AMD has the answer for Intel

[Edmund]

Fast forward a decade or two, and some might say Intel is one bit short
of a byte. Itanium, its 64-bit processor, is selling slowly however you
count it. Like all chip manufacturers, Intel does not give out its own
figures, but luckily for us AMD is more than happy to oblige, and
estimates Intel has shipped around 16,000 of its 64-bit chips. Now you
can add a few to compensate for AMD's negative spin, remove a few for
the ones that Intel shipped gratis, and divide by four to get a figure
that represents the total number of servers out there (few are
single-processor servers) using Itanium. It's not very impressive by any
measure.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5083279.html

Ed

[Tony Hill]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:39:39 -0500, Ed <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:Fast forward a decade or two, and some might say Intel is one bit shortof a byte. Itanium, its 64-bit processor, is selling slowly however youcount it. Like all chip manufacturers, Intel does not give out its ownfigures, but luckily for us AMD is more than happy to oblige, andestimates Intel has shipped around 16,000 of its 64-bit chips. Now youcan add a few to compensate for AMD's negative spin, remove a few forthe ones that Intel shipped gratis, and divide by four to get a figurethat represents the total number of servers out there (few aresingle-processor servers) using Itanium. It's not very impressive by anymeasure.http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5083279.html

A touch off-topic for the main thrust of this article, but did you
read this paragraph? :

"Now compare AMD's approach. AMD appeared on the mainstream computing
scene in the early 90s with its own reverse-engineered version of the
386. After a bumpy ride through the mid-90s, caused largely by the
decision to forward-engineer its version of the 486, AMD emerged with
the Athlon and now the Athlon 64--its own 64-bit processor."

OUCH! Can you say "not doing your research"? AMD appeared on the
mainstream computing scene in the early '80s when they were a second
source for Intel's 8086 and 8088 used in the original PC. They were
founded only 6 months after Intel and had many products of their own
before the PC deal. And then AMD made a "decision" to design their
own 486 chip? I'd hardly call being taken to court a "decision" that
AMD made! Besides which they only released their in-house design 486
chip (the 5x86) a couple years after they had released the AMD486 that
was reverse engineered from Intel. The 5x86 was a pretty successful
chip too, it was what followed (the K5) that caused them a lot of
pain.

Of course, then the article goes on to say that the Athlon64 is really
like a modern 386SX, which "which had a 16-bit heart but 32-bit
addressing"?!?! A 16-bit heart?! Since when is a data bus the
"heart" of the processor? And just how does this in any way relate to
the Opteron/Athlon64, with it's integrated memory controller and
hypertransport I/O connections?

The article specifically goes on to say "Sure, AMD's chips are not
true 64-bit in the same sense that the 386sx was not true 32-bit."
WTF?! What is this guy smoking! The 386SX was very much a 32-bit
processor, it just happened to be saddled by a 16-bit data bus. The
Athlon64 and Opteron are in EVERY sense of the word a 64-bit
processor. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Yousuf Khan]

"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:814375fd962dff8162c19e87190dc337@news.1usenet.com...http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5083279.html A touch off-topic for the main thrust of this article, but did you read this paragraph? : "Now compare AMD's approach. AMD appeared on the mainstream computing scene in the early 90s with its own reverse-engineered version of the 386. After a bumpy ride through the mid-90s, caused largely by the decision to forward-engineer its version of the 486, AMD emerged with the Athlon and now the Athlon 64--its own 64-bit processor." OUCH! Can you say "not doing your research"? AMD appeared on the mainstream computing scene in the early '80s when they were a second source for Intel's 8086 and 8088 used in the original PC. They were founded only 6 months after Intel and had many products of their own before the PC deal. And then AMD made a "decision" to design their own 486 chip? I'd hardly call being taken to court a "decision" that AMD made! Besides which they only released their in-house design 486 chip (the 5x86) a couple years after they had released the AMD486 that was reverse engineered from Intel. The 5x86 was a pretty successful chip too, it was what followed (the K5) that caused them a lot of pain.

I think AMD had a blind-room microcode that they were working on for their
486, just in case they lost the Intel lawsuit, otherwise the AMD 486's were
exact replicas of the Intel ones, right down to the same erratas. I don't
know if AMD ever used the blind-room microcode, but I think they did. Back
then avoiding a lawsuit was as simple as changing the microcode. I think
they adopted their own microcode designs once Intel introduced the CPUID
command with the "GenuineIntel" strings in them, which AMD obviously
couldn't copy, so they got the "AuthenticAMD" strings.
Of course, then the article goes on to say that the Athlon64 is really like a modern 386SX, which "which had a 16-bit heart but 32-bit addressing"?!?! A 16-bit heart?! Since when is a data bus the "heart" of the processor? And just how does this in any way relate to the Opteron/Athlon64, with it's integrated memory controller and hypertransport I/O connections? The article specifically goes on to say "Sure, AMD's chips are not true 64-bit in the same sense that the 386sx was not true 32-bit." WTF?! What is this guy smoking! The 386SX was very much a 32-bit processor, it just happened to be saddled by a 16-bit data bus. The Athlon64 and Opteron are in EVERY sense of the word a 64-bit processor. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Yeah, I noticed this too, but then I immediately forgave this blunder when I
considered the source of the article, ZDNet, the PCMag people. You can't
expect ZDNet to give you completely accurate information. Don't they have it
in their charter that they don't guarantee anything that they say is in
anyway similar to the truth? I don't I thought I read that somewhere. :-)

Yousuf Khan

[Wes Newell]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:07:35 +0000, Tony Hill wrote:
The article specifically goes on to say "Sure, AMD's chips are not true 64-bit in the same sense that the 386sx was not true 32-bit." WTF?! What is this guy smoking! The 386SX was very much a 32-bit processor, it just happened to be saddled by a 16-bit data bus. The Athlon64 and Opteron are in EVERY sense of the word a 64-bit processor. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
I just want to make this very clear. Before Intel/Ibm marketing got into
the picture, cpu's bit size was rated by the data bus. Original data
sheets from Intel show the 8088 as an 8 bit cpu, even though it had 16bit
registers. The Motorola 68000 was also designated as a 16bit cpu even
though it had 32bit registers. Once marketing got into the picture
everything changes. That's why all the confusion on the P4/Athlon FSB
speeds. Just keep letting them get away with this crap and take it. Pretty
soon you won't know wtf you're buying. IFAIC, the 386SX was the worst
piece of shit ever produced and I know many of people that bought them
thinking they were buying 386 speeds when what they got was really 286
speeds.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

[Tony Hill]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 07:44:00 GMT, "Wes Newell"
<w.newell@SOSverizon.net> wrote:On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:07:35 +0000, Tony Hill wrote: The article specifically goes on to say "Sure, AMD's chips are not true 64-bit in the same sense that the 386sx was not true 32-bit." WTF?! What is this guy smoking! The 386SX was very much a 32-bit processor, it just happened to be saddled by a 16-bit data bus. The Athlon64 and Opteron are in EVERY sense of the word a 64-bit processor. No ifs, ands or buts about it.I just want to make this very clear. Before Intel/Ibm marketing got intothe picture, cpu's bit size was rated by the data bus.

Why in the hell would anyone do that?!?! That's about the dumbest way
I can think of to compare the bit-ness of a CPU!

So the Pentium was a 64-bit processor, as are all current PC chips
except for the Athlon64, which is now a... umm.. what do you call the
Athlon64 which doesn't have a data bus? A 0-bit processor? Or
perhaps it's a dual-processor 16-bit unidirectional chip because it
has two 16-bit unidirectional hypertransport links? What the heck
does that make the Opteron then?

Good thing IBM has their 1024 bit chips these days.
Original datasheets from Intel show the 8088 as an 8 bit cpu, even though it had 16bitregisters. The Motorola 68000 was also designated as a 16bit cpu eventhough it had 32bit registers. Once marketing got into the pictureeverything changes.

Sounds to me more like a question of people finally getting smacked
over the head with a clue. Who the hell cares what the width of the
data bus is?
That's why all the confusion on the P4/Athlon FSBspeeds. Just keep letting them get away with this crap and take it. Prettysoon you won't know wtf you're buying. IFAIC, the 386SX was the worstpiece of shit ever produced and I know many of people that bought themthinking they were buying 386 speeds when what they got was really 286speeds.

Back in the day when I was still a young'un living at home, my parents
had a 386SX. Yes, it had it's ups and it's downs, and in retrospect
we probably would have been better off spending a bit more for a
386DX, but the thing worked and was a hell of a lot faster than the XT
it replaced. The chip was definitely a 32-bit chip though, it ran
pretty much all 32-bit software I threw at it, albeit sometimes at
rather slow speeds. I remember being HUGELY disappointed when Doom
came out and the performance stank on this PC.

A bit of a rip-off? Perhaps. The worst piece of shit ever produced?
I think that might be stretching it. There's been a LOT of shit
produced over the years!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Edmund]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:07:35 GMT, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
A touch off-topic for the main thrust of this article, but did youread this paragraph? :

Ya, where did this guy get this info, talk about clueless!
Cheers,
Ed

[Wes Newell]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:08:38 +0000, Tony Hill wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 07:44:00 GMT, "Wes Newell" <w.newell@SOSverizon.net> wrote:On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:07:35 +0000, Tony Hill wrote: The article specifically goes on to say "Sure, AMD's chips are not true 64-bit in the same sense that the 386sx was not true 32-bit." WTF?! What is this guy smoking! The 386SX was very much a 32-bit processor, it just happened to be saddled by a 16-bit data bus. The Athlon64 and Opteron are in EVERY sense of the word a 64-bit processor. No ifs, ands or buts about it.I just want to make this very clear. Before Intel/Ibm marketing got intothe picture, cpu's bit size was rated by the data bus. Why in the hell would anyone do that?!?! That's about the dumbest way I can think of to compare the bit-ness of a CPU!
Because it made sense. Dive into the history of processors and you'll
understand why. It was the bottleneck of the system. The cpu can't process
data it doesn't have yet. That's why it went from a 4bit beginning to what
it is today. Look at all the ways they speed this up with caches. Disable
all your cpu caches and watch the most powerful cpu come to a crawl
running over the data bus. A hybrid like the 8088 had to make 2 complete
data cycles to get the same data a true 16bit cpu did in 1. But all this
has become skewed by the marketing types. Bus speeds have always been
measured in clock cycles. Now the marketing idiots decided to define the
bus by the data rate, but using the clock speed unit of measure (MHz)
instead of the data rate unit of measure (Bps, bps). Why? Simple because
it looks better, and the majority of the people don't know it's just BS.
So the Pentium was a 64-bit processor, as are all current PC chips except for the Athlon64, which is now a... umm.. what do you call the Athlon64 which doesn't have a data bus? A 0-bit processor? Or perhaps it's a dual-processor 16-bit unidirectional chip because it has two 16-bit unidirectional hypertransport links? What the heck does that make the Opteron then?
To be honest, I haven't looked at the architecture that much. From what I
can tell, the data comes across the HTL, which is 72 bits wide. with the
Opteron/64FX having 2 of them for 144bits. Thus the much improved
throughput of data to the core, and also why the regular A64 is quite a
bit slower than the FX/Opteron series.
Good thing IBM has their 1024 bit chips these days. Original datasheets from Intel show the 8088 as an 8 bit cpu, even though it had16bit registers. The Motorola 68000 was also designated as a 16bit cpueven though it had 32bit registers. Once marketing got into the pictureeverything changes. Sounds to me more like a question of people finally getting smacked over the head with a clue. Who the hell cares what the width of the data bus is?
Answered above.
That's why all the confusion on the P4/Athlon FSBspeeds. Just keep letting them get away with this crap and take it.Pretty soon you won't know wtf you're buying. IFAIC, the 386SX was theworst piece of shit ever produced and I know many of people that boughtthem thinking they were buying 386 speeds when what they got was really286 speeds. Back in the day when I was still a young'un living at home, my parents had a 386SX. Yes, it had it's ups and it's downs, and in retrospect we probably would have been better off spending a bit more for a 386DX, but the thing worked and was a hell of a lot faster than the XT it replaced.

Of course it was faster. The XT had an 8 bit data bus and the SX had a
16bit data bus.:-)
The chip was definitely a 32-bit chip though, it ran pretty much all 32-bit software I threw at it, albeit sometimes at rather slow speeds. I remember being HUGELY disappointed when Doom came out and the performance stank on this PC.
It was a 32bit cpu only in the sense that that's what Intel designated it.
It was never considered a true 32bit cpu back then.
A bit of a rip-off? Perhaps. The worst piece of shit ever produced? I think that might be stretching it. There's been a LOT of shit produced over the years!
True.:-)
Probably the absolute worst was the 486SLC. It only had a 16bit data bus
too. They double screwed the people that bought these.:-)

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

[Piotr Sawuk]

In article <ac28aa458db1ce193250b9614e6ddf69@news.1usenet.com>,
Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> writes: On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 07:44:00 GMT, "Wes Newell" <w.newell@SOSverizon.net> wrote:On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:07:35 +0000, Tony Hill wrote: The article specifically goes on to say "Sure, AMD's chips are not true 64-bit in the same sense that the 386sx was not true 32-bit." WTF?! What is this guy smoking! The 386SX was very much a 32-bit processor, it just happened to be saddled by a 16-bit data bus. The Athlon64 and Opteron are in EVERY sense of the word a 64-bit processor. No ifs, ands or buts about it.I just want to make this very clear. Before Intel/Ibm marketing got intothe picture, cpu's bit size was rated by the data bus. Why in the hell would anyone do that?!?! That's about the dumbest way I can think of to compare the bit-ness of a CPU!

sorry, but could you please explain that to me:

as far as I understand the cpu is just a little box with pins
through which data is transferred. further according to my
understanding the data is not analogue but digital data with
a certain amount of bits going out or in all at once during
a fixed timespan. for comparing bit-ness of a cpu, wouldn't
it then be best to just compare the amount of those bits,
and for the speed of the cpu to compare the frequency of
this short time-span, and maybe even calculate a maximum
through-put rate with those? am I missing something?

also, I have to add that as a programmer I am not really
interested how many bits the cpu does use internally for
its registers (except for questions of compatibility) since
this doesn't tell me which commands do have access to that
bit-width (is the 486 a 80-bit processor just because you
can issue a single instruction for processing 80-bit Reals?)
and how many bits can get processed at max in minimum time.
--
Better send the eMails to netscape.net, as to
evade useless burthening of my provider's /dev/null...

before complaining because of my rudeness, read
http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a9702387/en/adl/liar-faq.txt
and killfile me...

P

[Tony Hill]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:10:23 GMT, "Wes Newell"
<w.newell@SOSverizon.net> wrote:On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:08:38 +0000, Tony Hill wrote: Why in the hell would anyone do that?!?! That's about the dumbest way I can think of to compare the bit-ness of a CPU!Because it made sense. Dive into the history of processors and you'llunderstand why. It was the bottleneck of the system. The cpu can't processdata it doesn't have yet. That's why it went from a 4bit beginning to whatit is today. Look at all the ways they speed this up with caches. Disableall your cpu caches and watch the most powerful cpu come to a crawlrunning over the data bus. A hybrid like the 8088 had to make 2 completedata cycles to get the same data a true 16bit cpu did in 1. But all thishas become skewed by the marketing types. Bus speeds have always beenmeasured in clock cycles.

That was all well and good when we were talking about 1 vs. 2 clock
cycles, but those days are LONG since past (for better or for worse).
Measuring a bus by it's data rate is in no way marketing, it's the
only worthwhile way to measure a bus! Would you prefer a P4 bus that
is "somewhere in the 70 to 350 clock cycle range" description? How
does that even begin to remotely help anyone?!
Now the marketing idiots decided to define thebus by the data rate, but using the clock speed unit of measure (MHz)instead of the data rate unit of measure (Bps, bps). Why? Simple becauseit looks better, and the majority of the people don't know it's just BS.

Most even semi-remotely technical info about processor specs lists
both the clock speed of the bus and the bandwidth, and that's for
desktop processors. The clock speed (or at least effective clock
speed with today's double and quad data rate buses) has been ok for
the PC world since we've had 64-bit buses on every system for nearly
10 years now. Of course, AMD had to go and screw all this up with
their Athlon64 and Opteron :>
So the Pentium was a 64-bit processor, as are all current PC chips except for the Athlon64, which is now a... umm.. what do you call the Athlon64 which doesn't have a data bus? A 0-bit processor? Or perhaps it's a dual-processor 16-bit unidirectional chip because it has two 16-bit unidirectional hypertransport links? What the heck does that make the Opteron then?To be honest, I haven't looked at the architecture that much. From what Ican tell, the data comes across the HTL, which is 72 bits wide.

Umm, huh? HTL = Hypertransport Link? If so, it's 32-bits wide,
16-bits in each direction.
with theOpteron/64FX having 2 of them for 144bits. Thus the much improvedthroughput of data to the core, and also why the regular A64 is quite abit slower than the FX/Opteron series.

I think you're confusing it's integrated memory controller with the
hypertransport link. Which is your "data bus"? At best this is only
slightly confusing in a single processor system, where you have memory
requests coming over one bus and all other I/O going over a single
hypertransport link. On multiprocessor systems, this gets MUCH worse,
as your memory could be local (going over your own memory bus) or
remote (going over a hypertransport link).

Does a two-processor Opteron system then become a 256-bit chip (2
memory buses, each 128-bits wide), a 288-bit chip (2 memory buses,
128+16 bits for ECC), a 160-bit (128+16 local memory + 16-bits for
HT), 176-bits (128+16 local memory and 16+16 for the bi-directional
hypertransport)?!

Face it, defining the bit-ness of a chip by the width of the data bus
makes absolutely NO sense at all in this day and age! The Athlon64
and Opteron are 64-bit chips because:

1. They have 64-bit integer registers
2. They use 64-bit address pointers and address registers, program
counter, etc.

That's how everyone defines the bit-ness of CPUs, and that's the way
it should be.
Sounds to me more like a question of people finally getting smacked over the head with a clue. Who the hell cares what the width of the data bus is?Answered above.

Great, maybe 20 years ago this made some sense, but not anymore.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Michael Brown]

"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:24272a7c63a38ef032b5cef19af522d5@news.1usenet.com... On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:10:23 GMT, "Wes Newell" wrote
[...] Now the marketing idiots decided to define thebus by the data rate, but using the clock speed unit of measure (MHz)instead of the data rate unit of measure (Bps, bps). Why? Simple becauseit looks better, and the majority of the people don't know it's just BS. Most even semi-remotely technical info about processor specs lists both the clock speed of the bus and the bandwidth, and that's for desktop processors. The clock speed (or at least effective clock speed with today's double and quad data rate buses) has been ok for the PC world since we've had 64-bit buses on every system for nearly 10 years now. Of course, AMD had to go and screw all this up with their Athlon64 and Opteron :>

Possibly I'm reading you wrong, but the thing about the "800 mhz FSB" and
stuff is that it's NOT an 800MHz effective FSB. It's actually equvalent to a
200MHz 256-bit wide FSB in the case of QDR and 400MHz 128-bit wide in the
case of DDR (substitute numbers to fit your system). There is a significant
difference in performance between these two, especially when it comes to
non-sequential data access (due to the difference in clock speed), but
there's no difference in the data rate. In fact, DDR333 as marketiods like
to call it can in some applications (non-sequential access on large
datasets) beat QDR533. So calling the data rate the clock speed is just
plain wrong. However, QDR will (generally speaking again) beat DDR at the
same frequency, so there really needs to be two things advertised about the
FSB: the signalling mechanism and the clock speed (NOT the signalling
mechanism and the data rate as it is now). So "266MHz DDR" would become "133
MHz DDR'd" and "533MHz QDR" would become "133 MHz QDR'd". In the case of the
Athlon 64, though, it gets a little more complex with two different external
interfaces to the CPU. Not sure of the easiest way to fix that :)

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

[Wes Newell]

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:51:23 +0000, Tony Hill wrote:
Measuring a bus by it's data rate is in no way marketing, it's the only worthwhile way to measure a bus!

It is when the bus speed is 200MHz DDR or QDR but you call it 400MHz or
800MHz, when it isn't.
Would you prefer a P4 bus that is "somewhere in the 70 to 350 clock cycle range" description? How does that even begin to remotely help anyone?!
I prefer that when they talk about bus speeds that they follow excepted
practices and give the real speed. I can determine the the data rate from
that. A simple 200MHz DDR or 200MHz QDR would be fine.
Most even semi-remotely technical info about processor specs lists both the clock speed of the bus and the bandwidth, and that's for desktop processors. The clock speed (or at least effective clock speed with today's double and quad data rate buses)

Both the P4 and Athlon now have a 200MHz FSB. Anything higher than that is
overclocked. There's no 400MHz FSB and no 800MHz fsb. Effective? Compared
to what? The P4 isn't an effective fsb of 800MHz if you compare it to the
Athlon FSB now is it? It's only effective 400MHz. Just another reason the
effective arguement is BS unless it's fully explained what it's compared
to. Yeah, I know, you know, but believe me, 90% of the people don't. And
that's why it's marketing BS.
has been ok for the PC world since we've had 64-bit buses on every system for nearly 10 years now.

10 years? It only started with the Athlon and P4. Prior to that all x86
cpu's had only one data bit per clock cycle.

So the Pentium was a 64-bit processor, as are all current PC chips

So if the P4 is a 64bit cpu, why won't it run a 64bit OS?
except for the Athlon64, which is now a... umm.. what do you call the Athlon64 which doesn't have a data bus? A 0-bit processor? Or perhaps it's a dual-processor 16-bit unidirectional chip because it has two 16-bit unidirectional hypertransport links? What the heck does that make the Opteron then?To be honest, I haven't looked at the architecture that much. From whatI can tell, the data comes across the HTL, which is 72 bits wide. Umm, huh? HTL = Hypertransport Link? If so, it's 32-bits wide, 16-bits in each direction. with theOpteron/64FX having 2 of them for 144bits. Thus the much improvedthroughput of data to the core, and also why the regular A64 is quite abit slower than the FX/Opteron series. I think you're confusing it's integrated memory controller with the hypertransport link. Which is your "data bus"? At best this is only slightly confusing in a single processor system, where you have memory requests coming over one bus and all other I/O going over a single hypertransport link. On multiprocessor systems, this gets MUCH worse, as your memory could be local (going over your own memory bus) or remote (going over a hypertransport link).
You're right. It's the data bus that's 72bits wide on the A64, and 144bits
on the Opteron/FX. Don't know what i was thinking.
Face it, defining the bit-ness of a chip by the width of the data bus makes absolutely NO sense at all in this day and age! The Athlon64 and Opteron are 64-bit chips because: 1. They have 64-bit integer registers 2. They use 64-bit address pointers and address registers, program counter, etc.
So why does the Opteron/FX cpu's blow away the A64's at the same clock
speed if the data bus doesn't mean anything? That's the only difference
between them.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

[Take a Walk]

Tony Hill wrote: That was all well and good when we were talking about 1 vs. 2 clock cycles, but those days are LONG since past (for better or for worse). Measuring a bus by it's data rate is in no way marketing, it's the only worthwhile way to measure a bus! Would you prefer a P4 bus that is "somewhere in the 70 to 350 clock cycle range" description? How does that even begin to remotely help anyone?!

I agree... but using MHz it's confusing. A DDR bus clocked at 200MHz is
fine. Calling it a 400MHz bus is confusing... it is neither data rate
(which would be in bits per second) nor the clock.

It's about time that the marketing types got a clue. How many times have
people come here and asked why they can't set their ram to 400MHz or some
other rediculous question?
Most even semi-remotely technical info about processor specs lists both the clock speed of the bus and the bandwidth, and that's for desktop processors.

You need to know 3 of: clock speed, number of transfers per clock, bus width
and bandwidth.
The clock speed (or at least effective clock speed with today's double and quad data rate buses)

Clock speed is clock speed, regardless of the number of transfers that
happen per clock.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[chrisv]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:10:23 GMT, "Wes Newell"
<w.newell@SOSverizon.net> wrote:
Now the marketing idiots decided to define thebus by the data rate, but using the clock speed unit of measure (MHz)instead of the data rate unit of measure (Bps, bps). Why? Simple becauseit looks better, and the majority of the people don't know it's just BS.

Clueless.

[chrisv]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:36:31 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I agree... but using MHz it's confusing. A DDR bus clocked at 200MHz isfine. Calling it a 400MHz bus is confusing... it is neither data rate(which would be in bits per second) nor the clock.It's about time that the marketing types got a clue. How many times havepeople come here and asked

Well, it's going to be a confusing, for the lay person, forever. Do
you think the average person has any idea of what synchronous memory
transfers are, or what double-data-rate memory is? The average person
knows they want to surf the net and play EverQuest. If someone really
wants to understand what's going on inside a PC, they're going to have
to do a lot of research. These are complex machines.

[Take a Walk]

chrisv wrote: On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:36:31 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: I agree... but using MHz it's confusing. A DDR bus clocked at 200MHz is fine. Calling it a 400MHz bus is confusing... it is neither data rate (which would be in bits per second) nor the clock. It's about time that the marketing types got a clue. How many times have people come here and asked Well, it's going to be a confusing, for the lay person, forever. Do you think the average person has any idea of what synchronous memory transfers are, or what double-data-rate memory is? The average person knows they want to surf the net and play EverQuest. If someone really wants to understand what's going on inside a PC, they're going to have to do a lot of research. These are complex machines.

I don't see as that as an excuse to lie or misrepresent the truth.

I think the average person can cope with double data rate means twice as
fast.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[Wes Newell]

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 07:54:11 -0500, chrisv wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:10:23 GMT, "Wes Newell" <w.newell@SOSverizon.net> wrote:Now the marketing idiots decided to define thebus by the data rate, but using the clock speed unit of measure (MHz)instead of the data rate unit of measure (Bps, bps). Why? Simple becauseit looks better, and the majority of the people don't know it's just BS. Clueless.

What's that, your nickname?

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

[Tony Hill]

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 10:23:53 GMT, "Wes Newell"
<w.newell@SOSverizon.net> wrote:Both the P4 and Athlon now have a 200MHz FSB. Anything higher than that isoverclocked. There's no 400MHz FSB and no 800MHz fsb. Effective? Comparedto what? The P4 isn't an effective fsb of 800MHz if you compare it to theAthlon FSB now is it? It's only effective 400MHz. Just another reason theeffective arguement is BS unless it's fully explained what it's comparedto. Yeah, I know, you know, but believe me, 90% of the people don't. Andthat's why it's marketing BS.

I think what you're missing here is not so much that 90% (probably
more) of the people out there don't know, but rather that 90% of the
people out there don't care.
has been ok for the PC world since we've had 64-bit buses on every system for nearly 10 years now.10 years? It only started with the Athlon and P4. Prior to that all x86cpu's had only one data bit per clock cycle.

Uhh, how does that change the fact that they were 64-bit buses?
> So the Pentium was a 64-bit processor, as are all current PC chipsSo if the P4 is a 64bit cpu, why won't it run a 64bit OS?

Because it's not a damn 64-bit CPU! That's what I've been trying to
get across the whole time! It's a 32-bit CPU that has a 64-bit data
bus.
I think you're confusing it's integrated memory controller with the hypertransport link. Which is your "data bus"? At best this is only slightly confusing in a single processor system, where you have memory requests coming over one bus and all other I/O going over a single hypertransport link. On multiprocessor systems, this gets MUCH worse, as your memory could be local (going over your own memory bus) or remote (going over a hypertransport link).You're right. It's the data bus that's 72bits wide on the A64, and 144bitson the Opteron/FX. Don't know what i was thinking. Face it, defining the bit-ness of a chip by the width of the data bus makes absolutely NO sense at all in this day and age! The Athlon64 and Opteron are 64-bit chips because: 1. They have 64-bit integer registers 2. They use 64-bit address pointers and address registers, program counter, etc.So why does the Opteron/FX cpu's blow away the A64's at the same clockspeed if the data bus doesn't mean anything? That's the only differencebetween them.

First off, the Opteron/Athlon64 FX don't "blow away" the Athlon64 at
the same clock speed. They are usually faster, but typically by only
10% or thereabouts. And if that were all that matters, why does the
P4, with it's 64-bit bus manage to match or beat the Opteron/Athlon64
FX in many tests, particularly if you're talking about the P4EE chip.

I'm not saying that the data bus doesn't mean anything, just that it
has no relevance as to whether the chip is a 32-bit chip or a 64-bit
chip.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Tony Hill]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:00:11 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:chrisv wrote: Well, it's going to be a confusing, for the lay person, forever. Do you think the average person has any idea of what synchronous memory transfers are, or what double-data-rate memory is? The average person knows they want to surf the net and play EverQuest. If someone really wants to understand what's going on inside a PC, they're going to have to do a lot of research. These are complex machines.I don't see as that as an excuse to lie or misrepresent the truth.I think the average person can cope with double data rate means twice asfast.

You've never worked in retail sales, have you?

Sure, plenty of people COULD cope with double data rate meaning twice
as fast, but most simply don't care. Right or wrong, that's the way
it is, and if you go around trying to force people to care about this
sort of thing, they're just going to walk out of the store and go buy
something else.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Take a Walk]

Tony Hill wrote: You've never worked in retail sales, have you?

Actually I have... And as long as you don't expect everybody to be stupid
and explain it in simple terms, many actually want to know what it's all
about. This is not true of everybody or all products, but with PCs a lot of
people want to know what they are buying and make an effort to learn... it's
a big purchase.
Sure, plenty of people COULD cope with double data rate meaning twice as fast, but most simply don't care. Right or wrong, that's the way it is, and if you go around trying to force people to care about this sort of thing, they're just going to walk out of the store and go buy something else.


There are those that want to understand and those that don't want to.
Everybody is capable though. For those that don;t want to know, they're not
gonna care whether it's 800MHz, 400MHz or 200MHz. SDR, DDR or QDR. They
just want to know what they can do with it.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[chrisv]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:00:11 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
chrisv wrote: On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:36:31 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: I agree... but using MHz it's confusing. A DDR bus clocked at 200MHz is fine. Calling it a 400MHz bus is confusing... it is neither data rate (which would be in bits per second) nor the clock. It's about time that the marketing types got a clue. How many times have people come here and asked Well, it's going to be a confusing, for the lay person, forever. Do you think the average person has any idea of what synchronous memory transfers are, or what double-data-rate memory is? The average person knows they want to surf the net and play EverQuest. If someone really wants to understand what's going on inside a PC, they're going to have to do a lot of research. These are complex machines.I don't see as that as an excuse to lie or misrepresent the truth.

I have not seen you present evidence that anyone is lying or
"misrepresenting the truth". About the closest example to that that I
can think of is AMD's CPU naming. In any case, my point is that there
inevitably be loss of detail when a ton of information (how PC's work)
is compressed into an amount of information that the average consumer
can absorb. I have zero problem with the way, for example, Intel is
rating their front-side bus.
I think the average person can cope with double data rate means twice asfast.

Twice as fast as what? RDRAM? What if I have two channels and you
have one? How wide are your channels? How many MB? What's the clock
rate? How about latency?

And this is only one small corner of the PC. Lossy compression is
REQUIRED.

[Take a Walk]

chrisv wrote: On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:00:11 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: I don't see as that as an excuse to lie or misrepresent the truth. I have not seen you present evidence that anyone is lying or "misrepresenting the truth".

Calling the Intel "FSB" or system bus or whatever they're calling it 800MHz
is incorrect. The clock is 200MHz. It is a 200MHz bus that can trasnfer
data 4 times per clock.

PC3200 is not 400MHz as many people call it. Thats misrepresentation, the
clock is 200MHz.
About the closest example to that that I can think of is AMD's CPU naming. In any case, my point is that there

Amd call their CPUs 3200+ not 3200MHz. Since they have no unit, they cannot
be misrepresenting the truth.
inevitably be loss of detail when a ton of information (how PC's work) is compressed into an amount of information that the average consumer can absorb.

Loss of information, fine. Misrepresentation, not so.
I have zero problem with the way, for example, Intel is rating their front-side bus. I think the average person can cope with double data rate means twice as fast. Twice as fast as what? RDRAM?

Don't act stupid. You're cleverer than that. SDR, normal SDRAM.
What if I have two channels and you have one?How wide are your channels?
How many MB? What's the clock rate? How about latency?

So as has already been said, compress that down to a bandwidth figure in
Megs/s or whatever. Don't lie about the clock speed to make the numbers
work.
And this is only one small corner of the PC. Lossy compression is REQUIRED.


I totally agree. I don't see how misrepresentation has to be a part of
that.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[Wes Newell]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:15:52 -0500, chrisv wrote:
I have zero problem with the way, for example, Intel is rating their front-side bus.
Bus speed is adressed in 2 ways, the clock speed, which is measured in Hz,
and data rates which are measured in bps/Bps, more commonly called
throughput. Throughput is the effective data rate. A term you might be
more familiar with when talking about modems. Many people have called a
2400bps modem a 2400 baud modem incorrectly, using the throughput as the
signal rate, when in fact the signal rate was 600 baud. But if you ever
looked at the specs you would see that the box would say 2400bps, not 2400
baud. What Intel and AMD has done is taken the clock speed (MHz) and
multiplied it by the data rate (bps) and used the result as MHz. If you
can't see the error in this then you must be blind.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

[chrisv]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:48:58 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Calling the Intel "FSB" or system bus or whatever they're calling it 800MHzis incorrect. The clock is 200MHz. It is a 200MHz bus that can trasnferdata 4 times per clock.PC3200 is not 400MHz as many people call it. Thats misrepresentation, theclock is 200MHz. About the closest example to that that I can think of is AMD's CPU naming. In any case, my point is that thereAmd call their CPUs 3200+ not 3200MHz. Since they have no unit, they cannotbe misrepresenting the truth.

Let me guess... You're an AMD FANatic. "AMD good. Intel bad."

There's nothing wrong with the "800MHz FSB" abbreviation. I use it
myself, and not to deceive, to communicate. It's a lot easier than
saying "200MHz quad-data-rate" and then having to explain what the
hell that means to someone who probably couldn't care less.

AMD's rating system, on the other hand, is quite shady. "No unit"
bullsh*t. A unit is strongly implied. It's deceptive. It
misrepresents the truth.

[chrisv]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:38:36 GMT, "Wes Newell"
<w.newell@SOSverizon.net> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:15:52 -0500, chrisv wrote: I have zero problem with the way, for example, Intel is rating their front-side bus.Bus speed is adressed in 2 ways, the clock speed, which is measured in Hz,and data rates which are measured in bps/Bps, more commonly calledthroughput. Throughput is the effective data rate. A term you might bemore familiar with when talking about modems. Many people have called a2400bps modem a 2400 baud modem incorrectly, using the throughput as thesignal rate, when in fact the signal rate was 600 baud. But if you everlooked at the specs you would see that the box would say 2400bps, not 2400baud. What Intel and AMD has done is taken the clock speed (MHz) andmultiplied it by the data rate (bps) and used the result as MHz. If youcan't see the error in this then you must be blind.

I can't even tell what your point is. English your second language?

It seems like your modem example argues for using terminology like
"2400 baud" and "800 MHz FSB", which is my point.

If you want to argue that a "2400 baud" modem should always be
desribed "properly" as a "600 baud modem with quadrature
amplitude modulation", then I'd say you're a freakin' nutcase.

[Take a Walk]

chrisv wrote: Let me guess... You're an AMD FANatic. "AMD good. Intel bad."

No, not at all. I've had about 4 Intel systems and have just purchased an
AMD system. No major problems with each... why would I be an AMD FANatic
for suggesting that the unit MHz should be used for clock rate and BPS for
Bandwidth, I don't see your reasoning. And if you think that me mentioning
Intels FSB as an example (when I also mentioned RAM) then you should stop
being so damn defensive of Intel... I really didn;t mean any harm to the
Intel architecture... merely the marketing BS.
There's nothing wrong with the "800MHz FSB" abbreviation. I use it myself, and not to deceive, to communicate. It's a lot easier than saying "200MHz quad-data-rate" and then having to explain what the hell that means to someone who probably couldn't care less.

Yeah, great bit of communication. Try setting the clock rate to 800MHz.
Good luck.
AMD's rating system, on the other hand, is quite shady. "No unit" bullsh*t. A unit is strongly implied. It's deceptive. It misrepresents the truth.

Where do they imply the unit? If you want to stick a unit on their fine.
Thats your problem.

I'm looking at it from an engineering perspective. If you tell me the FSB
is 800MHz and I design a motherboard and clock it at 800MHz, it ain't gonna
work, now is it? Thats my point.

And why won't it work? Explain to my why an 800MHz clock on an Intel system
will not work, if the FSB of Intels is 800MHz. It really is that simple.
Convince me. Please.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[Take a Walk]

chrisv wrote: If you want to argue that a "2400 baud" modem should always be desribed "properly" as a "600 baud modem with quadrature amplitude modulation", then I'd say you're a freakin' nutcase.


2400bps would fine though, wouldn't it?

If people use the correct units, there would be no confusion. It's the
poeple that use incorrect units, incorrect terminology and incorrect
reasoning that cause confusion.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[Wes Newell]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:41:15 -0500, chrisv wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:38:36 GMT, "Wes Newell" <w.newell@SOSverizon.net> wrote:On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:15:52 -0500, chrisv wrote: I have zero problem with the way, for example, Intel is rating their front-side bus.Bus speed is adressed in 2 ways, the clock speed, which is measured in Hz,and data rates which are measured in bps/Bps, more commonly calledthroughput. Throughput is the effective data rate. A term you might bemore familiar with when talking about modems. Many people have called a2400bps modem a 2400 baud modem incorrectly, using the throughput as thesignal rate, when in fact the signal rate was 600 baud. But if you everlooked at the specs you would see that the box would say 2400bps, not 2400baud. What Intel and AMD has done is taken the clock speed (MHz) andmultiplied it by the data rate (bps) and used the result as MHz. If youcan't see the error in this then you must be blind. I can't even tell what your point is. English your second language?
No, but it must be your 3rd or 4th if you can't understand what's above.
It seems like your modem example argues for using terminology like "2400 baud" and "800 MHz FSB", which is my point.
You're hopeless.
If you want to argue that a "2400 baud" modem should always be desribed "properly" as a "600 baud modem with quadrature amplitude modulation", then I'd say you're a freakin' nutcase.

Well it appears that you can't read. It's a 2400bps modem as I clearly
pointed out above. The last modem that used Baud was the 300 Baud/bps
modem since its Baud rate and data rates were the same, 300.


--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

[The little lost angel]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:32:46 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote:There's nothing wrong with the "800MHz FSB" abbreviation. I use itmyself, and not to deceive, to communicate. It's a lot easier thansaying "200MHz quad-data-rate" and then having to explain what thehell that means to someone who probably couldn't care less.

In my experience doing sales, people who ask the question actually are
somewhat interested in knowing and many do think about the new
information. The problem is most people also never get to asking the
question as they usually had already decided, it's a Pentium so it
must be good, nevermind what numbers.

Anyway, I'm getting quite confused by this thread to be honest. I had
always thought the 800Mhz was the result of adding 2 channels, 4x data
rate and 100Mhz clock. But you guys are giving me the impression it's
4x data rate, 200Mhz clock... the Intel spec sheet says the P4 blah
blah processor 400Mhz, 533Mhz, 800Mhz blah blah either 100Mhz or
133Mhz bus.

So did the engineering department forgot to tell the
marketing/publishing department they have a 200Mhz bus now, or is it
the other way round???
AMD's rating system, on the other hand, is quite shady. "No unit"bullsh*t. A unit is strongly implied. It's deceptive. Itmisrepresents the truth.

It's about as deceptive/useful as the 800Mhz figure. Looking at
800Mhz, I would guess that it's faster than the 533Mhz perhaps by as
much as 50%.

Looking at XP3200 vs P4 3.2Ghz, I might think they are about the same,
which isn't as far from the truth as the 50% of the "800Mhz" FSB. The
same applies when comparing between AMD's own products using the
rating figure as the guide. A lot more accurate than between Intel's
FSB figures!

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

[Tony Hill]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:38:36 GMT, "Wes Newell"
<w.newell@SOSverizon.net> wrote:On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:15:52 -0500, chrisv wrote: I have zero problem with the way, for example, Intel is rating their front-side bus.Bus speed is adressed in 2 ways, the clock speed, which is measured in Hz,and data rates which are measured in bps/Bps, more commonly calledthroughput. Throughput is the effective data rate. A term you might bemore familiar with when talking about modems. Many people have called a2400bps modem a 2400 baud modem incorrectly, using the throughput as thesignal rate, when in fact the signal rate was 600 baud. But if you everlooked at the specs you would see that the box would say 2400bps, not 2400baud. What Intel and AMD has done is taken the clock speed (MHz) andmultiplied it by the data rate (bps) and used the result as MHz. If youcan't see the error in this then you must be blind.

An interesting point of note for you. If you look at Intel's spec
sheets, they do indeed state things like "800 MHz" bus speed for the
Pentium 4. However, if you read AMD's own documentation, they seem to
mostly avoiding the use of the frequency units on their numbers. They
instead just say "400 FSB" (there are a few places where they seemed
to have slipped up and said "400 MHz" though).

I don't know that either is a particularly good way of going about
things, I'd much rather just see bandwidth numbers, since that is what
really matters in the end. Just a bit of food for thought though.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Tony Hill]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:32:46 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote:Amd call their CPUs 3200+ not 3200MHz. Since they have no unit, they cannotbe misrepresenting the truth.Let me guess... You're an AMD FANatic. "AMD good. Intel bad."There's nothing wrong with the "800MHz FSB" abbreviation. I use itmyself, and not to deceive, to communicate. It's a lot easier thansaying "200MHz quad-data-rate" and then having to explain what thehell that means to someone who probably couldn't care less.AMD's rating system, on the other hand, is quite shady. "No unit"bullsh*t. A unit is strongly implied. It's deceptive. Itmisrepresents the truth.

I personally feel that the only deceptive part about it is the fact
that the model numbers so closely related to clock speed of P4
processors. I MUCH prefer the model numbers of the Opteron and
Athlon64 FX, which really have no connection to clock speed.

Now, that being said, it's tough to argue too much against the model
number system that AMD uses due to the simple fact that it works.
AMD's revenue was really lagging before their numbering system because
they were unable to sell their Athlon 1.4GHz chip for any more than
Intel's Pentium4 1.4GHz chip. OEMs and customers just wouldn't buy
it. In comes the AthlonXP, and all of a sudden their 1.4GHz chip (the
AthlonXP 1600+ is accepted by customers and OEMs alike as being
equivalent to a P4 1.6GHz chip. Revenues went up quite a bit. In
short, like it or not, their model numbering system worked.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Take a Walk]

The little lost angel wrote: Anyway, I'm getting quite confused by this thread to be honest. I had always thought the 800Mhz was the result of adding 2 channels, 4x data rate and 100Mhz clock. But you guys are giving me the impression it's 4x data rate, 200Mhz clock... the Intel spec sheet says the P4 blah blah processor 400Mhz, 533Mhz, 800Mhz blah blah either 100Mhz or 133Mhz bus.

Who knows... you could be right. Which only illustrates the point
further... WTF is everybody talking about? We still don't really know as
nobody out there is actually telling the truth. We're buried so far in
marketing BS, misleading advertising and incorrect "facts" that we can't
even determine whats going on when we try.
So did the engineering department forgot to tell the marketing/publishing department they have a 200Mhz bus now, or is it the other way round???

Many marketiong types never listen to Engineering types anyway... most of
them have not the knowledge to understand.
AMD's rating system, on the other hand, is quite shady. "No unit" bullsh*t. A unit is strongly implied. It's deceptive. It misrepresents the truth. It's about as deceptive/useful as the 800Mhz figure. Looking at 800Mhz, I would guess that it's faster than the 533Mhz perhaps by as much as 50%.

So a 3200+ would be about 50% faster than 2100+, right?

And 3200+ would be about as fast as a 3.2GHz P4 <cough - we're talking ish
here, and on average, not on specific benchmarks>

So are you talking about the numbers representing end result? Then AMD is
not misleading. Are you talking about using correct Units? AMD is not
misleading (since they don't use any :-)
Looking at XP3200 vs P4 3.2Ghz, I might think they are about the same, which isn't as far from the truth as the 50% of the "800Mhz" FSB. The same applies when comparing between AMD's own products using the rating figure as the guide. A lot more accurate than between Intel's FSB figures!

Indeed. And if you want to know what the real figures are for a particular
chip it's easy enough to find out.

With Intel we still don't know where the 800MHz figure comes from. It's not
an 800MHz clock. If it's 100MHz * 2 channels * 4 transfers per clock then
it really isn't 800Million of anything per second, it's 400Million at twice
the width - VERY different.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[Take a Walk]

Tony Hill wrote: I personally feel that the only deceptive part about it is the fact that the model numbers so closely related to clock speed of P4 processors. I MUCH prefer the model numbers of the Opteron and Athlon64 FX, which really have no connection to clock speed.

Yeah, ok. But thats what they were trying to achieve... since P4 is
labelled by it's clock.
Now, that being said, it's tough to argue too much against the model number system that AMD uses due to the simple fact that it works.

I would equally argue against AMD if their figures were misleading. I'm not
a fan of the fact that they call their FSBs "333" and "400" but since they
don't append MHz they're not misrepresenting anything.
AMD's revenue was really lagging before their numbering system because they were unable to sell their Athlon 1.4GHz chip for any more than Intel's Pentium4 1.4GHz chip. OEMs and customers just wouldn't buy it. In comes the AthlonXP, and all of a sudden their 1.4GHz chip (the AthlonXP 1600+ is accepted by customers and OEMs alike as being equivalent to a P4 1.6GHz chip. Revenues went up quite a bit. In short, like it or not, their model numbering system worked.

Plus they came right out and said what they were doing. And it is merely
there to represent the end result - that a 1600+ is similar to a 1.6GHz P4.
It is not there to misrepresent the facts, with the facts buried so deep
that you can't even find out whats going on.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[Take a Walk]

Tony Hill wrote: An interesting point of note for you. If you look at Intel's spec sheets, they do indeed state things like "800 MHz" bus speed for the Pentium 4. However, if you read AMD's own documentation, they seem to mostly avoiding the use of the frequency units on their numbers. They instead just say "400 FSB" (there are a few places where they seemed to have slipped up and said "400 MHz" though).

Exactly. Without units you are not really saying anything.

And does anybody know exactly where the 800 comes from?
I don't know that either is a particularly good way of going about things, I'd much rather just see bandwidth numbers, since that is what really matters in the end. Just a bit of food for thought though.


No, I don't think leaving units off is a good way of doing it, but at least
it's not a direct lie.

Agreed that end result is much more important. Which is why I think the
PCxy00 labelling of DDR memory is good. The people that use 400MHz for
PC3200 are bad.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[The little lost angel]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:46:50 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
So a 3200+ would be about 50% faster than 2100+, right?And 3200+ would be about as fast as a 3.2GHz P4 <cough - we're talking ishhere, and on average, not on specific benchmarks>So are you talking about the numbers representing end result? Then AMD isnot misleading. Are you talking about using correct Units? AMD is notmisleading (since they don't use any :-)

Heehee, I'm talking about they are equally deceptive/useful. We know
the XP3200 isn't really 50% faster than an XP2100, just as the 800
Msomething FSB isn't 50% faster. So I just think calling the XP rating
deceptive and NOT calling the 800Mega-something FSB for the same is
just a tad on the side of hypocrisy? :P

Either we say that they are both deceptive or that they are both sorta
useful for relatively comparisons. Not one is useful and the other is
only deceptive.

Note I'm not talking about how accurate they might be! :P


--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

[chrisv]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:52:02 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
chrisv wrote: Let me guess... You're an AMD FANatic. "AMD good. Intel bad."No, not at all. I've had about 4 Intel systems and have just purchased anAMD system. No major problems with each... why would I be an AMD FANaticfor suggesting that the unit MHz should be used for clock rate and BPS forBandwidth, I don't see your reasoning. And if you think that me mentioningIntels FSB as an example (when I also mentioned RAM) then you should stopbeing so damn defensive of Intel... I really didn;t mean any harm to theIntel architecture... merely the marketing BS.

Sorry, but seeing someone attack Intel's "800 MHz FSB"
marketing-speak, while saying that AMD's CPU rating system is A-OK,
strikes me as hypocritical, to say the least. IMO, the AMD situation
is far more deceptive.
There's nothing wrong with the "800MHz FSB" abbreviation. I use it myself, and not to deceive, to communicate. It's a lot easier than saying "200MHz quad-data-rate" and then having to explain what the hell that means to someone who probably couldn't care less.Yeah, great bit of communication. Try setting the clock rate to 800MHz.Good luck.

If you don't have a point, maybe you should just remain silent. Get
it through your head - not everyone is a computer geek. Only a tiny
fraction of people in the world know what a "bus" is, and they should
don't need or want me to explain the gory details. "800MHz FSB" is a
fair and reasonable lossy compression of the reality.
AMD's rating system, on the other hand, is quite shady. "No unit" bullsh*t. A unit is strongly implied. It's deceptive. It misrepresents the truth.Where do they imply the unit? If you want to stick a unit on their fine.Thats your problem.

Get real. Sheesh, CPU's have been sold according to clock frequency
since the dawn of the technology, and you claim that no unit is
implied when AMD tacks those numbers onto the product name? I mean,
what planet are you from?
I'm looking at it from an engineering perspective. If you tell me the FSBis 800MHz and I design a motherboard and clock it at 800MHz, it ain't gonnawork, now is it? Thats my point.

Do try to pay attention. The issue here is not data sheets for
electrical engineers. The issue is product and performance
descriptions appropriate for the masses, and whether or not they are
"marketing bullshit" or "misrepresentative" as some have claimed.
And why won't it work? Explain to my why an 800MHz clock on an Intel systemwill not work, if the FSB of Intels is 800MHz. It really is that simple.Convince me. Please.

Pull your head out.

[chrisv]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:54:07 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
chrisv wrote: If you want to argue that a "2400 baud" modem should always be desribed "properly" as a "600 baud modem with quadrature amplitude modulation", then I'd say you're a freakin' nutcase.2400bps would fine though, wouldn't it?

Tell us, how exactly would you say that to a lay person? Would you
say "2400 bee pee ess", or "2400 bits per second"? You see, there's a
reason "2400 baud" become nomenclature - it's quick, easy, and it
works, despite not being "technically correct".
If people use the correct units, there would be no confusion. It's thepoeple that use incorrect units, incorrect terminology and incorrectreasoning that cause confusion.

I'm also curious as to what, exactly, you would say to a lay person
regarding the "800MHz FSB"? Because if you have a way to describe it,
that effectively communicates what's going, without being too
technical for anyone but a computer hardware geek, I may use your
suggestion.

[chrisv]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:22:08 GMT,
a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:46:50 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>wrote:So a 3200+ would be about 50% faster than 2100+, right?And 3200+ would be about as fast as a 3.2GHz P4 <cough - we're talking ishhere, and on average, not on specific benchmarks>So are you talking about the numbers representing end result? Then AMD isnot misleading. Are you talking about using correct Units? AMD is notmisleading (since they don't use any :-)

(Slaps head in disbelief.)
Heehee, I'm talking about they are equally deceptive/useful. We knowthe XP3200 isn't really 50% faster than an XP2100, just as the 800Msomething FSB isn't 50% faster.

There is no implied doubling of performance by doubling, for example,
CPU clock speed. There's more to a computer than a CPU.
So I just think calling the XP ratingdeceptive and NOT calling the 800Mega-something FSB for the same isjust a tad on the side of hypocrisy? :P

I disagree. I see one as a honest attempt to communicate bus speed,
while the other is a dishonest implication of clock speed.

[chrisv]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:52:43 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I would equally argue against AMD if their figures were misleading. I'm nota fan of the fact that they call their FSBs "333" and "400" but since theydon't append MHz they're not misrepresenting anything.

And you don't think the MHz is implied. Unbelievable.

AMD good. Intel bad.

[Take a Walk]

chrisv wrote: Sorry, but seeing someone attack Intel's "800 MHz FSB" marketing-speak, while saying that AMD's CPU rating system is A-OK, strikes me as hypocritical, to say the least. IMO, the AMD situation is far more deceptive.

So I guess you're exactly the same then... 800MHz is fine, but AMDs system
is totally wrong. You're a hyprocrit too.
Yeah, great bit of communication. Try setting the clock rate to 800MHz. Good luck. If you don't have a point, maybe you should just remain silent. Get it through your head - not everyone is a computer geek. Only a tiny fraction of people in the world know what a "bus" is, and they should don't need or want me to explain the gory details. "800MHz FSB" is a fair and reasonable lossy compression of the reality.

So perpetuating incorrect information is ok as long as you're talking to the
general public.
Get real. Sheesh, CPU's have been sold according to clock frequency since the dawn of the technology, and you claim that no unit is implied when AMD tacks those numbers onto the product name? I mean, what planet are you from?

The system is there as "a fair and reasonalbe lossy compression of the
reality". I guess that excuse will be perfectly ok then, since it works for
you.
I'm looking at it from an engineering perspective. If you tell me the FSB is 800MHz and I design a motherboard and clock it at 800MHz, it ain't gonna work, now is it? Thats my point. Do try to pay attention. The issue here is not data sheets for electrical engineers. The issue is product and performance descriptions appropriate for the masses, and whether or not they are "marketing bullshit" or "misrepresentative" as some have claimed.

Oh ok, so as long as you're main audience is not an engineer you can lie
about the details. Great.
And why won't it work? Explain to my why an 800MHz clock on an Intel system will not work, if the FSB of Intels is 800MHz. It really is that simple. Convince me. Please. Pull your head out.

So I take it that it doesn't work becuase it is in fact, NOT an 800MHz bus.
Thanks. You've established my point.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[Take a Walk]

chrisv wrote: On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:52:43 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: I would equally argue against AMD if their figures were misleading. I'm not a fan of the fact that they call their FSBs "333" and "400" but since they don't append MHz they're not misrepresenting anything. And you don't think the MHz is implied. Unbelievable.


Whether you think they're implied not... the units ARE NOT WRITTEN THERE.

This whole argument stemmed from whether we should be measuring data
transfer rates in MHz - and the answer is that we should not. We should be
measuring them in BPS. An AMD FSB of 400 bytes per second is FACT, so the
400 does indeed mean something with the correct units added. Since the
units are not even there it could 400 bananas for all you know.

If I called it 400MHz I would be lying.

If I call it 400, you might ask what, the answer would NOT BE clock cycles
per second.
AMD good. Intel bad.

AMD misleading. Intel outright lying.

Them the facts.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[Take a Walk]

chrisv wrote: On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:54:07 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: chrisv wrote: If you want to argue that a "2400 baud" modem should always be desribed "properly" as a "600 baud modem with quadrature amplitude modulation", then I'd say you're a freakin' nutcase. 2400bps would fine though, wouldn't it? Tell us, how exactly would you say that to a lay person? Would you say "2400 bee pee ess", or "2400 bits per second"? You see, there's a reason "2400 baud" become nomenclature - it's quick, easy, and it works, despite not being "technically correct".

I would quite happily say to somebody "I have a 56K modem". I wouldn't give
the units. I certainly wouldn't give the incorrect units. That why the
people that know what it means don't need to ask and those that don't know,
they probably don't care. If they really want to know, then I would make a
judgement call as to whether to say that it;s faster than a 33.6 modem, or
it's 56K bits per second.
If people use the correct units, there would be no confusion. It's the poeple that use incorrect units, incorrect terminology and incorrect reasoning that cause confusion. I'm also curious as to what, exactly, you would say to a lay person regarding the "800MHz FSB"? Because if you have a way to describe it, that effectively communicates what's going, without being too technical for anyone but a computer hardware geek, I may use your suggestion.


800 million transfers per second? Thats effectively what you're getting
right? You're reading up to 800 Million values from memory and throwing
them at the cpu within one second.

I think thats less technical and meaningful then a TLA. As you say, most
people don't know what a bus is, or how it can be the front and the side at
the same time.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[Tony Hill]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:19:14 GMT,
a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:32:46 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>wrote:There's nothing wrong with the "800MHz FSB" abbreviation. I use itmyself, and not to deceive, to communicate. It's a lot easier thansaying "200MHz quad-data-rate" and then having to explain what thehell that means to someone who probably couldn't care less.In my experience doing sales, people who ask the question actually aresomewhat interested in knowing and many do think about the newinformation. The problem is most people also never get to asking thequestion as they usually had already decided, it's a Pentium so itmust be good, nevermind what numbers.

Half the people I've met can't quite get past the "bada-ba-bing"
Intel-Inside jingle :>
Anyway, I'm getting quite confused by this thread to be honest. I hadalways thought the 800Mhz was the result of adding 2 channels, 4x datarate and 100Mhz clock. But you guys are giving me the impression it's4x data rate, 200Mhz clock... the Intel spec sheet says the P4 blahblah processor 400Mhz, 533Mhz, 800Mhz blah blah either 100Mhz or133Mhz bus.

The P4 uses a two signals, each sending data on both rising and
falling edge of the clock. So, for the new 'C' P4s with their
"800MHz" bus speed, they are using a 200MHz clock on the bus. 200MHz,
2 signals/pin and two bits/clock cycle for each signal. The end
result is bandwidth equivalent to a plain-jane 800MHz bus.
So did the engineering department forgot to tell themarketing/publishing department they have a 200Mhz bus now, or is itthe other way round???

It's a 200MHz clock now. I'm sure that engineering knows that, though
I've never been able to figure out just what the marketing department
was after! Maybe that's what I studied engineering at university
instead of business or marketing :>

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Wes Newell]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:22:08 +0000, The little lost angel wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:46:50 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:So a 3200+ would be about 50% faster than 2100+, right? And 3200+ wouldbe about as fast as a 3.2GHz P4 <cough - we're talking ish here, and onaverage, not on specific benchmarks> So are you talking about thenumbers representing end result? Then AMD is not misleading. Are youtalking about using correct Units? AMD is not misleading (since theydon't use any :-) Heehee, I'm talking about they are equally deceptive/useful. We know the XP3200 isn't really 50% faster than an XP2100, just as the 800 Msomething FSB isn't 50% faster. So I just think calling the XP rating deceptive and NOT calling the 800Mega-something FSB for the same is just a tad on the side of hypocrisy? :P
While I think they rated the XP 3200+ a little high, for comparison to the
P4 3200 it's pretty close, and it's actually faster than the P4 3200 in
some benchmarks. OTOH, the 800MHz Intel uses is 4 times faster than the
actual bus speed of 200MHz. Now which one is deceptive?
Either we say that they are both deceptive or that they are both sorta useful for relatively comparisons. Not one is useful and the other is only deceptive. Note I'm not talking about how accurate they might be! :P

Go back to the Intel NG. I'm sure they'll buy this crap.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

[Wes Newell]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:50:49 -0500, chrisv wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:52:43 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:I would equally argue against AMD if their figures were misleading. I'm nota fan of the fact that they call their FSBs "333" and "400" but since theydon't append MHz they're not misrepresenting anything. And you don't think the MHz is implied. Unbelievable.
I'd have to agree with you here. While not technically wrong, it is
deceptive. Just not as blatant as Intel with the MHz on the end.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

[Wes Newell]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:44:12 -0500, chrisv wrote:
I'm also curious as to what, exactly, you would say to a lay person regarding the "800MHz FSB"? Because if you have a way to describe it, that effectively communicates what's going, without being too technical for anyone but a computer hardware geek, I may use your suggestion.

200MHz FSB QDR for Intel
200MHz FSB DDR for AMD

Then I'd explain QDR/DDR if they didn't understand it. I guess Intel uses
Quad Pumped instead of QDR (Quad Data Rate), which is my own terminology.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

[Wes Newell]

People, this isn't a computer store. Most people come to this newsgroup
wanting info. Outside of the ng's I couldn't care less how you designate
the the Intel or AMD fsb speed. But in here, it should be accurate for the
benefit of the people that come here to learn something. That's why I hate
to see references to marketing BS here.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

[George Macdonald]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:19:14 GMT, a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com
(The little lost angel) wrote:
Anyway, I'm getting quite confused by this thread to be honest. I hadalways thought the 800Mhz was the result of adding 2 channels, 4x datarate and 100Mhz clock. But you guys are giving me the impression it's4x data rate, 200Mhz clock... the Intel spec sheet says the P4 blahblah processor 400Mhz, 533Mhz, 800Mhz blah blah either 100Mhz or133Mhz bus.

All the 4x data rate buses, AGP included, use double speed clocking and DDR
signalling. For The P4's "800MHz" FSB, the base bus clock rate is 200MHz.
The address bus is the 200MHz with DDR signalling. The data bus strobe
clock is 400MHz differential(IIRC), source synchronous with DDR signalling
to get the 800 number. For the 64-bits, there are actually 4 separate
16-bit sub-buses with their own strobe clocks and it uses something called
Dynamic Bus Inversion, which means that if less than 8 of the 16 bits are
1, it inverts all 16 signals on the fly.
So did the engineering department forgot to tell themarketing/publishing department they have a 200Mhz bus now, or is itthe other way round???

Seems like the former... or the marketing dept. just doesn't understand.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[Thomas Edison]

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Ben Pope <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Indeed. And if you want to know what the real figures are for a particular chip it's easy enough to find out.
With Intel we still don't know where the 800MHz figure comes from. It's not an 800MHz clock. If it's 100MHz * 2 channels * 4 transfers per clock then it really isn't 800Million of anything per second, it's 400Million at twice the width - VERY different.

The base frequency of the processor bus as found on the Pentium 4 now
runs at 200 MHz. The data bus of the processor bus is capable of
transferring 4 beats of data per cycle. This is done through the use of
2 source synchronous reference signals that are 90 degrees out of phase
with each other. The data on the data bus can be sent (and received) on
the rising and falling edge of each of the reference signals. There are
4 edges that can be sampled every cycle, so 4 beats of data per cycle.
At 200 million cycles per second, that's a data rate of 800 Mbps per
pin.

You are getting it mixed up with the data rate on the memory side of
things. It's 400 Mbps per pin there, but it's a 128 bit wide data bus
for the i875P and i865P series of chipsets.


--
davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com

[Take a Walk]

David Wang wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Ben Pope <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: Indeed. And if you want to know what the real figures are for a particular chip it's easy enough to find out. With Intel we still don't know where the 800MHz figure comes from. It's not an 800MHz clock. If it's 100MHz * 2 channels * 4 transfers per clock then it really isn't 800Million of anything per second, it's 400Million at twice the width - VERY different. The base frequency of the processor bus as found on the Pentium 4 now runs at 200 MHz. The data bus of the processor bus is capable of transferring 4 beats of data per cycle. This is done through the use of 2 source synchronous reference signals that are 90 degrees out of phase with each other. The data on the data bus can be sent (and received) on the rising and falling edge of each of the reference signals. There are 4 edges that can be sampled every cycle, so 4 beats of data per cycle. At 200 million cycles per second, that's a data rate of 800 Mbps per pin. You are getting it mixed up with the data rate on the memory side of things. It's 400 Mbps per pin there, but it's a 128 bit wide data bus for the i875P and i865P series of chipsets.

Thanks for the explanation(s). At last someone who knows what is actually
going on.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[Take a Walk]

George Macdonald wrote: All the 4x data rate buses, AGP included, use double speed clocking and DDR signalling. For The P4's "800MHz" FSB, the base bus clock rate is 200MHz. The address bus is the 200MHz with DDR signalling. The data bus strobe clock is 400MHz differential(IIRC), source synchronous with DDR signalling to get the 800 number. For the 64-bits, there are actually 4 separate 16-bit sub-buses with their own strobe clocks and it uses something called Dynamic Bus Inversion, which means that if less than 8 of the 16 bits are 1, it inverts all 16 signals on the fly.

I guess I should thank you too... since you were first :-)

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[jack]

David Wang <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Ben Pope <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
:: Indeed. And if you want to know what the real figures are for a
:: particular chip it's easy enough to find out.
:
:: With Intel we still don't know where the 800MHz figure comes from.
:: It's not an 800MHz clock. If it's 100MHz * 2 channels * 4 transfers
:: per clock then it really isn't 800Million of anything per second,
:: it's 400Million at twice the width - VERY different.
:
: The base frequency of the processor bus as found on the Pentium 4 now
: runs at 200 MHz. The data bus of the processor bus is capable of
: transferring 4 beats of data per cycle. This is done through the use
: of 2 source synchronous reference signals that are 90 degrees out of
: phase
: with each other. The data on the data bus can be sent (and received)
: on
: the rising and falling edge of each of the reference signals. There
: are 4 edges that can be sampled every cycle, so 4 beats of data per
: cycle.
: At 200 million cycles per second, that's a data rate of 800 Mbps per
: pin.
:
: You are getting it mixed up with the data rate on the memory side of
: things. It's 400 Mbps per pin there, but it's a 128 bit wide data bus
: for the i875P and i865P series of chipsets.

Geez, This is the clearest and most intelligent post I've seen in this
thread, bar none! Thanks David, because I was really starting to get
confused. As usual, you hit the nail on the head once again. ;.)

J.

--
--------
The end to "Personal Computing" as we know it is just around the corner.
TCPA will take away ALL rights from you, the consumer. Learn more
about it here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/what-is-tcpa.html and
here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html

[wogston]

> > has been ok for the PC world since we've had 64-bit buses on every system for nearly 10 years now.

64-bit wide buses != 64-bit wide registers. Before MMX the 64-bit wide bus
was mainly useful for double floating-point data type.

10 years? It only started with the Athlon and P4. Prior to that all x86 cpu's had only one data bit per clock cycle.

Why 32-bit memory was required in pairs on Pentium? One data bit? Explain.

[wogston]

> So I take it that it doesn't work becuase it is in fact, NOT an 800MHz
bus. Thanks. You've established my point.

Equivalent to, which might be inprecise but it's not really a big secret
what the figure is based on. I'm not a big-fat-ass hardware expert (I am
software expert ;-), neither it is confusing at all that the actual clock
the data is synchronized to, is quarter of the presented figure, however,
data is moved through at frequency equivalent to 800Mhz since each clock
pulse is equivalent to four times the number of signals.

In otherwords the hardware clock is 200Mhz, but the data is moving at
frequency of 800Mhz, effective. I don't find that too massively misleading
advertising, especially when the facts aren't hidden and IMHO, publicly well
known. Most teen kids know what it means, those who don't know Mouse from
Monitor aren't ofcourse expected to know their ass from the hairs that are
on it.

[wogston]

> If people use the correct units, there would be no confusion. It's the poeple that use incorrect units, incorrect terminology and incorrect reasoning that cause confusion.

What's the problem? The new data is transfered every 1/800000000 th of a
second, that's the frequency. 800 Mhz. It just happens that the clock signal
this is timed on, is 200 Mhz.

It's not said that 800 Mhz is the clock signal frequency anywhere. Intel
Good. AMD Good. Notice how I am using your own arguments here, should be
sufficient right? :)

[Take a Walk]

wogston wrote: I'm not a big-fat-ass hardware expert... ...but the data is moving at frequency of 800Mhz, effective

Data speed has never been measured in MHz. Herts defines cycles per second.
Which means you inherently need something cyclic. Data is not cyclic,
otherwise it contains no information (since it's pretty predictable if it's
cyclic)

So data is not, and cannot be measured in Hertz. It is measured in bits per
second or some variant thereof.

I don't know how many times I need to say that I do not care about effective
this, effective that. I want facts. The fact is that the bus is not
800MHz. It's is 2*200MHz DDR.

I fed up with the whole argument and will not reply to any comments in this
thread regarding effective clock rates any further. I know what's going to
be said about that so don't bother.

As a so called "software expert" you should be able to appreciate the
difference between two things that are subtlety different. Between
something that is fact, and something that is not. And how important
standards are.

If you do not, then when creating a specification for your software you will
get it wrong. Your software will not meet the customers requirements and
you will not be paid.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[Take a Walk]

wogston wrote: What's the problem? The new data is transfered every 1/800000000 th of a second, that's the frequency.

No, that would be the period. Now you're trying to measure frequency in
seconds AND data rate in Hz.

Just as well you don't class yourself as a hardware expert since you would
have failed the simplest test - getting your units correct.

:-P

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[Wes Newell]

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 10:59:16 +0100, Ben Pope wrote:
I fed up with the whole argument and will not reply to any comments in this thread regarding effective clock rates any further. I know what's going to be said about that so don't bother.
Frustrating isn't it. Some people just can't admit it when they're wrong.
I'm glad i didn't get too involved in this.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

[wogston]

> As a so called "software expert" you should be able to appreciate the

I am not so called "software expert", I am a software expert in a senior
programmer position. Period.

If you do not, then when creating a specification for your software you
will get it wrong. Your software will not meet the customers requirements and you will not be paid.

I have been paid so far for jobs well done and the software has met all the
criterias the customers have set.


-W

[wogston]

> Frustrating isn't it. Some people just can't admit it when they're wrong. I'm glad i didn't get too involved in this.

I'm not yet had chance even to reply yet, and you are proclaiming that I
cannot admit that I am wrong. Very objective comment, thank you it was very
refreshing.

-W

[Take a Walk]

wogston wrote: As a so called "software expert" you should be able to appreciate the I am not so called "software expert", I am a software expert in a senior programmer position. Period.

What makes you an expert then?

Because a job title does not.

Enclosing "software expert" in quotes was not there because I did not
believe you, but because it was self-proclaimed.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[wogston]

> > What's the problem? The new data is transfered every 1/800000000 th of a second, that's the frequency. No, that would be the period. Now you're trying to measure frequency in seconds AND data rate in Hz.

Yes, ofcourse that is the period. It's inverse of the frequency, gee, forgot
to mention that. Now that this omission was cleared up, is new data "pulse"
is going through every 1/800000000 th of a second, giving the data
throughput frequency 800 Mhz, or not? This multiplied by width of the data
lanes gives the bits per second, which is more common measure of bus
bandwidth, but the figure here is frequency, not bandwidth. Bandwidth is not
measured in hz, right? It's a bit misleading to print data throughput
frequency into brochures but it's far from outright lying, like you imply.

Let's try again. If new data pulse comes through every 1/800000000 seconds,
what's the frequency? Since you seem to be "expert" on reciprocals you can
tell us what it is, since my 800 Mhz wasn't correct in your opinion. Oh, it
is 200 Mhz? Okay, and how you did this maths again, show us.

Just as well you don't class yourself as a hardware expert since you would have failed the simplest test - getting your units correct.

Well aren't we just thrilled. I don't class myself as a hardware expert,
since I am not one. But believe me, I sometimes even get multiplication and
even addition wrong, but no one makes such a fuss about like you do.

-W

[wogston]

> > I am not so called "software expert", I am a software expert in a senior programmer position. Period. What makes you an expert then?

Nearly two decades of programming experience for one thing.

Enclosing "software expert" in quotes was not there because I did not believe you, but because it was self-proclaimed.

Believing and not believing are mutually exclusive, so either you do believe
or you don't. Putting the quotation marks clearly puts you into the
"not-believe" crowd along with your question what makes me an expert, but
the fact of the matter is that I am not interested in your beliefs in one
way or another.

The self-proclaimability you cannot prove, but neither can I deny it without
testimonials, but the fact that last month alone three separate companies
have tried to recruit me gives me the belief that atleast some parties
belive me to be expert of somekind, worth the hassle of recruiment from
established position.

[Take a Walk]

wogston wrote: The self-proclaimability you cannot prove

"I'm not a big-fat-ass hardware expert (I am software expert ;-)"

If you wrote that, then you announced publicly that you are a software
expert. Thats self-proclaiming.

Whether having a post that appears to come from you on hundreds of news
servers is proof or not, I don't know.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[wogston]

> If you wrote that, then you announced publicly that you are a software expert. Thats self-proclaiming.

I am a software expert. Period.


(what difference does it make, if I self-proclaim it, or not anyway?)

[Tony Hill]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 12:11:31 +0300, "wogston" <spam@nothere.net> wrote: has been ok for the PC world since we've had 64-bit buses on every system for nearly 10 years now.64-bit wide buses != 64-bit wide registers. Before MMX the 64-bit wide buswas mainly useful for double floating-point data type.

That and for every other data access that is ever performed on modern
processors! You don't just read 32-bits of data straight from memory
and into registers on any current processor. Instead you read a cache
line from memory into your caches, and read from those caches into
registers. Since you typically will need the data either right before
or right after the chunk you just read, having that data already in
caches is a good thing, and having a higher bandwidth bus lets you get
it there faster.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Tony Hill]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 12:22:37 +0300, "wogston" <spam@nothere.net> wrote: If people use the correct units, there would be no confusion. It's the poeple that use incorrect units, incorrect terminology and incorrect reasoning that cause confusion.What's the problem? The new data is transfered every 1/800000000 th of asecond, that's the frequency. 800 Mhz.

Saying that new data is transferred every 1/800,000,000th of a second
is taking a very limited view of things, especially since the
processor doesn't care about just a single bit, but rather the amount
of time taken to fill a cache line. What's more, that is only the
data portion of your bus, the address bus only sends data at one half
of that rate if I remember my bus technology correctly.

I'd tend to agree with the others here, saying it's an 800MHz bus is
definitely not accurate. You can be the judge if this is
intentionally misleading or just over-simplifying.

Personally, if someone needs this sort of rather academic measurement
of the bus, I tend to prefer the "MT/s" nomenclature (Mega Transfers
per second), ie the AthlonXP has up to a 400MT/s bus, and the P4 has
an 800MT/s bus. Of course, when you get right down to it, the total
bandwidth of the bus is what REALLY matters, not how it gets that
bandwidth.

So, the P4 has up to a 6.4GB/s bus, the AthlonXP has up to a 3.2GB/s
bus. The Athlon64 has a 3.2GB/s memory bus and 3.2GB/s in each
direction for it's I/O bus.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[andrew]

In article <bloq1l$ejb3f$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>, Ben Pope
<spam@hotmail.com> writeswogston wrote: I'm not a big-fat-ass hardware expert... ...but the data is moving at frequency of 800Mhz, effectiveData speed has never been measured in MHz. Herts defines cycles per second.Which means you inherently need something cyclic. Data is not cyclic,otherwise it contains no information (since it's pretty predictable if it'scyclic)So data is not, and cannot be measured in Hertz. It is measured in bits persecond or some variant thereof.

Not strictly true!

Put a digital signal into a receiver and take the video/baseband output
to a spectrum analyser. Tell me what the big spike is that coincides
with the baud rate of the digital signal? Spectrum analysers measure
frequency! Frequency is measured in Hertz.

I just knew my ham radio hobby would come in useful sometime :)

Andrew

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <blon88$7md$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>,
spam@nothere.net says... has been ok for the PC world since we've had 64-bit buses on every system for nearly 10 years now. 64-bit wide buses != 64-bit wide registers. Before MMX the 64-bit wide bus was mainly useful for double floating-point data type.

The 64bit data path had little or nothing to do with FP
instructions. The data bus width was increased to increase memory
bandwidth. The caches were designed to be 256b wide. Thus it
took four beats of 64b or eight at 32b.
10 years? It only started with the Athlon and P4. Prior to that all x86 cpu's had only one data bit per clock cycle. Why 32-bit memory was required in pairs on Pentium? One data bit? Explain.

I think he meant "per pin" (no DDR). Though even here it's not
correct unless he is only counting the burst, ignoring the
address cycle and latencies.

Also, "required" (pairs of sticks) is a bit strong. Several
chipsets would support single DRAM sticks. Though by the time
these came about, memory was cheap enough to ignore the feature.
It wasn't pretty, so it was more or less forgotten.

--
Keith

[Take a Walk]

andrew wrote: Put a digital signal into a receiver and take the video/baseband output to a spectrum analyser. Tell me what the big spike is that coincides with the baud rate of the digital signal? Spectrum analysers measure frequency! Frequency is measured in Hertz. I just knew my ham radio hobby would come in useful sometime :)


I don't even know where to begin with this one.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <blonjt$98i$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>,
spam@nothere.net says... So I take it that it doesn't work becuase it is in fact, NOT an 800MHz bus. Thanks. You've established my point. Equivalent to, which might be inprecise but it's not really a big secret what the figure is based on. I'm not a big-fat-ass hardware expert (I am software expert ;-), neither it is confusing at all that the actual clock the data is synchronized to, is quarter of the presented figure, however, data is moved through at frequency equivalent to 800Mhz since each clock pulse is equivalent to four times the number of signals.

Even though there is *no* signal operating at 800MHz, it's just
peachy to call it 800MHz? I don't believe I've seen any
"equivalent to" disclaimer (it's "equivalent to" an 800MHz single
clocked bus) on the bus MHz rating. As a hardware type, I
understand what they're doing, though it is misleading. In otherwords the hardware clock is 200Mhz, but the data is moving at frequency of 800Mhz, effective.

Nope. The fastest signal you're going to find is the equivalent
of 400MHz (800 *transitions* per second).
I don't find that too massively misleading advertising, especially when the facts aren't hidden and IMHO, publicly well known. Most teen kids know what it means, those who don't know Mouse from Monitor aren't ofcourse expected to know their ass from the hairs that are on it.

I think it's misleading, though not grossly so. I'd prefer a
"data rate" number. A real and sustainable number would be nice,
though not likely to become reality. The marketeers wouldn't go
for it. Too much work doing the bench-marketeering... ;-)

--
Keith

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <jsuqnvsjv2g2ln832sme76b1eusftfsec5@4ax.com>,
chrisv@nospam.invalid says... On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:54:07 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:chrisv wrote: If you want to argue that a "2400 baud" modem should always be desribed "properly" as a "600 baud modem with quadrature amplitude modulation", then I'd say you're a freakin' nutcase.2400bps would fine though, wouldn't it? Tell us, how exactly would you say that to a lay person? Would you say "2400 bee pee ess", or "2400 bits per second"?

Absolutely!
You see, there's a reason "2400 baud" become nomenclature - it's quick, easy, and it works,

....and wrong.
despite not being "technically correct".

Words mean things. The use of a technical term in an improper
way does nothing but confuse the issue. Baud should *never* be
confused with bps.
If people use the correct units, there would be no confusion. It's thepoeple that use incorrect units, incorrect terminology and incorrectreasoning that cause confusion. I'm also curious as to what, exactly, you would say to a lay person regarding the "800MHz FSB"?

Me? (I'll butt in here ;-)

"Don't worry 'bout it. It doesn't matter. Marketeering."

....or maybe I'll explain why it's marketeering, if I think they
can handle it. ;-) I'll also explain why MHz is just as
meaningless. However, I will refuse to get into a discussion
where the misuse of terms is prevalent. The field is confusing
enough without market-speak and gross misuse of terms.
Because if you have a way to describe it, that effectively communicates what's going, without being too technical for anyone but a computer hardware geek, I may use your suggestion.

Then why use a technical term like "baud" or "MHz" at all?
You're simply propagating ignorance that will have to be cleaned
up later. Words have meanings.

--
Keith

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <blovuk$km4$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>,
spam@nothere.net says... What's the problem? The new data is transfered every 1/800000000 th of a second, that's the frequency. No, that would be the period. Now you're trying to measure frequency in seconds AND data rate in Hz. Yes, ofcourse that is the period.

No, that's only *HALF* a period. There is *nothing* on that bus
switching at 800MHz. The fastest you could possibly see would be
400MHz. Hz is an absolutely incorrect unit to use.
It's inverse of the frequency, gee, forgot to mention that. Now that this omission was cleared up, is new data "pulse" is going through every 1/800000000 th of a second, giving the data throughput frequency 800 Mhz, or not?

As Ben said, it's a good think you've only a self-proclaimed
"software expert" because you have this all wrong.

There is no pulse "going through every 1/800000000 th of a
second". There is, however, a data transition (possibility)
every 1/800000000 th of a second. This is not 800MHz in any way
shape or form! It's (a possibility of) 800M transitions per
second or a maximum of 400MHz.
This multiplied by width of the data lanes gives the bits per second, which is more common measure of bus bandwidth,

You got that part right.
but the figure here is frequency, not bandwidth.

Oops! You fell back in your old trap. ...in the same sentence,
no less!

Bandwidth is not measured in hz, right?

Nope. Bits/bytes/whatever per second. Or it could be
bits/(pin*sec), or whatever.
It's a bit misleading to print data throughput frequency

Data throughput is *not* a frequency! It's data per unit time.
Not cycles per unit time!
into brochures but it's far from outright lying, like you imply.

It's a gross misuse of long accepted terminology (I.e. a lie).
Let's try again. If new data pulse comes through every 1/800000000 seconds, what's the frequency?

Since you start with an invalid assumption, it's not surprising
that your conclusion is just as whacked.
Since you seem to be "expert" on reciprocals you can tell us what it is, since my 800 Mhz wasn't correct in your opinion. Oh, it is 200 Mhz? Okay, and how you did this maths again, show us.

The correct, though perhaps meaningless, answer is "less than
400MHz". The math is simple (see above).

MHz is simply the wrong unit to use. It's only being used by the
marketeers because they've spent the last 20 years whacking
people over the head with it. At one time it wasn't such a bad
number. However it's lost all meaning (in this context) over the
last ten years.
Just as well you don't class yourself as a hardware expert since you would have failed the simplest test - getting your units correct. Well aren't we just thrilled. I don't class myself as a hardware expert,

Then stop playing one on the Usenet. ;-)
since I am not one. But believe me, I sometimes even get multiplication and even addition wrong, but no one makes such a fuss about like you do.

Nope, your arithmetic is OK. As Dan said; you got your units
wrong. Faulty assumption => faulty conclusion.

--
Keith

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <t3E4lJAL9Dg$EwSe@gi0nwg.freeserve.co.uk>,
andrew@nospam.co.uk says... In article <bloq1l$ejb3f$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>, Ben Pope <spam@hotmail.com> writeswogston wrote: I'm not a big-fat-ass hardware expert... ...but the data is moving at frequency of 800Mhz, effectiveData speed has never been measured in MHz. Herts defines cycles per second.Which means you inherently need something cyclic. Data is not cyclic,otherwise it contains no information (since it's pretty predictable if it'scyclic)So data is not, and cannot be measured in Hertz. It is measured in bits persecond or some variant thereof. Not strictly true! Put a digital signal into a receiver and take the video/baseband output to a spectrum analyser.

Why would you go through such contortions? Wouldn't a spectrum
analyzer be the right tool right out of the box?
Tell me what the big spike is that coincides with the baud rate of the digital signal? Spectrum analysers measure frequency! Frequency is measured in Hertz.

Better try again. First of all, have you actually *done* this??

If you connect a proper antenna to a spectrum analyzer and point
it towards the motherboard, the first thing you'll see is the
clock. That will be 200MHz, in this case. You'll then see
spikes repeating at 200MHz intervals up the spectrum, to perhaps
5x the processor's frequency. I haven't done this in a while, so
it may not be so pronounced up that high. You'll also see
harmonics of the memory clocks, if they're different. In short,
you'll see all multiples of the base clock (200MHz), so I don't
know how you're going to show me the big emission at 800MHz is
the "data frequency" (which would be at 400MHz anyway).
I just knew my ham radio hobby would come in useful sometime :)

Try again.

--
Keith

[wogston]

> There is no pulse "going through every 1/800000000 th of a second". There is, however, a data transition (possibility) every 1/800000000 th of a second. This is not 800MHz in any way shape or form! It's (a possibility of) 800M transitions per second or a maximum of 400MHz.

Precisely, 800 M transition per second and what is the period with 800 M
transition per second if they are evenly spaced out in time?

Bandwidth is not measured in hz, right? Nope. Bits/bytes/whatever per second. Or it could be bits/(pin*sec), or whatever.

For example, but Intel doesn't claim this so I fail to see where the
outright lie -part is supposed to be.

It's a bit misleading to print data throughput frequency Data throughput is *not* a frequency! It's data per unit time. Not cycles per unit time!

Ofcourse not, but Intel isn't claiming it is data throughput, so I fail to
see where the outright lie -part is supposed to be.

into brochures but it's far from outright lying, like you imply. It's a gross misuse of long accepted terminology (I.e. a lie).

But he just argued, that most 'folks' who get distracted by the misuse of
terminology don't know it to begin with, so how it could mislead them, or
mislead those who know what it stands for, I ask?

Let's try again. If new data pulse comes through every 1/800000000
seconds, what's the frequency? Since you start with an invalid assumption, it's not surprising that your conclusion is just as whacked.

Since you start with this foot, I state that I don't mean clock pulse, but
one bit of data, four times per each clock 'pulse', 'signal', or whatever
you hardware Gurus call it. I got the impression, that RIMMs are using QDR,
which stands for Quad Data Rate or something similiar. I know how DDR works,
clock signal is a SQUARE waveform.

The squares have raising edge and falling edge. Correct me at any time I am
incorrect. In charts I see the edges being sharp rises, practically
vertical.. but in practise my layman's sense says that analogic signal
cannot make *instant* 90 degree turn, or switch from on to off state,
electronics as far as I understand has a small delay and is continuous,
there must exist current between "on" and "off" states aswell. But let's
assume for practical reasons that the edge is rising and falling for the
signal.

DDR as far as I understand, again, correct when I am wrong, does synchronize
to both rising AND falling edges, so it requires only half the frequency for
the clock signal for it's operation, and therefore the clock don't have to
be as precise and therefore it is feasible to manufacture cheaply or
something along these lines anyway (tell me more if you like, I am all ears
and willing to learn).

QDR as far as I understand, again, I am a layman and haven't studied or
practised electronics, but I do have a little common sense and I hope it is
applicable here, works so that there are actually four "events" per clock
signal, I could read on the details but I take it for face value that QDR
means four data "events" per clock signal. Between every rising edge, four
bits of data can be transfered per wire.

Therefore, if I see 800 Mhz FSB which is QDR I understand it to mean 200 Mhz
clock, four "bits" of data between every rising edge of clock signal.
Correct me where I am wrong. I don't need to be called moron, called names,
etc. etc. etc. Thank you very much.

In this light for me, as consumer, I don't feel cheated by Intel one little
tiny bit. I am precisely the group this self-proclaimed Hardware-Pope Ben
Pope claims should feel cheated and lied to. Surprise Ben, I don't-- feel
free to explain for the millionth time why I *should* feel cheated by Intel,
and don't forget to mention that I am self-proclaimed so-called software
"expert", you're very good at that but not very good making a point.

Well aren't we just thrilled. I don't class myself as a hardware expert, Then stop playing one on the Usenet. ;-)

I'm not pretending to be one, but I'm not completely out of the loop how
computers work.. and if I am incorrect, being corrected is the least I
expect from group with talent such as this. But this Ben Pope person's
attitude has been anything but friendly.

since I am not one. But believe me, I sometimes even get multiplication
and even addition wrong, but no one makes such a fuss about like you do. Nope, your arithmeti