CPU speed not to par!!!

[Scotty]

Hi Fellow PCer's,
I have been away for a while and haven't kept up with a lot of stuff (PC stuff) but I have built another pc and installed a 1.9xp and for some reason I can't get it to 1.9 just 1.6???
My PC:
MSI mobo ddr
256mb of 333
Radeon 8500
Audigy Platimun
ME os
burner and dvd ect.
I know the answer is here some where but I don't know where to go.. HELP!!!! Scotty

[Cricket]

Hi Scotty,

The AMD Athlon XP 1900+ actually runs at 1.6GHz, so you're okay. Take a look here (http://www.geek.com/procspec/amd/thoroughbred.htm).

:) Cricket

[TwoRails]

Hi Scotty,

If you have a 1900+, then it actually runs at about 1.6 gig. The 1900+ is just a naming convention and does not indicate the actual running speed.

HTH

TwoRails

[skeg]

Hi Scotty,

just insalled one yesterday and it runs at 1.6ghz, I think the 1900XP part is because it is supposed to be equivalent to a P4 1.9ghz, the rest of the guys can confirim this if its true

skeg

[mike breck]

Yea Scotty,

AMD uses model numbers now. These model numbers are supposed to denote how an XP CPU compares to a P4 CPU.

So an according to AMD, 2200+ means it can outperform P4 2.2GHz on a broad array of user applications.

AMD argues that it's "relative performance" that is important, rather than just increasing the MHzs all the time.

I personally can't be bothered with this model number categorisation - but that's the way it is.

(N.B. This answer is given not to start an Intel/AMD debate AGAIN, but just to explain AMD's rationale for it's model number system.)

HTH

[Scotty]

Thanks! That was fast... Makes sense :) It is noticably faster with ddr and all. My music editing is a lot faster now.... Thanks again, Scotty

[HAL9000]

WRONG!... Check on the AMD website and you will see that then naming scheme has NOTHING to do with comparison to the P4 (or so they claim). A 1900+ is how fast the new core is performing in comparison to the Mhz rating of the old core. Now coincidently, it produces numbers that are comparable to the P4, but this is NOT how AMD is marketing it.

[mike breck]

Well Hal, there must be a lot of ill-informed PC journalists in the UK, because that's how the model number has been explained in the UK trade press, since they first appeared.

Either someone high up at AMD gave them the wrong information or a different marketing strategy was used in the UK.

Also, quite a few Tech Sites are in need of correction.

"Finally, AMD made a rather desperate move and introduced Athlon XP along with a new 'model rating', which gives the processor a 'model number' that is supposed to reflect its performance in comparison to Intel's Pentium 4. The press received this idea with very mixed feelings and many journalists feared that this new rating system would rather damage than help AMD's Athlon XP-sales.

Today, a couple of months later, I'd say that AMD's plan actually worked. Even I am catching myself often enough thinking that AthlonXP1900+ is actually running at 1.9 GHz instead of the actual 1.6 GHz."

http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020107/p42200-02.html

"These "Model Numbers" are supposed to correspond to the real world performance of the Athlon XP CPUs when compared to higher clocked competitors. While AMD will argue that the Model Numbers are used to compare the Athlon XP to an equivalently clocked Thunderbird, it's clear that the ratings are used to somehow bridge the clock speed gap between the Athlon and the Pentium 4. In the eyes of the end user that isn't well informed, the rating system may serve this purpose. We have already seen examples of Athlon XP processors being referred to by their model number as a clock speed, which is exactly what AMD wants. They want the end user to see an Athlon XP 1800+ and think 1.8GHz, thus making the comparison to a Pentium 4 1.8GHz processor. Hopefully, as well educated AnandTech readers you're able to differentiate between clock speed and real world performance."

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1543

[LiGhTBoY]

mike breck is right here.
AMD's rating system actually shows how an athlon performs in relation to a p4.

[Alienware_Dude]

The whole "rating system" has me somewhat disillusioned with AMD. It may have been feasible back when the AMD chips were living up to their performance rating, but the 2800+ just doesn't compete with a 2.8GHz P4. Plus, it seems rather sneaky of them.

[HAL9000]

Straight from AMD guys. (http://www.amd.com/gb-uk/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/FAQ_eng_02_.pdf) Check out the FAQ of Why does my AMD Athlon XP processor not run at the expected frequency. NOWHERE do they make mention of a comparison to the P4. AMD is not basing their rating on the P4 at all, it's the retailers, consumers, etc, that are getting it all screwed up.

[Trent Steel]

While AMD may not be directly saying that the model number is in comparison to the P4's but only to the thunderbirds, it may be a case that they fully intend people to make that comparison but cannot say it themselves. It could be purely to avoid litigation against AMD by Intel. There are many companies that do virial marketing such as some companies making those spoof ads about there own product to seem hip to youth culture, or don't advertise features in there own product but still include these features knowing full well that the word will be soon out that this feature exists. Examples are the original APEX stand alone DVD player which only advertised DVD/VCD/SVCD/MP3 playback but also has region free capabilities (or more correctly you can set it to any region you want an unlimited number of times), and the ability to disable macrovision. I believe fairly recently Microsoft did a viral marketing campaign in New York by either spray painting or placing stickers in a manner similar to "taggers" making their product seem to have a cult following (sorry my memory is a bit rusty on this one so it may not have happened this way or may not have happened at all).

[HAL9000]

But my point is, that it a misconception of the masses that it's a comparison to the P4. I doubt there are any litigation issues as there were P-Ratings used before by both AMD and Cyrix and they were dropped to adopt the Mhz rules belief. Fact still remains, direct from the manufacturer, the performance rating is not related to the P4.

[Tuf]

I believe that it is intentional to make them sound like they run at a faster clock speed than they do. I see the comparison even by manufacturers that make similar claims. However nowhere I have I seen those claims made directly by AMD. They certainly don't make them in their literature oe anywhere on their site that I have seen.

[mike breck]

But we're not talking about the public being wrong and misinformed. We're talking specifically about, so called, knowledgable people in the PC Press and Tech Sites.

Why would THG, anandtech and many other reputable Web Sites perpetuate a myth?

I think the quotation from the article at THG quite clearly shows that the Technical Press and Tech Sites were given this line by AMD.

[Alfie]

Hal9000 is correct,the rating system is to show the comparison between a Tbird and the XP cpu,this is what AMD states.
However,it also seems to correspond to the Intel's P4's.
AMD has argued that the mhz rating shouldn't be the only measurement used to show the speed of a cpu,many tend to agree.
Unfortuneatley many consumers go by the mhz. measurement,whether it be accurate or not.
The way the cpu executes commands and the speed in which it does it may be a more accurate way to define the speed of the cpu.
AMD's cpus execute in 2 cycles,Intel uses 4,it's this factor that makes AMD cpus perform in a way that can equal or surpass the P4 mhz for mhz.
The rating system helps get this point across,call it marketing.

[Furius92]

Reminder: General rule... always agree with Hal. He is almost always correct, and if he isn't, well, hes a mod here :p

[MaxC]

Kinda late but i just want to say something....


HAL and Alfie are definately right... I remember when the first XP's came out with the XXXX+ ratings. It is NOT a comparison of P4's. It is how it is compared to a Thunderbird CPU. 2100+ 1.73ghz XP performs as a Thunderbird 2.1 ghz would perform if they continued to make them.



Max

[mike breck]

"The new model numbers are designed to represent the performance of the new chips compared both to previous Athlons and the competition. For example, AMD says the 1800+ outperforms other processors running 1.8GHz, although the chip only runs at 1.53GHz, said Mark Bode, division product marketing manager for desktop products at AMD."

http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2055/IDG011009AthlonXP/

"Q: What do the 2200+, 2100+, 2000+, 1900+, 1800+ and 1700+ numbers mean?

A: These are model numbers. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz, such as the 2200+, 2100+, 2000+, 1900+, 1800+ and 1700+ versions. Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors. The AMD Athlon XP processor 2200+ can outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 2.2GHz on a broad array of end-user applications."

http://www.thinkcp.com/AMD/XPFAQs.html


"I have seen the argument that AMD does not use P4 benchmarks to name their chips, but rather basic x86 architecture ratings. Looking at technical whitepapers may suggest so, but one look at how AMD is marketing their chips, and you'll see quite the contrary. The following quote was taken directly off AMD's AthlonXP FAQ:


"The AMD Athlon XP processor 2100+ will outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 2.0GHz"

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/processors/axp_2100/1.php


"AMD is giving mixed signals about these ratings, too. One one hand, it states the numbers "communicate the architectural superiority over existing AMD Athlon processors"; on the other hand, AMD literature also says, "The AMD Athlon XP 1800+ will outperform an Intel Pentium 4 processor operating at 1.8GHz" (a bit later in its announcement, AMD pegs the performance advantage over the P4/1.8 at 25 percent)."

http://hardware.earthweb.com/chips/article.php/900831


"The AMD Athlon XP processor represents “A new kind of fast,” one more relevant for today’s user.

How AMD Athlon XP processors compares with Intel Pentium 4 ® on different software applications.

Benchmark
Other processor manufacturers measure performance by clock speed (1.8 GHz, 1.4 GHz etc). AMD uses a more relevant measure – Overall Processor Performance"

http://www.amd.com/gb-uk/Processors/SellAMDProducts/0,,30_177_5284_3820,00.html

"Looking Ahead

In short, AMD certainly seems to have dodged a bullet in moving from the original Athlon to the Athlon XP and its model numbers. This doesn't mean it's all wine and roses, though; both short and long-term concerns remain. The first relates to the PR ratings themselves, as many a consumer has asked: "So if the new Athlon XP outperforms the 2.0GHz Pentium 4, why is it called a 1900+?". This is a great question; whether AMD intends its numbers to compare to generic Athlons or current P4s (its published statements try to have it both ways), the average consumer is guaranteed to make the Pentium 4 link. In trying not to repeat its and Cyrix's old sins, AMD may have erred a bit too much on the side of caution."

http://www.nzpca.org.nz/megabyte/2002/05/art04.htm


"The ratings rank XP chips based on their performance relative to that of the most recent Athlons. For example, the fastest new chip is the XP 1800+, which according to AMD performs like a 1.8-GHz Athlon--though its true clock speed is 1.53 GHz. AMD also asserts that PCs with an XP 1800+ should run faster than comparable 1.8-GHz P4 units, a claim borne out in our business-applications testing.

Likewise, AMD claims that the Athlon XP 1700+, which runs at 1.47 GHz, delivers more speed than 1.7-GHz P4 systems; the Athlon XP 1600+, which runs at 1.4 GHz, outdoes 1.6-GHz units; and the XP 1500+, which runs at 1.33 GHz, bests 1.5-GHz systems."

http://pcworld.shopping.yahoo.com/yahoo/article/0,aid,65171,00.asp

"AMD uses model numbers to rate its processors and give users an idea of their relative performance, rather than using the clock speeds of its chips in the official name, like Intel Corp. The model numbers are derived from internal benchmarks that measure the performance of the chips against competitors while running popular software applications such as Microsoft Corp.'s Word, the McAfee antivirus software from Network Associates Inc., and various games, said Mark deFrere, Athlon brand manager for AMD.

The benchmarking results, certified by PricewaterhouseCoopers, are available on AMD's site."

http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/story/0,10801,73673,00.html

"Make no mistake, that's exactly what AMD is trying to say. For all its claims that the new model numbers signify the Athlon XP's performance relative to the old Thunderbird Athlons - purely for legal reasons; it doesn't want the Federal Trade Commission and Intel on its back - AMD's sample OEM advert compares the 1800+ XP to "competitive 1.8GHz PC processors". Since AMD doesn't actually make a 1.8GHz processor, T'Bird or not, competitive or otherwise, the chip company clearly has its arch-rival in mind."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/22145.html

"Q: What do the 1900+, 1800+, 1700+, 1600+, and 1500+ numbers mean?

A: These are model numbers. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz, such as 1900+, 1800+, 1700+, 1600+ and 1500+ versions. Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors, as well as communicate the architectural superiority over existing AMD Athlon processors. The AMD Athlon XP processor 1900+ will outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 1.9GHz on a broad array of end-user applications. "

http://www.bellmicro.com/VendorShowcase/amd/athlonxpqa.asp#10228

"However, Aberdeen's report argues that "clearly the competitive comparisons are to Intel's microprocessors," positioning an Athlon XP 2100+, for example, as equal to a 2.1GHz Pentium 4. That comparison will grow quickly more erroneous as benchmarks, the operating systems and applications evolve, Aberdeen argues."

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-869796.html


The best for last. Read this excellent article for an insight into story behind the story about the MHz war.

"While Intel has been able to capitalize on Joe Sixpack's love of high numbers, AMD's naming scheme would only manipulate it. AMD isn't lying outright, but there's an air of deception when one defies industry standards that even the MHz-crippled Mac adheres to. If AMD's naming scheme didn't so closely resemble the MHz values posted by Intel, then it could be forgiven here. However, using model numbers similar in value to MHz, in an attempt to compare performance with Intel, only does the consumer a disservice by failing to disclose the processor's actual speed.

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/athlonxp/index.x?pg=3

[Tuf]

I am guessing a lot of people think it's a decpetive practice. Compared to a year ago there are very few if any high performance workstations available with the AMD processors. While I think their processors have gotten better I do believe their reputation has suffered.

[mike breck]

Looks like Intel may be introducing it's own PR system

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=1031697809

[Force Flow]

Here's a real life example: when I was first looking at building an AMD system, I looked at the XP1900+. Until I looked closer, I thought it was 1.9GHz, not of 1.6GHz. It fooled me at first.