I see a lot of sentences like this:

I own a A7M266 motherboard and it runs with an Athlon XP 2400+ .

Does 2400+ mean a 2.4 GHz cpu, and 1200 means 1.2GHz.?

It might be obvious to some, but the two nomenclatures seem more
separate than a most synonmyous terms are, if indeed they are
synonymous.

Thanks.

On 7/10/2011 9:54 AM, micky wrote:
> I see a lot of sentences like this:
>
> I own a A7M266 motherboard and it runs with an Athlon XP 2400+ .
>
> Does 2400+ mean a 2.4 GHz cpu, and 1200 means 1.2GHz.?
>
> It might be obvious to some, but the two nomenclatures seem more
> separate than a most synonmyous terms are, if indeed they are
> synonymous.
>
> Thanks.

IIRC, the "+" numbers were an AMD advertising ploy which were meant to
suggest that, despite their slower clock speed, the processor would be as
fast as some hypothetical number. Thus, despite running at 2gHz the XP
2400+ was supposed to run programs as quickly as a Pentium 4 running at an
actual clock speed of 2.4gHz. I never found that their numbers were
anywhere close to reality. What AMD did offer was a cheaper CPU with ran
more slowly and consumed less power than the Intel CPU they were competing
again. Nothing at all wrong with that, I just wish that they had been more
realistic in their claims.

And yes, when you see a number like 2400 related to speed you can figure
they mean 2.4gHz and a number like 1200 can be related at 1.2gHz. But
seeing the numbers does not mean that the clock rate is truly equal to that
number. Comparing CPU/chipset/memory speeds is damned difficult but the
best way to do it is to compare the numbers obtained from broad
benchmarking tests.

micky wrote:
> I see a lot of sentences like this:
>
> I own a A7M266 motherboard and it runs with an Athlon XP 2400+ .
>
> Does 2400+ mean a 2.4 GHz cpu, and 1200 means 1.2GHz.?
>
> It might be obvious to some, but the two nomenclatures seem more
> separate than a most synonmyous terms are, if indeed they are
> synonymous.
>
> Thanks.

Here is a partial mapping I used to provide. It was
cribbed (copied) from the QDI site. I don't think
they're in business any more. I added the "Mult"
column for convenience.

You can see the "core frequency", versus the Processor Rating.
I used to run my Mobile processor at 2200MHz, making it
a 3200+ processor (equiv. to the top entry in the chart).

Family Core P.R. Pkg CPU Cache Mult Core Tmax Power
Freq Clk Volts

XP Model 10 2200 (3200+) OPGA 200 512 11x 1.65V 85oC 60.4W
Barton 2100 (3000+) OPGA 200 512 10.5x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W

XP Model 10 2167 (3000+) OPGA 166 512 13x 1.65V 85oC 58.4W
Barton 2083 (2800+) OPGA 166 512 12.5x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W
1917 (2600+) OPGA 166 512 11.5x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W
1833 (2500+) OPGA 166 512 11x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W

XP Model 8 2167 (2700+) OPGA 166 256 13x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W
Thoroughbred 2083 (2600+) OPGA 166 256 12.5x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W

XP Model 8 2133 (2600+) OPGA 133 256 16x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W
Thoroughbred 2000 (2400+) OPGA 133 256 15x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W
CPU ID 0681 1800 (2200+) OPGA 133 256 13.5x 1.60V 85oC 57.0W
1733 (2100+) OPGA 133 256 13x 1.60V 90oC 56.3W
1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.60V 90oC 55.7W
1533 (1800+) OPGA 133 256 11.5x 1.60V 90oC 55.7W
1467 (1700+) OPGA 133 256 11x 1.60V 90oC 55.7W

XP Model 8 1800 (2200+) OPGA 133 256 13.5x 1.65V 85oC 61.7W
Thoroughbred 1733 (2100+) OPGA 133 256 13x 1.60V 90oC 56.4W
CPU ID 0680 1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.65V 90oC 54.7W
1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.60V 90oC 54.7W
1600 (1900+) OPGA 133 256 12x 1.50V 90oC 47.7W
1533 (1800+) OPGA 133 256 11.5x 1.50V 90oC 46.3W
1467 (1700+) OPGA 133 256 11x 1.50V 90oC 44.9W

XP Model 6 1733 (2100+) OPGA 133 256 13x 1.75V 90oC 64.3W
Palomino 1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.75V 90oC 62.5W
1600 (1900+) OPGA 133 256 12x 1.75V 90oC 60.7W
1533 (1800+) OPGA 133 256 11.5x 1.75V 90oC 59.2W
1467 (1700+) OPGA 133 256 11x 1.75V 90oC 57.4W
1400 (1600+) OPGA 133 256 10.5x 1.75V 90oC 56.3W
1333 (1500+) OPGA 133 256 10x 1.75V 90oC 53.8W

Processors older than that, like original Athlon or Duron,
are only known by their core frequency. They weren't assigned
a P.R. rating. P.R. ratings came later, when AMD wished to
relate the effectiveness of their clock speed, by measurement
against the nearest Intel equivalent. For my 3200+, that
would be comparable to a Pentium 4 3.2GHz. The comparison
wasn't completely valid in my eyes, as I did own a Pentium 4
that happened to be running at 3.1GHz, and it felt just
slightly faster than my AMD computer at the time. AMD's
P.R. rating method is a weighted average of a number
of benchmarks, so YMMV.

The 2400+ you're referring to, is a Model 8 running at 2000MHz.
At least, it's the only thing in the chart that matches.

The Mobile processors are not listed in that chart, because
QDI would never have considered them candidates for a desktop
motherboard. But plenty of people bought Mobile processors
and used them. I got one at retail, because my supplier
happened to carry them for a year or so. On a motherboard
which lacks good frequency, multiplier, or voltage controls,
a mobile is a poor choice, because of the additional work
needed to get it running at a decent speed.

Paul

micky wrote:
> I see a lot of sentences like this:
>
> I own a A7M266 motherboard and it runs with an Athlon XP 2400+
> .
>
> Does 2400+ mean a 2.4 GHz cpu, and 1200 means 1.2GHz.?
>
> It might be obvious to some, but the two nomenclatures seem
> more
> separate than a most synonmyous terms are, if indeed they are
> synonymous.
>

This was at a time when Intel was concentrating on squeezing ever
higher computing power out of their processors by increasing the
clock speed (strictly frequency). The processors were graded by
the clock speed. OTOH, AMD took the approach of trying to utilise
each clock cycle more efficiently. Thus, by most published
independent benchmarks, an Athlon XP 2400+ running at 2 GHz was
actually equal to or faster (hence the +) than a Pentium 4 at 2.4
GHz in many applications including gaming. There were exceptions,
such as in movie rendering where the raw higher clock frequency
of Intel CPUs had an advantage.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:22:43 -0400, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>micky wrote:
>> I see a lot of sentences like this:
>>
>> I own a A7M266 motherboard and it runs with an Athlon XP 2400+ .
>>
>> Does 2400+ mean a 2.4 GHz cpu, and 1200 means 1.2GHz.?
>>
>> It might be obvious to some, but the two nomenclatures seem more
>> separate than a most synonmyous terms are, if indeed they are
>> synonymous.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>Here is a partial mapping I used to provide. It was
>cribbed (copied) from the QDI site. I don't think
>they're in business any more. I added the "Mult"
>column for convenience.

Thanks Paul and John

And thanks John for your answre in the next thread.

I'm still reading the stuff that follows.
>
>You can see the "core frequency", versus the Processor Rating.
>I used to run my Mobile processor at 2200MHz, making it
>a 3200+ processor (equiv. to the top entry in the chart).
>
>Family Core P.R. Pkg CPU Cache Mult Core Tmax Power
> Freq Clk Volts
>
>XP Model 10 2200 (3200+) OPGA 200 512 11x 1.65V 85oC 60.4W
>Barton 2100 (3000+) OPGA 200 512 10.5x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W
>
>XP Model 10 2167 (3000+) OPGA 166 512 13x 1.65V 85oC 58.4W
>Barton 2083 (2800+) OPGA 166 512 12.5x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W
> 1917 (2600+) OPGA 166 512 11.5x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W
> 1833 (2500+) OPGA 166 512 11x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W
>
>XP Model 8 2167 (2700+) OPGA 166 256 13x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W
>Thoroughbred 2083 (2600+) OPGA 166 256 12.5x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W
>
>XP Model 8 2133 (2600+) OPGA 133 256 16x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W
>Thoroughbred 2000 (2400+) OPGA 133 256 15x 1.65V 85oC 62.0W
>CPU ID 0681 1800 (2200+) OPGA 133 256 13.5x 1.60V 85oC 57.0W
> 1733 (2100+) OPGA 133 256 13x 1.60V 90oC 56.3W
> 1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.60V 90oC 55.7W
> 1533 (1800+) OPGA 133 256 11.5x 1.60V 90oC 55.7W
> 1467 (1700+) OPGA 133 256 11x 1.60V 90oC 55.7W
>
>XP Model 8 1800 (2200+) OPGA 133 256 13.5x 1.65V 85oC 61.7W
>Thoroughbred 1733 (2100+) OPGA 133 256 13x 1.60V 90oC 56.4W
>CPU ID 0680 1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.65V 90oC 54.7W
> 1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.60V 90oC 54.7W
> 1600 (1900+) OPGA 133 256 12x 1.50V 90oC 47.7W
> 1533 (1800+) OPGA 133 256 11.5x 1.50V 90oC 46.3W
> 1467 (1700+) OPGA 133 256 11x 1.50V 90oC 44.9W
>
>XP Model 6 1733 (2100+) OPGA 133 256 13x 1.75V 90oC 64.3W
>Palomino 1667 (2000+) OPGA 133 256 12.5x 1.75V 90oC 62.5W
> 1600 (1900+) OPGA 133 256 12x 1.75V 90oC 60.7W
> 1533 (1800+) OPGA 133 256 11.5x 1.75V 90oC 59.2W
> 1467 (1700+) OPGA 133 256 11x 1.75V 90oC 57.4W
> 1400 (1600+) OPGA 133 256 10.5x 1.75V 90oC 56.3W
> 1333 (1500+) OPGA 133 256 10x 1.75V 90oC 53.8W
>
>Processors older than that, like original Athlon or Duron,
>are only known by their core frequency. They weren't assigned
>a P.R. rating. P.R. ratings came later, when AMD wished to
>relate the effectiveness of their clock speed, by measurement
>against the nearest Intel equivalent. For my 3200+, that
>would be comparable to a Pentium 4 3.2GHz. The comparison
>wasn't completely valid in my eyes, as I did own a Pentium 4
>that happened to be running at 3.1GHz, and it felt just
>slightly faster than my AMD computer at the time. AMD's
>P.R. rating method is a weighted average of a number
>of benchmarks, so YMMV.
>
>The 2400+ you're referring to, is a Model 8 running at 2000MHz.
>At least, it's the only thing in the chart that matches.
>
>The Mobile processors are not listed in that chart, because
>QDI would never have considered them candidates for a desktop
>motherboard. But plenty of people bought Mobile processors
>and used them. I got one at retail, because my supplier
>happened to carry them for a year or so. On a motherboard
>which lacks good frequency, multiplier, or voltage controls,
>a mobile is a poor choice, because of the additional work
>needed to get it running at a decent speed.
>
> Paul

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:36:31 +0530, "Pimpom" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>micky wrote:
>> I see a lot of sentences like this:
>>
>> I own a A7M266 motherboard and it runs with an Athlon XP 2400+
>> .
>>
>> Does 2400+ mean a 2.4 GHz cpu, and 1200 means 1.2GHz.?
>>
>> It might be obvious to some, but the two nomenclatures seem
>> more
>> separate than a most synonmyous terms are, if indeed they are
>> synonymous.
>>
>
>This was at a time when Intel was concentrating on squeezing ever
>higher computing power out of their processors by increasing the
>clock speed (strictly frequency). The processors were graded by
>the clock speed. OTOH, AMD took the approach of trying to utilise
>each clock cycle more efficiently. Thus, by most published
>independent benchmarks, an Athlon XP 2400+ running at 2 GHz was
>actually equal to or faster (hence the +) than a Pentium 4 at 2.4
>GHz in many applications including gaming. There were exceptions,
>such as in movie rendering where the raw higher clock frequency
>of Intel CPUs had an advantage.

Thanks, and thanks everyone. This makes sense to me now, and seems
like a reaosnable compromise for AMD to use.

Early on I had been led to believe that AMD was just lying when it
said its speeds were higher than they looked, but I'm often easy to
please and if they have a credible story, I'll accept it

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:53:38 -0400, micky <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:36:31 +0530, "Pimpom" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>micky wrote:
>>> I see a lot of sentences like this:
>>>
>>> I own a A7M266 motherboard and it runs with an Athlon XP 2400+
>>> .
>>>
>>> Does 2400+ mean a 2.4 GHz cpu, and 1200 means 1.2GHz.?
>>>
>>> It might be obvious to some, but the two nomenclatures seem
>>> more
>>> separate than a most synonmyous terms are, if indeed they are
>>> synonymous.
>>>
>>
>>This was at a time when Intel was concentrating on squeezing ever
>>higher computing power out of their processors by increasing the
>>clock speed (strictly frequency). The processors were graded by
>>the clock speed. OTOH, AMD took the approach of trying to utilise
>>each clock cycle more efficiently. Thus, by most published
>>independent benchmarks, an Athlon XP 2400+ running at 2 GHz was
>>actually equal to or faster (hence the +) than a Pentium 4 at 2.4
>>GHz in many applications including gaming. There were exceptions,
>>such as in movie rendering where the raw higher clock frequency
>>of Intel CPUs had an advantage.

Inferior seating arrangement. Posted befoe I meant to.

>Thanks, and thanks everyone. This makes sense to me now, and seems
>like a reaosnable compromise for AMD to use.

That is, they don't actually say 2.4 GHz, but they use a notation
that reminds one of that.

>Early on I had been led to believe that AMD was just lying when it
>said its speeds were higher than they looked, but I'm often easy to
>please and if they have a credible story, I'll accept it

I'm also swayed by the fact that ASUS, which iiuc is a high quality
mobo builtder, at least some of the time uses only AMD cpus.