Not so according to government:
h``p://www.theinquirer.net/14060202.htm
h``p://www.theinquirer.net/14060202.htm
makes for an interesting read anyways
Do MHz really matter for a CPU?
- Thread starter shadoe_phantom
- Start date
That's exactly why an 1800+ XP athlon beats an 1.8ghz P4. It's less ghz wize but more efficient. Why do you think they call it an 1800+!
exactly sf.
Actually the Athlon XP 1800 should have been named 1900 or even 2000 cause it can keep up with those clock speeds (but always put down a safer number).
Actually the Athlon XP 1800 should have been named 1900 or even 2000 cause it can keep up with those clock speeds (but always put down a safer number).
NewGen
1
the AMD (tm) chips have a totally differnet internal architecture to the Intel (tm)... internally the structure of and AMD Piping scheme is thicker allowing more data flow (hence the extreme heating caused and more cooling is needed) but still is clocked @ normal speeds but bending the rules and allowing the X-tra kick; with the Intel chips the internal piping is microns smaller the difference and is clocked @ speeds accordingly or (hence the experiences of random crashes or in house-stalling)
AMD is AWESOME in data speeds but with a consiquence of power consumption... (major dragg...)
that's enough reseach for today...
AMD is AWESOME in data speeds but with a consiquence of power consumption... (major dragg...)
that's enough reseach for today...
Cyrix were first with non-clockspeed ratings
I had a P150+ that actually ran at 120
Or did AMD do it first in the K5
Or Intel by usually marking with ICOMP rating instead of clock speed.
Simple clockspeed comparisons favour "dumb but fast" processors that skimp on hardware funtions and use tons of microcode (the IDT Winchip!).
Manufacturer-created "N-plus" ratings, on the other hand, breed mistrust.
The relative value of application, theoretical, or "application-synthetic" benchmarks can be debated endlessly.
(by "application-synthetic", I mean ones that replicate an application profile, using a spread of theoretical tests).
I had a P150+ that actually ran at 120
Or did AMD do it first in the K5
Or Intel by usually marking with ICOMP rating instead of clock speed.
Simple clockspeed comparisons favour "dumb but fast" processors that skimp on hardware funtions and use tons of microcode (the IDT Winchip!).
Manufacturer-created "N-plus" ratings, on the other hand, breed mistrust.
The relative value of application, theoretical, or "application-synthetic" benchmarks can be debated endlessly.
(by "application-synthetic", I mean ones that replicate an application profile, using a spread of theoretical tests).
cdorders
1
Speed does not really matters. In fact, the whole configuration can affect speed eother positevly or negatively. One factor but most times overlooked, is the Mainboard (Chipset, Architecture, Layout, Bus, etc), the memory parts, Hard Disks and other peripherals that may slow down or speed up the performance of a system. No matter if anyone is an AMD or an INTEL maniac, the result is always the same! Performance does NOT mean a high speed CPU and just that!!! The fact is that you mostly get what you pay for...
auras
1
OK, cdorder, everyone has the right to know and learn, even you. At first, it's good to know, I'm not a fan of any manufacturer. But I'm very curious, how many Asus and how many Abit or Gigabyte mainboards do you tested ever? And how many PC's have you at your home? I have in any moment 4-5, all "self-manufactured".
I have at this moment an Asus CUSL2-C, and a Gigabyte 6OXE - both with Intel 815EP, both with same hardware features... and, unfortunately for your affirmation, the Gigabyte beats the Asus in any benchmark, with the same CPU, same memory, same HDD... And I had two years ago, an Asus P3C-2000, with i820 and SDRAM, with the so-called "defective" MTH chip (Intel said). It's right, the MTH on the Asus board had not any malfunctions, but the mainboard was not so performant than expensive. Nor a single benchmark placed it over "average", even the price was 195 US$ + 19% VAT. And about the Abit BH6 I had a few years ago: It was, at first, very stable, not so performant (this is right for the Intel boards too). And these are (or was) only my "personals", the more tested. I'm "home" in hardware, and I know pretty much about different products. I worked with good and bad components, with Asus, Abit, Gigabyte, Intel, MSI... but with Epox, DFI, Soyo, Zida, Acorp, PC-Chips, Super... or even "no-name" mainboards too, and I built a lot of "home-made", cheap or expensive PC's. I know that was some Gigabyte MB's with problems a few years ago (if is a real problem i. e. when for two network cards is difficult to set correctly the interrupts... - this is nothing compared with the interrupt-setting problems I had with DFI mainboards), but you are the first I heard saying "Gigabyte is not high-quality". Maybe the lot of awards gained by the Gigabyte products was - for nothing? Of course, the Asus mainboards are like the Plextor CD-writers: more expensive will be, more fans will have...
And do not believe, that the one who posted the most messages, has the much knowledge...
I have at this moment an Asus CUSL2-C, and a Gigabyte 6OXE - both with Intel 815EP, both with same hardware features... and, unfortunately for your affirmation, the Gigabyte beats the Asus in any benchmark, with the same CPU, same memory, same HDD... And I had two years ago, an Asus P3C-2000, with i820 and SDRAM, with the so-called "defective" MTH chip (Intel said). It's right, the MTH on the Asus board had not any malfunctions, but the mainboard was not so performant than expensive. Nor a single benchmark placed it over "average", even the price was 195 US$ + 19% VAT. And about the Abit BH6 I had a few years ago: It was, at first, very stable, not so performant (this is right for the Intel boards too). And these are (or was) only my "personals", the more tested. I'm "home" in hardware, and I know pretty much about different products. I worked with good and bad components, with Asus, Abit, Gigabyte, Intel, MSI... but with Epox, DFI, Soyo, Zida, Acorp, PC-Chips, Super... or even "no-name" mainboards too, and I built a lot of "home-made", cheap or expensive PC's. I know that was some Gigabyte MB's with problems a few years ago (if is a real problem i. e. when for two network cards is difficult to set correctly the interrupts... - this is nothing compared with the interrupt-setting problems I had with DFI mainboards), but you are the first I heard saying "Gigabyte is not high-quality". Maybe the lot of awards gained by the Gigabyte products was - for nothing? Of course, the Asus mainboards are like the Plextor CD-writers: more expensive will be, more fans will have...
And do not believe, that the one who posted the most messages, has the much knowledge...
cdorders
1
Every trademark has it's own good and bad components, any part canbe deffective and any part can be better or worse than another identical to this! The fact is that most of the times you get what you pay for. Maybe Plextor has only the name now and may be worse than other brands in some models, BUT IT PROVIDES THE BEST WARRANTY! And that's what you pay for! TEAC, started to provide the same warranty as Plextor does and with a less price you can get a better writer by TEAC... But you cannot claim that the TEAC or PLEXTOR are the same with SONY, BTC, CYBER etc... When you pay, you pay for quality and stability, not only for the trademark! Gigabyte is a low budget manufacturer and it will remain as this: A LOW BUDGET MANUFACTURER. Of course there are some ASUS or INTEL or anyother trademark components that really suck, but the overall picture is this!
And mind that Gigabyte became famous with the 6BHC and 6BHX and 6BXC models, made for Pentium II... Asus and ABIT were wellknown for a long time ago...
And mind that Gigabyte became famous with the 6BHC and 6BHX and 6BXC models, made for Pentium II... Asus and ABIT were wellknown for a long time ago...
Last edited:
M
Master
Guest
I am with auras.
auras
1
OK, guys, it seems I was too ambitious. I was not able to preview what will follow after posting my reply for cdorders. Maybe because I'm a bit too old for this forum. I'm using computers from 1972, and I started building PC's in 1990, without having any computer shop (only a "home ltd."), and buying an important part of the components according to the "law of the jungle" which rules on my poor East European country's black market, but selling my PC's according to the western standard: full warranty, substitution, refund... The reliability and stability of the components, the easy configuration, but the good performance (for certain pretentious customers) too, are extreme important things in these conditions, and I wrote only that I experienced. In 12 years, I built more than a thousand of PC's, all piece by piece with my own hands, and maybe I know something in this domain. It's right, most of these were cheap "budget" PC's. I don't know what "classes" of components are available in Australia, but in my country, the latest Gigabyte GA-8IHXP mainboard is only about 10% cheaper than the latest Asus P4T533. Last year, in February, I bought the GA-6OXE for 143 US$ + VAT, with 3 years of warranty, and the CUSL2-C for 155 US$ + VAT, with 3 years of warranty too. Then, where are the "budget mainboards", and where is the "better warranty"?
Anyhow, I believe that it was enough about this, because is complete meaningless to transform this forum into a "vanity fair".
Reading the endless-useless discussion about "mobo/CPU", I agree with you, cdorders, about the better reliability, compatibility, and real performance of an Intel CPU on an Intel-based mainboard, but this is only my personal opinion, and is right only for my own PC's. Everyone has the right to have his own opinion, no?
Sorry for my bad English, but I'm not a native English-speaking subject of Her Majesty...
Anyhow, I believe that it was enough about this, because is complete meaningless to transform this forum into a "vanity fair".
Reading the endless-useless discussion about "mobo/CPU", I agree with you, cdorders, about the better reliability, compatibility, and real performance of an Intel CPU on an Intel-based mainboard, but this is only my personal opinion, and is right only for my own PC's. Everyone has the right to have his own opinion, no?
Sorry for my bad English, but I'm not a native English-speaking subject of Her Majesty...
there done & edited. A few of the last posts were not needed & ran away from the subject. Some matters will be dealt with in private.
Apologies to those who read the posts, but all is fixed now.
Apologies to those who read the posts, but all is fixed now.