|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.a-plus > June 2003 > Athlon 2000+ ?????????
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Athlon 2000+ ?????????
|
|
| SBFan2000 2003-06-24, 2:23 pm |
| on the side of the retail box it says, "operates at 1667Mhz" does that mean
that it is only a 1.6G chip? Seems like false advertising!
Glenn
| |
|
|
"SBFan2000" <webmaster@glenngriffith.com> wrote in message
news:vfh7c0f54lu6a@corp.supernews.com...
> on the side of the retail box it says, "operates at 1667Mhz" does that
mean
> that it is only a 1.6G chip? Seems like false advertising!
>
> Glenn
It's a P rating. It operates as fast as a Pentium 2000 and costs a whole
lot less.
They've been doing it for a long time.
AG
| |
| SBFan2000 2003-06-24, 3:23 pm |
| I wondered if that wasn't the case, I use to deal with nothing but AMD but I
abandoned them during the Athlon T-bird because they ran hot and because
their FSB was falling way behind Intel! I guess I should have paid more
attention to what they were doing! :-) I would still say that leans towards
false advertising! They should put the actual speed and then put "compare
to Intel Pentium 2000Mhz"
Thanks for the quick reply!!
"AG" <atenor@email.com> wrote in message
news:3ef8a3bf$0$75803$4c5eba9e
@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "SBFan2000" <webmaster@glenngriffith.com> wrote in message
> news:vfh7c0f54lu6a@corp.supernews.com...
> > on the side of the retail box it says, "operates at 1667Mhz" does that
> mean
> > that it is only a 1.6G chip? Seems like false advertising!
> >
> > Glenn
>
> It's a P rating. It operates as fast as a Pentium 2000 and costs a whole
> lot less.
> They've been doing it for a long time.
> AG
>
>
| |
|
| haha - nah, AMD wants to boast that their 1.6 is a fast as a 2.0 pentium so
they use bogus figures. I have a couple AMD machines in my lab, but stick
to Intel when I am building retail machines for a customer who is looking
for performance and reliability.
My XXXXX with AMD heat is not that the chip fails, but you need a whole
bunch of noisy fans to keep everything else running for a reasonable length
of time. No good having to replace a clients modem/sound card etc. after
12/18 months because it is affected by excess heat - bad for my rep.
--
RussS
MCP W2K Pro & Server, A+, Net+
http://www.techexams.net/
| |
| Peter B 2003-06-24, 5:23 pm |
|
"RussS" <yeah_right@roflmao.com> wrote in message
news:Ay2Ka.48545$JA5.850885@news.xtra.co.nz...
> haha - nah, AMD wants to boast that their 1.6 is a fast as a 2.0 pentium
so
> they use bogus figures. I have a couple AMD machines in my lab, but stick
> to Intel when I am building retail machines for a customer who is looking
> for performance and reliability.
> My XXXXX with AMD heat is not that the chip fails, but you need a whole
> bunch of noisy fans to keep everything else running for a reasonable
length
> of time. No good having to replace a clients modem/sound card etc. after
> 12/18 months because it is affected by excess heat - bad for my rep.
>
Nope you just need the right sort of fans. Mine are very quiet, I have 3 in
total. Two of them are adjustable speeds. Ok I paid a bit more for them,
but when it comes to that sort of performance you have to pay that little
bit extra for it.
| |
| Peter B 2003-06-24, 5:23 pm |
|
"SBFan2000" <webmaster@glenngriffith.com> wrote in message
news:vfha7mr93ja3bd@corp.supernews.com...
> I wondered if that wasn't the case, I use to deal with nothing but AMD but
I
> abandoned them during the Athlon T-bird because they ran hot and because
> their FSB was falling way behind Intel! I guess I should have paid more
> attention to what they were doing! :-) I would still say that leans
towards
> false advertising!
It is the buying public that has drawn that conclusion. AMD have never
stated that that is why they are numbered in that fashion. If you ask them
why, they will tell you that they are trying to steer consumers away from
thinking of MHz or GHz when buying a chip. Because at the speeds they are
running at now it is getting ridiculous. What matters now is the amount of
data that can be shifted in one go. Think of it as a motorway. In 1 hour,
a motorway with 6 lanes (AMD) that has cars travelling on it at 50mph, will
allow more cars to travel along it than a 4 lane motorway with cars
travelling at 60mph (Intel).
The speed soon will not matter as much as bandwidth will do.
| |
|
| Hmmm - I must be imagining the box of AMD processors I have under my bench
that are toasted .... nope, i subbed my toe on them again and will continue
to do so until they are taken away by the insurance company.
AMD vs Intel is much like Linux vs Microsoft - if you are anti the big guy
you will always find ways to justify yourself. I prefer to let my own
experiments and benchmarking prove or disprove what I hear and read. When I
build for a client I demand 100% reliability and from my way of thinking I
get that with Intel. If a client asks for an AMD system I will build it
without slagging off at AMD, but currently I would not suggest one as a
first choice.
Oh Firebird - I can find many techs who feel exactly the same. In fact I
know a few who will stand and plead with a customer to change their mind. I
personally think that is counter productive, but it surely is a sentiment
that is out there.
--
RussS
MCP W2K Pro & Server, A+, Net+
http://www.techexams.net/
| |
| Peter B 2003-06-25, 5:23 am |
|
"RussS" <yeah_right@roflmao.com> wrote in message
news:ihdKa.49567$JA5.871047@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Hmmm - I must be imagining the box of AMD processors I have under my bench
> that are toasted ....
Surely that tells you something about the way you are building your systems.
>nope, i subbed my toe on them again and will continue
> to do so until they are taken away by the insurance company.
> AMD vs Intel is much like Linux vs Microsoft - if you are anti the big guy
> you will always find ways to justify yourself. I prefer to let my own
> experiments and benchmarking prove or disprove what I hear and read.
They have been benchmarked time and time again, by many impartial
organisations and if I remember correctly, the only thing that an Intel
2.2ghz out performed an AMD 2000 was in some video processing activities.
>When I
> build for a client I demand 100% reliability and from my way of thinking I
> get that with Intel. If a client asks for an AMD system I will build it
> without slagging off at AMD, but currently I would not suggest one as a
> first choice.
> Oh Firebird - I can find many techs who feel exactly the same. In fact I
> know a few who will stand and plead with a customer to change their mind.
Of course they would, Intel cost more.
> --
> RussS
> MCP W2K Pro & Server, A+, Net+
| |
| ImhoTech 2003-06-25, 9:24 am |
| Hmm..bit surprised at this Russ, was previously giving you credit for
knowledge than this.
"RussS" <yeah_right@roflmao.com> wrote in message
news:ihdKa.49567$JA5.871047@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Hmmm - I must be imagining the box of AMD processors I have under my bench
> that are toasted ....
I imagine you are imagining them. Tell the truth Russ, you have the odd bad
processor and you've read about a few more. Its not unusual to find to tech
who adopt the hardware prejudices picked up through newsgroups or forums.
I certainly could be absolutely wrong, perhaps you do have a box full of
'toasted' processors. If so that's a reflection of the quality of the system
builder, not the processor.
(And you really have an 'insurance guy' who will come to the shop, pick up
the said processors, and reimburse you? Where do you buy this insurance?
Would certainly be a lot easier that the regular RMA process)
>nope, i subbed my toe on them again and will continue
> to do so until they are taken away by the insurance company.
> AMD vs Intel is much like Linux vs Microsoft - if you are anti the big guy
> you will always find ways to justify yourself.
Bah, this is both BS and a cop out. AMD vs Intel, Linux vs Microsoft, no
actual comparison at all, can't even imagine how you would think the two
compare, then of course the rest of your statement explains it. Anti-'the
big guy' come on, you don't have to be anti Intel to use AMD processors. But
in your mind it does serve to justify your way of thinking
>I prefer to let my own
> experiments and benchmarking prove or disprove what I hear and read.
I REALLY doubt that, but to give you benefit of the doubt, perhaps your
experiments or benchmarking methods leave something to be desired.
> When I
> build for a client I demand 100% reliability and from my way of thinking I
> get that with Intel.
Wanting reliability is great, its your 'way of thinking' that's flawed. Your
sort of thinking goes like this "I want only the facts, as long as they
agree with my opinions"
>If a client asks for an AMD system I will build it
> without slagging off at AMD, but currently I would not suggest one as a
> first choice.
You must have a very limited range of customers with very little variance in
system needs. A system should be designed around the customer's needs, brand
of processor is a minor aspect, and certainly not the first factor that
needs to be determined.
> Oh Firebird - I can find many techs who feel exactly the same. In fact I
> know a few who will stand and plead with a customer to change their mind.
Pleading? Oh come on.
> personally think that is counter productive, but it surely is a sentiment
> that is out there.
>
> --
> RussS
> MCP W2K Pro & Server, A+, Net+
>
> http://www.techexams.net/
>
>
| |
| ImhoTech 2003-06-25, 9:24 am |
| Smells like....is that burning processor? Nah..just your basic pasture
variety BS.
"RussS" <yeah_right@roflmao.com> wrote in message
news:Ay2Ka.48545$JA5.850885@news.xtra.co.nz...
> haha - nah, AMD wants to boast that their 1.6 is a fast as a 2.0 pentium
so
> they use bogus figures.
Please post the figures and demonstrate.
>I have a couple AMD machines in my lab, but stick
Ah, a hypocrite!
> to Intel when I am building retail machines for a customer who is looking
> for performance and reliability.
> My XXXXX with AMD heat is not that the chip fails, but you need a whole
> bunch of noisy fans to keep everything else running for a reasonable
length
> of time.
BS. Complete BS
>No good having to replace a clients modem/sound card etc. after
> 12/18 months because it is affected by excess heat - bad for my rep.
But you indicate you don't build AMD for customer so HOW would you know if
this was a problem?
Sorry, but this is bit is just so clueless I don't know where to start.
Damn. Is this going to be the next 'net urban legend? Should I look for it
Snopes? "WARNING, AMD Processor so hot it may melt your computer"
What's next? House fire attributed to overclocked AMD Processor?
>
> --
> RussS
> MCP W2K Pro & Server, A+, Net+
>
> http://www.techexams.net/
>
>
| |
|
| Like I said ImhoTech - my personal preference based on past experiences. I
have never had an Intel box come back with the exception of a couple that
were hit with a power spike in a storm (all in the same building). A
friend builds nothing but AMD for his clients unless requested and I have no
problem with that, but it doesn't mean that I do as I have had excellent
results with Intel unlike my AMD experiences.
--
RussS
MCP W2K Pro & Server, A+, Net+
http://www.techexams.net/
| |
| SBFan2000 2003-06-25, 4:23 pm |
| I have had just the opposite and a friend of mine who has a business had a
small box of intel processors that went bad quickly! I use to be a real AMD
supporter but I have since come to realize that they are both good
processors in their own respects! But I still say Celerons are junk! I
will say that AMD needs to get a 533FSB out if it wants to compete!
"RussS" <yeah_right@roflmao.com> wrote in message
news:9vnKa.50400$JA5.891687@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Like I said ImhoTech - my personal preference based on past experiences.
I
> have never had an Intel box come back with the exception of a couple that
> were hit with a power spike in a storm (all in the same building). A
> friend builds nothing but AMD for his clients unless requested and I have
no
> problem with that, but it doesn't mean that I do as I have had excellent
> results with Intel unlike my AMD experiences.
>
> --
> RussS
> MCP W2K Pro & Server, A+, Net+
>
> http://www.techexams.net/
>
>
| |
| Navin R. Johnson 2003-06-25, 5:23 pm |
| On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:31:22 +1200, "RussS" <yeah_right@roflmao.com>
wrote:
>haha - nah, AMD wants to boast that their 1.6 is a fast as a 2.0 pentium so
>they use bogus figures. I have a couple AMD machines in my lab, but stick
>to Intel when I am building retail machines for a customer who is looking
>for performance and reliability.
>My XXXXX with AMD heat is not that the chip fails, but you need a whole
>bunch of noisy fans to keep everything else running for a reasonable length
>of time. No good having to replace a clients modem/sound card etc. after
>12/18 months because it is affected by excess heat - bad for my rep.
Russ, sorry but you're totally wrong about AMD. In 99% of all the
published benchmark tests the AthlonXP 2000+ is just as fast as the P-4
2.0 - and costs roughly $100 less. Maybe you should check your
information a little better before making blanket statements. And where
are these 'bogus figures' you're talking about? AMD's explanation of
their processor performance figures make perfect sense - at least to a
person with a little technical knowledge. That, along with all the
numerous published benchmark tests between P-4's and AthlonXP's tell me
that AMD's 'bogus figures' are definitely not bogus. And what's this
crap about a whole bunch of noisy fans? Have you ever even built an
Athlon box? I'm sitting beside one right now and the only noise I hear
is coming from the whining IBM 80GB hard drive.
I've been building AMD boxes exclusively since '94 and honestly don't
remember ever seeing a bad processor. When Athlons first came out there
was a lot of talk about heat problems. Most of that talk came from
tekkie wannabes who thought it was okay to run an Athlon CPU for a short
time without the heat sink - just to see if they got video. There's also
been lots of talk about Athlon processors being damaged or cracked while
installing the heat sink. I suspect most of that talk came from the
14-year-old kid down the street who builds computers for his friends.
Bottom line - AMD processors, when installed properly by intelligent
competent technicians are as good or better than Intel processors and a
helluva lot cheaper. That 'Intel Inside' sticker costs a bundle.
NRJ
"Very funny Scotty..... Now beam down my clothes!"
| |
| Andrew Tang 2003-06-25, 11:23 pm |
| I've been building systems since 1989. Here are my take on AMD vs. Intel:
1. The PR rating for Athlon XP is at least at one time relative to the
original Athlon (Thunderbird). It is a marketing number but it is not an
unrealistic one when comparing it against Pentium 4s similarly numbered, at
least in business apps.
2. Intel has led AMD in fabrication by 6-12 months, and lower watts/GHz.
3. For boxed CPUs, Intel fans are more durable and quieter. I have had
more problems with AMD CPUs in the past (K6-2, and K5 ran very hot, one
486DX did some floating point wrong).
4. Athlon XP is definitely a better value (price vs. performance) than P4
Celeron. I generally suggest Athlon to my customers for your average $1000
PC. I think $250+ is too much to pay for a desktop CPU in this day and age.
5. A lot of geeks are anti-Intel so they want to use AMD whenever possible.
6. GHz really is not meaningful when comparing CPUs of different
architecture.
See that the Pentium-M 1.60 GHz beats the Pentium 4-M 2.2 GHz in one app,
http://www6.tomshardware.com/mobile...entrino-13.html
and they are similar in others in the same article.
Andy
"Navin R. Johnson" <TheJerk@optigrab.net> wrote in message
news p4kfvofipq3l6irocftsdev2
jh8r52rlv@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:31:22 +1200, "RussS" <yeah_right@roflmao.com>
> wrote:
>
> >haha - nah, AMD wants to boast that their 1.6 is a fast as a 2.0 pentium
so
> >they use bogus figures. I have a couple AMD machines in my lab, but
stick
> >to Intel when I am building retail machines for a customer who is looking
> >for performance and reliability.
> >My XXXXX with AMD heat is not that the chip fails, but you need a whole
> >bunch of noisy fans to keep everything else running for a reasonable
length
> >of time. No good having to replace a clients modem/sound card etc. after
> >12/18 months because it is affected by excess heat - bad for my rep.
>
> Russ, sorry but you're totally wrong about AMD. In 99% of all the
> published benchmark tests the AthlonXP 2000+ is just as fast as the P-4
> 2.0 - and costs roughly $100 less. Maybe you should check your
> information a little better before making blanket statements. And where
> are these 'bogus figures' you're talking about? AMD's explanation of
> their processor performance figures make perfect sense - at least to a
> person with a little technical knowledge. That, along with all the
> numerous published benchmark tests between P-4's and AthlonXP's tell me
> that AMD's 'bogus figures' are definitely not bogus. And what's this
> crap about a whole bunch of noisy fans? Have you ever even built an
> Athlon box? I'm sitting beside one right now and the only noise I hear
> is coming from the whining IBM 80GB hard drive.
>
> I've been building AMD boxes exclusively since '94 and honestly don't
> remember ever seeing a bad processor. When Athlons first came out there
> was a lot of talk about heat problems. Most of that talk came from
> tekkie wannabes who thought it was okay to run an Athlon CPU for a short
> time without the heat sink - just to see if they got video. There's also
> been lots of talk about Athlon processors being damaged or cracked while
> installing the heat sink. I suspect most of that talk came from the
> 14-year-old kid down the street who builds computers for his friends.
> Bottom line - AMD processors, when installed properly by intelligent
> competent technicians are as good or better than Intel processors and a
> helluva lot cheaper. That 'Intel Inside' sticker costs a bundle.
>
>
> NRJ
>
>
>
>
>
> "Very funny Scotty..... Now beam down my clothes!"
| |
| RussS 2003-06-26, 12:23 am |
| Very good Andrew - logical and correct.
--
RussS
MCP W2K Pro & Server, A+, Net+
http://www.techexams.net/
| |
| Peter B 2003-06-26, 5:23 am |
|
"RussS" <yeah_right@roflmao.com> wrote in message
news:BUuKa.51041$JA5.901638@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Very good Andrew - logical and correct.
>
> --
> RussS
^^^^^^^^ LOL, just had to get his bit in.
|
|
|
|
|