, this is mostly accurate. Some people (including myself) do not like the "PR" ratings but that has no real bearing on the actual engineering of the CPU.
• AMD processors/systems generally give you better performance for the same price.
• The highest end P4's probably (do) have superior performance compared to the highest end Athlons.
• At the higher end of the market, to get equivalent performance, there is probably less of a price difference between the a P4 system vs. an Athlon one.

Regards.

[OcTroN]

Go to computing sites, and see for yourself I guess. Man, I hate people that know nothing and bash AMD for things like that. Not that AMD is better or worse, but you don't bash something based on lies and misconceptions...

Why should I go to computing sites if I see all day those damn stuff by myself, build both same systems with AMD/P4, and always P4 wins? I'm not gonna make more word dirty on this... It's the same like PS2/XBOX which is better and all those shit wasting thousands of TB's of bandwidth hehe

One thing is for sure, in wars like this, no-one is right...

[crahak]

Well, in my case P4 always loses... so anyways LOL. I'll leave it at that... I guess we're all somewhat biased from preferences and previous experiences... Dunno about PS2/XBOX, I don't play games

Guess I'll use my time for something more useful than wasting time on such an old argument... lol

[baker]

look at it this way:

AMd is cheaper so all us guys round here who need money for blank dvds get em.

According to various trests which I have conducted an amd 2000+ is simlar to a pent 2.1ghz.

However the guys that build these machines claim that the in practice the pents win.

I dont know how but they win.

By the way I am proud to have an amd processor rather then a pent.- Dont bring that into this arguement though its probably me just being weird.

baker

[Nelson37]

AMD IS marketing its processors using an Industry Standard Performance Benchmark. Unfortunately, that benchmark is Intel Pentium clock speeds. It is what the public understands.

The accurate comparison would be an XP2000+ and a P4 2.0 GHZ processor. I've done it, numerous independent labs have done it, all agree AMD ratings are approximately accurate. Interesting Adobe Photoshop performance was mentioned, quoting from memory the recent PC Magazine AMD/INTEL comparison article, " AMD OWNS (their emphasis) the Adobe Premiere benchmark ", and I think they mentioned Photoshop as well.

Now the REAL comparison would be to spend an EQUAL amount of CASH on each, if you can't beat the Intel with an AMD you're doing something wrong, or got a great deal on the Intel.

Buy where most people buy, one or two (or three or four) notches below the absolute top of the heap.

[crahak]

Wow, are we trying to add some sense to this thread or what? I was starting to feel like this was IntelP4help.com LOL

[sterno]

I remember a while back there were some jokes about how Apple and AMD should team up on the marketing publicity. Both companies have tried to point out that the competition (primarily Intel with their sky-high clock rates) isn't necessarily faster just because the number's bigger.

And just one further technical point on comparing processors - the motherboard's chipset and memory can have a significant effect on overall performance. Drop the same processor in to two different systems and there may be a difference. If you look on sites like Tom's Hardware they sometimes talk about chipsets and do benchmarks exactly like this, with both real applications and synthetic benchmarks. I think Tom's Hardware even includes DivX and MP3 encoding in some of their tests, which is certainly practical to people on this forum.

[Bondiablo]

they say well its equal to pentium 2.0. i say bull! it is close and its a good processor but an equal it is not!

Well, you're right about one thing they're not equal. The XP 2000+ is faster and cheaper than the P4 2ghz.

[crahak]

Bondiablo: Cannon Fodder was a fun game!! As far as pricing goes, I agree... Faster? I'd say about the same...

[Bondiablo]

yeah i liked that game too, wasn't even thinking of it when i added that.

i've built systems with both amd and intel (though no P4s yet) so i haven't checked them lately, maybe the 2000+ was only faster than the 2ghz p4 with the 256kb cache and about the same as the one with the 512kb either way it's less than 60% the price of the 2.0a so...

anyway i run my 2000+ @ 166 x 10.5 and my mushkin pc2100 ram at 166mzh cas2 and that's fast enough for me for a while.

[PlaiBoi]

Any ideas when AMD will be releasing a processor to match the P4 3.06 GHz?