AMD64 3400

[google_groups3]

Hi all.

I just bought an AMD64 3400 CPU. So, I installed SUSE and it all works
great. However, on bootup the BIOS says that the CPU is only 2400 MHZ.
Also, in Suse, the sysmonitor shows the MHZ at 2403.

The only thing that displays my CPU speed as 3400 is MySQL Admin
Console.

Have I been ripped off by the store or is something not configured? I
would tend to believe what the BIOS tells me which concerns me a lot.
Please help!!!

Thanks.

 

[leon]

Hi all.

I just bought an AMD64 3400 CPU. So, I installed SUSE and it all works
great. However, on bootup the BIOS says that the CPU is only 2400 MHZ.
Also, in Suse, the sysmonitor shows the MHZ at 2403.

The only thing that displays my CPU speed as 3400 is MySQL Admin
Console.

Have I been ripped off by the store or is something not configured? I
would tend to believe what the BIOS tells me which concerns me a lot.
Please help!!!

Thanks.

Is correct, 2400 is the speed, 3400 is relatieve benchmark <> old Athlon
porc.
So 3400 is only a name.

leon

 

[google_groups3]

Ah. So is my CPU only running at 2.4Ghz then? They told me in the
shop that this was the fastest AMD CPU on the market. Was that not
true?

 

[leon]

Ah. So is my CPU only running at 2.4Ghz then? They told me in the
shop that this was the fastest AMD CPU on the market. Was that not
true?

Yes, so is he in the shop:
AMD Athlon 64 3400+ (2.4 GHz) (Retail, OPGA, "Newcastle", boxed)
In Holland is he the fastest for socket 754.
(225 Euro)
In socket 939 is verry fast:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2,4 GHz) (Retail, OPGA, "Toledo", boxed)
(1100 Euro)
and the:
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 (2,8 GHz) (Retail, OPGA, "San Diego", boxed)
(1150 Euro)

 

[google_groups3]

Wow! Thanks a lot for this.

1 last question then. Even though my previous CPU was 3GHZ, would my
new 2.4GHZ run faster?

 

[leon]

Wow! Thanks a lot for this.

1 last question then. Even though my previous CPU was 3GHZ, would my
new 2.4GHZ run faster?

If it was a socket A motherbord:

AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (2,1 GHz) (Bulk , OPGA, "Barton")
AMD Sempron 3000+ (2.0 GHz) (Retail, OPGA, "Barton", boxed)

If it was also a socket 754 motherbord:
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (2 GHz) (Bulk , OPGA, "Clawhammer")
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (2 GHz) (Bulk , OPGA, "Newcastle")
AMD Sempron 3000+ (1,8 GHz) (Retail, OPGA, "Palermo", boxed)


He is faster, but not only by speed, also by chipset and technical
layout inside the proc.

Athlons have more memory inside in the proc.

http://www2.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/1,,30_182_739,00.html

 

[leon]

leon wrote:

The Mother of All CPU Charts Part 2
Benchmark Results
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-13.html

 

[google_groups3]

Thanks Leon for all the replies. I was just about to go back to the
shop and have a go!

Thanks.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

Ah. So is my CPU only running at 2.4Ghz then? They told me in the
shop that this was the fastest AMD CPU on the market. Was that not
true?

It's a very fast CPU, not the fastest that would be a either the dual core
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ or the Athlon 64 FX57 depending on your application
(both of those are over a thousand dollars a chip). However the 3400+ is
at least as fast as a 3.4GHz P4 and in many cases much faster. I've done
some benchmarks and found that the 3400+ is the equivalent of a 5.2GHZ
Xeon on somethings (assuminbg that a 5.2GHz Xeon existed which it
doesn't). Don't worry about clock speed, it's only meaningful when
comparing otherwise identical chips, i.e. the same generation of a
processor with the same cache size. Two generations of the same processor
will have different performances at the same clock speed because they
later version will have some improvements. When comparing two completely
different processors, i.e. Athlon 64s to P4s, clock speed is useless. The
micro-architectures of the Athlon 64 and the Pentium 4 are radically
different. The P4 is much less efficient then the A64 so it has to use a
much higher speed clock to do the same work (and consequently runs much
hotter).

 

[J.Venning]

The P4 is much less efficient then the A64 so it has to use a
much higher speed clock to do the same work (and consequently runs much
hotter).<

I think that is a very interesting observation. I use an AMD 3200, and I
am very satisfied with it. What I would like to know is whether the
engineers at Intel realise what the guys at AMD have developed, and whether
they would steer their course towards that direction. Have any of the new
Pentium processors any advantage over the new AMDs?
J.

 

[Wes Newell]

I think that is a very interesting observation. I use an AMD 3200,
and I am very satisfied with it. What I would like to know is whether
the engineers at Intel realise what the guys at AMD have developed, and
whether they would steer their course towards that direction.

It appears they have. How long it will take is unkown to me.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html

Have any of the new Pentium processors any advantage over the new AMDs?
J.

None that are out now. In fact the dual core Intels are really far behind
the Athlon X2's in both performance and power consumption by a large
number.

 

[J.Venning]

None that are out now. In fact the dual core Intels are really far behind
the Athlon X2's in both performance and power consumption by a large
number.

Thank you. This is another good example of what cyber space
communication can do, without reverting to the trolling that I've
encountered in other newsgroups.
J.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

I think that is a very interesting observation. I use an AMD 3200, and I
am very satisfied with it. What I would like to know is whether the
engineers at Intel realise what the guys at AMD have developed, and whether
they would steer their course towards that direction. Have any of the new
Pentium processors any advantage over the new AMDs?
J.

The Pentium M architecture is pretty competitive with the A64, it's much
better designed then the P4. Intel is using the Pentium M as the basis of
there future designs, the P4 is dead. However the current generation of
desktop chips, including the Pentium Ds, are still based on the P4
architecture so for now Intel isn't a very good choice for desktops
although they are very competitive for laptops. I'm pretty sure that they
have integrated memory controllers coming also, at least on desktop chips.
For servers they are going with a new RAM architecture called FBRAM (fully
buffered RAM) which uses a serial rather than parallel interconnect. FBRAM
will allow them to build shared memory multiprocessors with very high
memory bandwidths but at the expense of even longer memory latencies.
Intel tries to get around their longer memory latencies by using large
caches, Intel desktop chips are available with 2M caches vs 1M for AMD and
their Xeons are available with 4M caches (although at the staggering price
of $4000 a chip).

 

[Ed Light]

Yes, so is he in the shop:
AMD Athlon 64 3400+ (2.4 GHz) (Retail, OPGA, "Newcastle", boxed)
In Holland is he the fastest for socket 754.
(225 Euro)
In socket 939 is verry fast:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2,4 GHz) (Retail, OPGA, "Toledo", boxed)
(1100 Euro)
and the:
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 (2,8 GHz) (Retail, OPGA, "San Diego", boxed)
(1150 Euro)

In the USA there is a 3700+. It is 2.4 GHz too, but with double the cache
memory.

--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, robots.

 

[me]

None that are out now. In fact the dual core Intels are really far behind

the Athlon X2's in both performance and power consumption by a large
number.

Really?

I do CAD work and looking to buy a dual core for home
PC

I should go with a dual core athlon huh?

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

Really?

I do CAD work and looking to buy a dual core for home
PC

I should go with a dual core athlon huh?

The 4400+ is the processor of choice. It has 1M caches for both processors
which is very important and it's not overpriced. The 4800+ has a 10%
faster clock but it's nearly twice as expensive. The 4600+ has smaller
caches with a 10% faster clock and it's also more expensive.

 

[Tod]

AMD CPUs are more efficient then Intel CPUs.
Intel CPUs are advertised at true ghz speed
AMD CPUs are advertised as "PR" (Performance Rated)
So an AMD 2.4Ghz CPU has the same performance as an Intel running at 3.4Ghz.
So AMD calls their CPU "AMD PR 3400"