I see a PC and it says it's FSB is 1600Mhz, however elsewhere
I think I have seen the same PC and it says it's FSB is 333Mhz
Which is quite a difference.
Can anyone explain this?

Also another example is an AMD 64 3000+ with a FSB of 1600Mhz
and a Semperon 3000+ with a FSB of just 333Mhz (I have those
in a catalogue right in front of me), the difference in price of the two
systems is small (about 10%), so what is going on ith such apparently
huge increases in bus speeds. I mean if you can get 4 times the speed
for just a 10% increase in price the slower system would be virtually
unsaleable one would think. I suspect in reality the two systems are
similar in performance. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Albert Grennock wrote:
> I see a PC and it says it's FSB is 1600Mhz, however elsewhere
> I think I have seen the same PC and it says it's FSB is 333Mhz
> Which is quite a difference.
> Can anyone explain this?

I think you're confusing FSB bus speed with CPU speed.

> Also another example is an AMD 64 3000+ with a FSB of 1600Mhz
> and a Semperon 3000+ with a FSB of just 333Mhz (I have those
> in a catalogue right in front of me), the difference in price of the two
> systems is small (about 10%), so what is going on ith such apparently
> huge increases in bus speeds. I mean if you can get 4 times the speed
> for just a 10% increase in price the slower system would be virtually
> unsaleable one would think. I suspect in reality the two systems are
> similar in performance. Can anyone shed some light on this?

There are several AMD64 3000+ CPU's, none of which have a "FSB" of over
200MHz. The actual CPU speed is 2000MHz, derived from a bus clock at
200MHz. The one I have, ADA3000AEP4AX, can use PC3200 DDR memory, which
runs at an equivalent speed of 400MHz, double the clock rate.

The only way to be sure is to look at the CPU OPN, (Ordering Part
Number), and check it on the manufactuer's site. This will also tell
you the amount of L2 cache on the chip, which also affects performance.

For the Sempron ratings see:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._11604,00.html

I suspect that Sempron's actual bus clock is 166MHz, which means it can
use DDR memory at 333MHz, often called PC2700 DDR. A 3000+ Sempron can
be an actual speed of 1800 or 2000. Confusing, isn't it? :-)

--
Virg Wall

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:07:21 GMT, "Albert Grennock"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I see a PC and it says it's FSB is 1600Mhz, however elsewhere
>I think I have seen the same PC and it says it's FSB is 333Mhz
>Which is quite a difference.
>Can anyone explain this?
>
>Also another example is an AMD 64 3000+ with a FSB of 1600Mhz
>and a Semperon 3000+ with a FSB of just 333Mhz (I have those
>in a catalogue right in front of me),

THey are simply wrong. Their specs are not correct and you
will have to know correct specs ignoring what they have
printed.

The typical FSB for Athlon 64 is 200MHz clocked,
double-data-rate (DDR). That's 2 x 200 = DDR400.

For the sempron it would be 2 x 166 = DDR333.

> the difference in price of the two
>systems is small (about 10%), so what is going on ith such apparently
>huge increases in bus speeds. I mean if you can get 4 times the speed
>for just a 10% increase in price the slower system would be virtually
>unsaleable one would think. I suspect in reality the two systems are
>similar in performance. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Basically the Sempron is a little cheaper, and that alone
'might' account for most of the cost difference. However,
sometimes a system built with a slower CPU, might have
lower-end motherboard or memory, video, etc, too... one
cannot just judge based on the CPU or bus speed (at least,
WE can't, since we don't have the rest of the system specs
but you do). Sempron is set to use a lower bus speed, which
in itself does also cause a little performance loss. For
only 10% difference you're probably better off going with
the Athlon 64 not for the bus speed alone, but also the
larger cache on the Athlon, plus that Sempron most likely
uses a now aging Socket 754 socket which means an older
technology motherboard and less upgradability later (though
there are supposedly some mew socket 939 Semprons on the
market, but odds are against that being one).

The best way to evaluate the two is to consider your most
demanding uses of the system, and seek online benchmarks
towards that application (or as similar an application as
you can find), keeping in mind that other things than a CPU
can be the bottleneck, but when CPUs are being compared then
any competent reviewer will attempt to use some tests that
do show the differences between the CPUs.

"kony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:07:21 GMT, "Albert Grennock"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >I see a PC and it says it's FSB is 1600Mhz, however elsewhere
> >I think I have seen the same PC and it says it's FSB is 333Mhz
> >Which is quite a difference.
> >Can anyone explain this?
> >
> >Also another example is an AMD 64 3000+ with a FSB of 1600Mhz
> >and a Semperon 3000+ with a FSB of just 333Mhz (I have those
> >in a catalogue right in front of me),
>
> THey are simply wrong. Their specs are not correct and you
> will have to know correct specs ignoring what they have
> printed.
>
> The typical FSB for Athlon 64 is 200MHz clocked,
> double-data-rate (DDR). That's 2 x 200 = DDR400.
>
> For the sempron it would be 2 x 166 = DDR333.
>
> > the difference in price of the two
> >systems is small (about 10%), so what is going on ith such apparently
> >huge increases in bus speeds. I mean if you can get 4 times the speed
> >for just a 10% increase in price the slower system would be virtually
> >unsaleable one would think. I suspect in reality the two systems are
> >similar in performance. Can anyone shed some light on this?
>
> Basically the Sempron is a little cheaper, and that alone
> 'might' account for most of the cost difference. However,
> sometimes a system built with a slower CPU, might have
> lower-end motherboard or memory, video, etc, too... one
> cannot just judge based on the CPU or bus speed (at least,
> WE can't, since we don't have the rest of the system specs
> but you do). Sempron is set to use a lower bus speed, which
> in itself does also cause a little performance loss. For
> only 10% difference you're probably better off going with
> the Athlon 64 not for the bus speed alone, but also the
> larger cache on the Athlon,

The cache for the Athlon is quoted as 1MB whichI believe is also wrong
it says 256kb (and 333FSB here)
http://www.comet.co.uk/comet/html/cache/568_275000.html


>plus that Sempron most likely
> uses a now aging Socket 754 socket which means an older
> technology motherboard and less upgradability later (though
> there are supposedly some mew socket 939 Semprons on the
> market, but odds are against that being one).

The Athlone is also a 754 anyway I believe.

The 754 V 939 was also an issue for me regarding upgradeability.
however I believe the 939 is already superseeded by 940 and various
other sockets (some 1000+). so the 'extra value' of a 939 is somewhat
dubious as it will be as much of a dodo as the 754 when it come to
upgrade ability.

From recent thread "Question to the Experts about procesors"
"For desktop and uniprocessor workstations AMD supposedly readies the
so-called Socket M2, which will have 940-pins, but will not be
compatible with existing Socket 940 infrastructure. DigiTimes web-site
claims that the Socket M2 will be used for AMD Sempron, AMD Athlon 64,
AMD Athlon 64 FX and AMD Opteron 100-series processors and will
substitute existing Socket 754, Socket 939 and Socket 940 desktop and
workstation infrastructure. For AMD Opteron processors for 2P and MP
servers AMD reportedly prepares a 1207-pin Socket F that will be
utilized instead of Socket 940."


What really annoys me is that I am put off buying a new system because
I cannot be sure of what I am actually buying due to misleading
advertising, I guess the manufactures and retailers make so much money
they don't care whether people buy their products or not.

>
> The best way to evaluate the two is to consider your most
> demanding uses of the system, and seek online benchmarks
> towards that application (or as similar an application as
> you can find), keeping in mind that other things than a CPU
> can be the bottleneck, but when CPUs are being compared then
> any competent reviewer will attempt to use some tests that
> do show the differences between the CPUs.
>

"VWWall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:SFc6f.5$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Albert Grennock wrote:
> > I see a PC and it says it's FSB is 1600Mhz, however elsewhere
> > I think I have seen the same PC and it says it's FSB is 333Mhz
> > Which is quite a difference.
> > Can anyone explain this?
>
> I think you're confusing FSB bus speed with CPU speed.
>
> > Also another example is an AMD 64 3000+ with a FSB of 1600Mhz
> > and a Semperon 3000+ with a FSB of just 333Mhz (I have those
> > in a catalogue right in front of me), the difference in price of the two
> > systems is small (about 10%), so what is going on ith such apparently
> > huge increases in bus speeds. I mean if you can get 4 times the speed
> > for just a 10% increase in price the slower system would be virtually
> > unsaleable one would think. I suspect in reality the two systems are
> > similar in performance. Can anyone shed some light on this?
>
> There are several AMD64 3000+ CPU's, none of which have a "FSB" of over
> 200MHz. The actual CPU speed is 2000MHz, derived from a bus clock at
> 200MHz. The one I have, ADA3000AEP4AX, can use PC3200 DDR memory, which
> runs at an equivalent speed of 400MHz, double the clock rate.
>
> The only way to be sure is to look at the CPU OPN, (Ordering Part
> Number), and check it on the manufactuer's site. This will also tell
> you the amount of L2 cache on the chip, which also affects performance.
>
> For the Sempron ratings see:
>
>
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._11604,00.html
>
> I suspect that Sempron's actual bus clock is 166MHz, which means it can
> use DDR memory at 333MHz, often called PC2700 DDR. A 3000+ Sempron can
> be an actual speed of 1800 or 2000. Confusing, isn't it? :-)


Yes.
This is the spec online.
http://www.comet.co.uk/comet/html/cache/568_270016.html
Note it says FSB 333Mhx and 256 L2 cache.
However in the shop catalogue (which I have right in from of me) it says
FSB 1600 and 1MB L2 cache.
Which you will agree is a significant difference!!

The manufactures site (no info given!!)
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/uk/en...-55603631.html


Here is an online site which quotes a mere 1 Ghz FSB !!
(slightly different model)
http://www.currys.co.uk/martprd/stor...fm=2&sm=5&tm=0

No surprise that they are "Temporarily Out of Stock" then!!!

So it is rather confusing when you cannot trust the retailers to provide
accurate
information.
Fraudulant is probably a more accurate word than confusing.

I find it really annoying that I cannot find accurate information and hence
I won't buy, not that that bothers the retailers.

>
> --
> Virg Wall

I believe the Sempron has a cut down of all the instruction set contained in
the AMD64.
So although the speed may look the same the sempron only has a 32bit
architecture as opposed to the 64bit of the AMD64.
Mike

"Albert Grennock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:_Of6f.981$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "kony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:07:21 GMT, "Albert Grennock"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >I see a PC and it says it's FSB is 1600Mhz, however elsewhere
>> >I think I have seen the same PC and it says it's FSB is 333Mhz
>> >Which is quite a difference.
>> >Can anyone explain this?
>> >
>> >Also another example is an AMD 64 3000+ with a FSB of 1600Mhz
>> >and a Semperon 3000+ with a FSB of just 333Mhz (I have those
>> >in a catalogue right in front of me),
>>
>> THey are simply wrong. Their specs are not correct and you
>> will have to know correct specs ignoring what they have
>> printed.
>>
>> The typical FSB for Athlon 64 is 200MHz clocked,
>> double-data-rate (DDR). That's 2 x 200 = DDR400.
>>
>> For the sempron it would be 2 x 166 = DDR333.
>>
>> > the difference in price of the two
>> >systems is small (about 10%), so what is going on ith such apparently
>> >huge increases in bus speeds. I mean if you can get 4 times the speed
>> >for just a 10% increase in price the slower system would be virtually
>> >unsaleable one would think. I suspect in reality the two systems are
>> >similar in performance. Can anyone shed some light on this?
>>
>> Basically the Sempron is a little cheaper, and that alone
>> 'might' account for most of the cost difference. However,
>> sometimes a system built with a slower CPU, might have
>> lower-end motherboard or memory, video, etc, too... one
>> cannot just judge based on the CPU or bus speed (at least,
>> WE can't, since we don't have the rest of the system specs
>> but you do). Sempron is set to use a lower bus speed, which
>> in itself does also cause a little performance loss. For
>> only 10% difference you're probably better off going with
>> the Athlon 64 not for the bus speed alone, but also the
>> larger cache on the Athlon,
>
> The cache for the Athlon is quoted as 1MB whichI believe is also wrong
> it says 256kb (and 333FSB here)
> http://www.comet.co.uk/comet/html/cache/568_275000.html
>
>
>>plus that Sempron most likely
>> uses a now aging Socket 754 socket which means an older
>> technology motherboard and less upgradability later (though
>> there are supposedly some mew socket 939 Semprons on the
>> market, but odds are against that being one).
>
> The Athlone is also a 754 anyway I believe.
>
> The 754 V 939 was also an issue for me regarding upgradeability.
> however I believe the 939 is already superseeded by 940 and various
> other sockets (some 1000+). so the 'extra value' of a 939 is somewhat
> dubious as it will be as much of a dodo as the 754 when it come to
> upgrade ability.
>
> From recent thread "Question to the Experts about procesors"
> "For desktop and uniprocessor workstations AMD supposedly readies the
> so-called Socket M2, which will have 940-pins, but will not be
> compatible with existing Socket 940 infrastructure. DigiTimes web-site
> claims that the Socket M2 will be used for AMD Sempron, AMD Athlon 64,
> AMD Athlon 64 FX and AMD Opteron 100-series processors and will
> substitute existing Socket 754, Socket 939 and Socket 940 desktop and
> workstation infrastructure. For AMD Opteron processors for 2P and MP
> servers AMD reportedly prepares a 1207-pin Socket F that will be
> utilized instead of Socket 940."
>
>
> What really annoys me is that I am put off buying a new system because
> I cannot be sure of what I am actually buying due to misleading
> advertising, I guess the manufactures and retailers make so much money
> they don't care whether people buy their products or not.
>
>>
>> The best way to evaluate the two is to consider your most
>> demanding uses of the system, and seek online benchmarks
>> towards that application (or as similar an application as
>> you can find), keeping in mind that other things than a CPU
>> can be the bottleneck, but when CPUs are being compared then
>> any competent reviewer will attempt to use some tests that
>> do show the differences between the CPUs.
>>
>
>

"Albert Grennock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:_Of6f.981$(E-Mail Removed)...

*snip*

if you're worried about upgradibility and you want technical questions
answered
then dont but from comet for petes sake ! theyre just an electrical retailer
and
dont even specialize in PCs! another problem with those prebuilt systems is
they
often use micro ATX motherboards with few slots onboard graphics n sound.
the onboard graphics uses up 64 of the 512 mb RAM. that machine is okay for
word processing and internet but useless for gaming. at that price the
monitor
will be cheap too with a low response time - you'll get ghosting when you
scroll
a webpage and any fast moving image (gaming again) will look horrible.

what do you want the PC for exactly and whats your budget? we can then point
you
in the direction of something more suitable.

Theres no problem with Comet/Currey's its just that they get their specs
wrong.
Dont plan on buying a pc from them if you might want to upgrade later.
Branded PC's eg HP, Dell etc can be difficult to upgrade
Buy a copy of eg PC Pro and look

"Albert Grennock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:CPf6f.982$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "VWWall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:SFc6f.5$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Albert Grennock wrote:
> > > I see a PC and it says it's FSB is 1600Mhz, however elsewhere
> > > I think I have seen the same PC and it says it's FSB is 333Mhz
> > > Which is quite a difference.
> > > Can anyone explain this?
> >
> > I think you're confusing FSB bus speed with CPU speed.
> >
> > > Also another example is an AMD 64 3000+ with a FSB of 1600Mhz
> > > and a Semperon 3000+ with a FSB of just 333Mhz (I have those
> > > in a catalogue right in front of me), the difference in price of the
two
> > > systems is small (about 10%), so what is going on ith such apparently
> > > huge increases in bus speeds. I mean if you can get 4 times the speed
> > > for just a 10% increase in price the slower system would be virtually
> > > unsaleable one would think. I suspect in reality the two systems are
> > > similar in performance. Can anyone shed some light on this?
> >
> > There are several AMD64 3000+ CPU's, none of which have a "FSB" of over
> > 200MHz. The actual CPU speed is 2000MHz, derived from a bus clock at
> > 200MHz. The one I have, ADA3000AEP4AX, can use PC3200 DDR memory, which
> > runs at an equivalent speed of 400MHz, double the clock rate.
> >
> > The only way to be sure is to look at the CPU OPN, (Ordering Part
> > Number), and check it on the manufactuer's site. This will also tell
> > you the amount of L2 cache on the chip, which also affects performance.
> >
> > For the Sempron ratings see:
> >
> >
>
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._11604,00.html
> >
> > I suspect that Sempron's actual bus clock is 166MHz, which means it can
> > use DDR memory at 333MHz, often called PC2700 DDR. A 3000+ Sempron can
> > be an actual speed of 1800 or 2000. Confusing, isn't it? :-)
>
>
> Yes.
> This is the spec online.
> http://www.comet.co.uk/comet/html/cache/568_270016.html
> Note it says FSB 333Mhx and 256 L2 cache.
> However in the shop catalogue (which I have right in from of me) it says
> FSB 1600 and 1MB L2 cache.
> Which you will agree is a significant difference!!
>
> The manufactures site (no info given!!)
>
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/uk/en...-55603631.html
>
>
> Here is an online site which quotes a mere 1 Ghz FSB !!
> (slightly different model)
>
http://www.currys.co.uk/martprd/stor...fm=2&sm=5&tm=0
>
> No surprise that they are "Temporarily Out of Stock" then!!!
>
> So it is rather confusing when you cannot trust the retailers to provide
> accurate
> information.
> Fraudulant is probably a more accurate word than confusing.
>
> I find it really annoying that I cannot find accurate information and
hence
> I won't buy, not that that bothers the retailers.
>
> >
> > --
> > Virg Wall
>
>

"MrGrumpy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:rhv6f.1574$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Theres no problem with Comet/Currey's its just that they get their specs
> wrong.
> Dont plan on buying a pc from them if you might want to upgrade later.
> Branded PC's eg HP, Dell etc can be difficult to upgrade
> Buy a copy of eg PC Pro and look

I prefer to buy from a shop than say mail order, less hassle
andprobably cheaper.
Regarding upgrading I don't see the problem, no different
from any other computer, you can upgrade drive and memory
but anything more will require a new motherboard and processor,
so you may as well buy a new system. Obviously you get what
you pay for and I assume the big stores have more purchasing
power to get lower prices.
I am not really a power user game player anyway, and considering
my existing sysem is almost adaquate I won't need to upgrade for
a while.



>
> "Albert Grennock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:CPf6f.982$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "VWWall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:SFc6f.5$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > Albert Grennock wrote:
> > > > I see a PC and it says it's FSB is 1600Mhz, however elsewhere
> > > > I think I have seen the same PC and it says it's FSB is 333Mhz
> > > > Which is quite a difference.
> > > > Can anyone explain this?
> > >
> > > I think you're confusing FSB bus speed with CPU speed.
> > >
> > > > Also another example is an AMD 64 3000+ with a FSB of 1600Mhz
> > > > and a Semperon 3000+ with a FSB of just 333Mhz (I have those
> > > > in a catalogue right in front of me), the difference in price of the
> two
> > > > systems is small (about 10%), so what is going on ith such
apparently
> > > > huge increases in bus speeds. I mean if you can get 4 times the
speed
> > > > for just a 10% increase in price the slower system would be
virtually
> > > > unsaleable one would think. I suspect in reality the two systems are
> > > > similar in performance. Can anyone shed some light on this?
> > >
> > > There are several AMD64 3000+ CPU's, none of which have a "FSB" of
over
> > > 200MHz. The actual CPU speed is 2000MHz, derived from a bus clock at
> > > 200MHz. The one I have, ADA3000AEP4AX, can use PC3200 DDR memory,
which
> > > runs at an equivalent speed of 400MHz, double the clock rate.
> > >
> > > The only way to be sure is to look at the CPU OPN, (Ordering Part
> > > Number), and check it on the manufactuer's site. This will also tell
> > > you the amount of L2 cache on the chip, which also affects
performance.
> > >
> > > For the Sempron ratings see:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._11604,00.html
> > >
> > > I suspect that Sempron's actual bus clock is 166MHz, which means it
can
> > > use DDR memory at 333MHz, often called PC2700 DDR. A 3000+ Sempron
can
> > > be an actual speed of 1800 or 2000. Confusing, isn't it? :-)
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> > This is the spec online.
> > http://www.comet.co.uk/comet/html/cache/568_270016.html
> > Note it says FSB 333Mhx and 256 L2 cache.
> > However in the shop catalogue (which I have right in from of me) it says
> > FSB 1600 and 1MB L2 cache.
> > Which you will agree is a significant difference!!
> >
> > The manufactures site (no info given!!)
> >
>
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/uk/en...-55603631.html
> >
> >
> > Here is an online site which quotes a mere 1 Ghz FSB !!
> > (slightly different model)
> >
>
http://www.currys.co.uk/martprd/stor...fm=2&sm=5&tm=0
> >
> > No surprise that they are "Temporarily Out of Stock" then!!!
> >
> > So it is rather confusing when you cannot trust the retailers to provide
> > accurate
> > information.
> > Fraudulant is probably a more accurate word than confusing.
> >
> > I find it really annoying that I cannot find accurate information and
> hence
> > I won't buy, not that that bothers the retailers.
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Virg Wall
> >
> >
>
>

"Albert Grennock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:J%a6f.9512$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I see a PC and it says it's FSB is 1600Mhz, however elsewhere
> I think I have seen the same PC and it says it's FSB is 333Mhz
> Which is quite a difference.
> Can anyone explain this?
>
> Also another example is an AMD 64 3000+ with a FSB of 1600Mhz
> and a Semperon 3000+ with a FSB of just 333Mhz (I have those
> in a catalogue right in front of me), the difference in price of the two
> systems is small (about 10%), so what is going on ith such apparently
> huge increases in bus speeds. I mean if you can get 4 times the speed
> for just a 10% increase in price the slower system would be virtually
> unsaleable one would think. I suspect in reality the two systems are
> similar in performance. Can anyone shed some light on this?


Look here is a Semperon with a 1600Mhz FBS

http://www.comet.co.uk/comet/html/cache/568_274917.html

However in my catalogue from the shop it says 333Mhz FSB.

I guess all the prices are wrong too.

>
>