Cpu Won't Run Up To Speed

[imm0rt41]

w/e

525192[/snapback]

 

 

^pwned

525193[/snapback]

Good Game guys, Good Game.

[Ste]

I think they still should be organized by speed in GHz all others things like FSB and 64 bit and 32 bit should just be stated in words.

It would be easier to understand would it not, I mean serioulsy if some noob look at this

2800 at 2.08 GHz compared to a 3200 at 2.00 ghz what would he think was faster.

hrmm 2.08 GHz or 2.00 ghz hrmmm.

[Guest Silenc3]

true Noobs buy dells ste.

[Ste]

yes god bless them ive already gotten over 80 bucks form one family cause they dunnue bout spyware or how to get rid of viruses.

[Whitelightning]

[martymcfly]

I think they still should be organized by speed in GHz all others things like FSB and 64 bit and 32 bit should just be stated in words.

It would be easier to understand would it not, I mean serioulsy if some noob look at this

2800 at 2.08 GHz compared to a 3200 at 2.00 ghz what would he think was faster.

hrmm 2.08 GHz or 2.00 ghz hrmmm.

525200[/snapback]

that IS the point of the scheme! Instead of comparing 2.08 v. 2.00, it is 2800+ v. 3200+. That is supposed to be SIMPLER than wordy descriptions.

[Kash]

I think they still should be organized by speed in GHz all others things like FSB and 64 bit and 32 bit should just be stated in words.

It would be easier to understand would it not, I mean serioulsy if some noob look at this

2800 at 2.08 GHz compared to a 3200 at 2.00 ghz what would he think was faster.

hrmm 2.08 GHz or 2.00 ghz hrmmm.

525200[/snapback]

 

Why are you getting so worked up about 80MHz? It's a rating system based on several factors. They imposed this because rating the processors at clock speed alone wasn't helping them against Intel, whose processors were a good 1GHz faster. Now look at Intel, who have also implemented a rating system because they couldn't continue ramping up the clock speed. Now the rating system differentiates between models based on features. The 5xx is a regular P4 and the 6xx are 64-bit. The 530 and 630 both run at 3.0GHz, but the 630 has EM64T, a feature that warrants a higher rating.

 

Plus, keep in mind that the AthlonXP 2800+ is slower than an AthlonXP 3200+. Now, you have the 64-bit processors. So the same applies. Your A64 3200+ is faster than an A64 2800+. Compare this to the new X2 line. The A64 X2 3800+ runs at the same clockspeed as the A64 3200+. However, the 3200+ isn't faster than the X2 3800+ because the X2 3800+ has another core. The rating system takes that into consideration. You can't compare ratings across different types of chips. Don't compare your Athlon64 to an AthlonXP.

[Savan]

Angry

[Ste]

Why are you getting so worked up about 80MHz? It's a rating system based on several factors. They imposed this because rating the processors at clock speed alone wasn't helping them against Intel, whose processors were a good 1GHz faster. Now look at Intel, who have also implemented a rating system because they couldn't continue ramping up the clock speed. Now the rating system differentiates between models based on features. The 5xx is a regular P4 and the 6xx are 64-bit. The 530 and 630 both run at 3.0GHz, but the 630 has EM64T, a feature that warrants a higher rating.

 

Plus, keep in mind that the AthlonXP 2800+ is slower than an AthlonXP 3200+. Now, you have the 64-bit processors. So the same applies. Your A64 3200+ is faster than an A64 2800+. Compare this to the new X2 line. The A64 X2 3800+ runs at the same clockspeed as the A64 3200+. However, the 3200+ isn't faster than the X2 3800+ because the X2 3800+ has another core. The rating system takes that into consideration. You can't compare ratings across different types of chips. Don't compare your Athlon64 to an AthlonXP.

525229[/snapback]

 

 

I get annoyed easily about things that don't annoy others....

and things that annoy most people im not bothered by.

hard to explain really.

[Kamikaze_Badger]

Why are you getting so worked up about 80MHz? It's a rating system based on several factors. They imposed this because rating the processors at clock speed alone wasn't helping them against Intel, whose processors were a good 1GHz faster. Now look at Intel, who have also implemented a rating system because they couldn't continue ramping up the clock speed. Now the rating system differentiates between models based on features. The 5xx is a regular P4 and the 6xx are 64-bit. The 530 and 630 both run at 3.0GHz, but the 630 has EM64T, a feature that warrants a higher rating.

 

Plus, keep in mind that the AthlonXP 2800+ is slower than an AthlonXP 3200+. Now, you have the 64-bit processors. So the same applies. Your A64 3200+ is faster than an A64 2800+. Compare this to the new X2 line. The A64 X2 3800+ runs at the same clockspeed as the A64 3200+. However, the 3200+ isn't faster than the X2 3800+ because the X2 3800+ has another core. The rating system takes that into consideration. You can't compare ratings across different types of chips. Don't compare your Athlon64 to an AthlonXP.

525229[/snapback]

 

Well, actually, the X2 dosn't run faster because of the second core. That core lies unused untill a program utilizing multiple threads is executed. And even then the bus will be a bottleneck.

[Kash]

Sorry, I didn't mean faster. I meant that the 3800 X2 has an extra feature (the second core) compared to the 3200 (which has the same clock speed) and hence, has a higher rating.

[ir_cow]

not the x2 again....