Cpu Speed

[balamm*]

I believe there's a slight difference between actual ram speed and theoretical ram speed.

Your current ram speed is 166.5 like it or not.

play with the terminology and numbers all you want, that won't change it.

I can take PC 133 ram and put it in a 100Mgh FSB system and it'll run fine.

what's the ram speed now?

It's still 100Mgh no matter what the ram is advertised at because the memory bus speed is still 100Mgh and that's the true ram speed for this system.

[2nd gen noob]

i think you should just stop arguing balamm

admit defeat please

[balamm*]

"by my calculations", if the memory bus wasn't bottlenecked or limited by your FSB and other settings, then you theoretically could run at 2083.3333 which brings us back to the AMD naming conventions in question.

On the 1800+ it is possible to run at 1.8 if every thing is setup right. I've had it there (and higher) briefly by changing both the multiplier and the true ram speed. The limiting factor on this system is not FSB or nominal ram speed. It's a combination of a mediocre bios and OS instability.

[Somebody1234]

I'm no longer going to try to explain it. But now you are talking about "theoretically" and overclocking and other technical mumbo-jumbo.

I too think you should just admit it gracefully, balamm*

[Twigboy]

I just can't believe people aren't reading up more on what they're buying.
This is like someone buying a Dell 2350 and thinking they're gonna be able to play
Doom 3 on it succesfully.

I hate to read,could'nt tell you how long it would take me to read a 300 page book.
But always made a habit of reading up on what I was buying.


2x162=324 my FSB speed. this is overclocked though 13x162 instead of 15x133.

[SolidWing68]

I say dont mess with anything if your a noob, do some reading first..get a general feel of overclocking prcessors, then try

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by balamm*@15 June 2003 - 14:15
Actual processor speed is 1.53 gig

The CPU runs at memory bus speed, not FSB!
this USED to be true. the front side bus and the memory bus used to be locked together on x86 motherboards.

recent motherboards (in the past year or so) now have a memory bus that is independent of the front side bus. i think the manufacturers still recommend that you should keep the two bus speeds in sync, for best performance... even if you have a 166mhz and 200mhz ram, they still recommend setting the ram to 166. but you can now set them to different speeds, 200mhz cpu + 166mhz ram or vice versa.

[Lamsey]

Looking back over this thread, it seems to me that some people really should read up on CPUs before they start mouthing off about them.

I did a crappy high school project on CPUs for Adv. Higher Computing and it looks as if I know more than some of the self-proclaimed experts here. :rolleyes:

[imojo]

uh, fellas, can i call the maths contest a draw? i got lost somewhere when multipliers entered. as a noob with basic knowledge, im just happy to leave my computer as it is with too little fiddling unless its essential. what i will say is i didnt think thered be the response there was & ive enjoyed reading it all, even if im still tryign to figure most of it out, so thanks. and please feel free to carry on posting if us wish.

[Livy]

another thing to your complaint, measure your monitor, i bet the size isnt what it said it is?

[imojo]

Originally posted by Livy@16 June 2003 - 21:49
another thing to your complaint, measure your monitor, i bet the size isnt what it said it is?
monitor size? ohmegod, where's my ruler....

[Livy]

tft screens i think are the same size they say they are, but crt are slightly smaller, :)

[imojo]

Originally posted by Livy@16 June 2003 - 21:55
tft screens i think are the same size they say they are, but crt are slightly smaller, :)
having measured it, i think you're right. i might be missing an inch or so. but hey, size doesn't matter - so i like to think!

[balamm*]

Originally posted by imojo@16 June 2003 - 20:45
uh, fellas, can i call the maths contest a draw? i got lost somewhere when  multipliers entered. as a noob with basic knowledge, im just happy to leave my computer as it is with too little fiddling unless its essential. what i will say is i didnt think thered be the response there was & ive enjoyed reading it all, even if im still tryign to figure most of it out, so thanks. and please feel free to carry on posting if us wish.
well since my system can't possibly be running based on the settings I use and it's so old (1 year) I think I'll just delete everything and sell the parts to a museum.

I've personaly had enough of this " I read it in a magazine so that's the way it has to be" and all the other elitist shit I keep seeing.
When experience with test and trial is worth something or when there's a bit more respect for the old outdated systems that most people are still using, then maybe......

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by balamm*@16 June 2003 - 15:01
I've personaly had enough of this " I read it in a magazine so that's the way it has to be" and all the other elitist shit I keep seeing.
what are you talking about? the only real disagreements i've seen people (myself included) have with you is that you're mistaken in believing that the front side bus and the memory bus have to run at the same speed, and that the CPU is not on the front side bus.

summary of this unnecessarily longwinded thread:
1) AMD's rating system is confusing and it isn't based on anything tangible, seeing as how the number compares the Athlon XP to theoretical Athlon Thunderbirds which don't actually exist. "This 2.1ghz Athlon XP is equivalent to a 3ghz Athlon Thunderbird, so we're gonna call it a 3000+. Except we can't really prove it, since there is no such thing as a 3ghz Thunderbird. Just take our word for it." How about "no"-- the proof is in the pudding, not in charts and graphs.

2) the CPU is on the front side bus.

3) the memory bus and the front side bus have become separated on the most recent generation of motherboards. this is a useful feature and it will probably be an ongoing trend for at least a couple of years.

4) you can combine a 200mhz fsb CPU with 166mhz RAM or 200mhz RAM, or a 166mhz fsb CPU with 166mhz RAM or 200mhz RAM. if the rated bus speed of the RAM is faster than the CPU's bus speed, the motherboard companies recommend underclocking the RAM because they claim the computer performs better when the FSB + memory bus are set to the same speed. despite the recommendation, you can set the two buses at different speeds.

[Twigboy]

Here you go Cyrix used this rating system to,this is nothing new.
http://wauug.erols.com/~balsa/linux/cyrix/pr200.gif
This was compared to the Pentium200 but operated at 150mhz.
Not sure how they compared it to a Pentium because performance in float-point math was pretty weak.

[Lamsey]

Cyrix chips are a joke. WeeMouse has a 800MHz Cyrix III and it's slower than my AMD K6-2 500MHz. Admittedly some of that may be down to her shitty motherboard, but not much - we're both on PC100 RAM.