Cpu Speed

[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When experience with test and trial is worth something or when there's a bit more respect for the old outdated systems that most people are still using, then maybe......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.

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.