ram question!

Zero · Post by **Zero** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:19 pm

I've forumulated two thoughts from what you said:

1. Factory Default is hugely underclocked, as in each segment processor was set to half it's capability. (In this case, it was set to 166MHz, but capable of 333MHz)

2. You just overclocked the thing.

Personaly, I'm an Intel nut (let's not flame or anything over this, I'm stating an opinion) so AMD is mostly forigen to me. Now I know there is a bunch of hype and debate about AMD VS. Intel, but let me set something straight: There's too much to be said and they'll just keep trying to outdo each other. I'd rant more about the subject, but this isn't the place.

Oh, and thanks for the explanation. I'm just a repair tech, so I get what's compadable, effective and afordable. I don't look into the science of it that much.

-Zero

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 12:52 am

Zero Serenity wrote:1. Factory Default is hugely underclocked, as in each segment processor was set to half it's capability. (In this case, it was set to 166MHz, but capable of 333MHz)

Um, no... he said that the FSB clock speed is really 166MHz, but they <i>call</i> it 333MHz... nothing to do with the FSB being underclocked:

Z3r01 wrote:So where does the 333FSB come into it? It's probably just the manufacturers reffering to its theoretical throughput, ie as in both channels being used at once. (I'm assuming the FSB works on a full duplex basis, and is 166MHz each way)

Zero · Post by **Zero** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 1:12 am

Oh. Heh. I see. To me it sounds AMD was falsely labeling or advertising their processors. Am I still off?

-Zero

LovEnPeaCE · Post by **LovEnPeaCE** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:41 am

Zero Serenity wrote:Oh. Heh. I see. To me it sounds AMD was falsely labeling or advertising their processors. Am I still off?

-Zero

slightyly, see, their labeling is based on an amd's performance vs. a p4 at that clock speed, but AMD hasn't been so accurate in those labelings every single time

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 12:47 pm

I think I remember hearing somewhere that AMD's official line is that the performance ratings correspond to their old Thunderbird core, but we all know they're <i>really</i> comparing to the P4s.