AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,137 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi all.


I've just built my new HTPC, with a AMD XP 2.4+ CPU, but BIOS

and Windows say 2000mhz. Is it because they mean that it

'equals' 2.4+?


Thanks,


Nicholas
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,979 Posts
The BIOS and Windows are reporting the actual "clock" speed of the CPU. Because of optimizations in the 2400+ CPU, more work is done per clock cycle, hence the 2400+ name even though it actually runs at 2000 MHz.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,170 Posts
AMD's model numbers are not the clock speeds of the chip. AMD does this most likely to compete with Intel's marketing. Many people think this is dishonest, and that the model number is AMD misrepresenting the speed their CPUs. However, AMD's chips are more efficient than Intel's proccesors. They have a high IPC- or intructions per cycle. This means that a AMD CPU clocked at 2Ghz will perform better than a Intel 2 Ghz P4. The actual model number is referencing the clock speed that AMD's Thunderbird CPUs would have to run to match the performance of the XP CPUs.


That might clear some things up- or make you even more confused.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,170 Posts
helzer- the bus speed of the chip is much lower the clock speed of the chip, I think you're getting the two confused.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
Actually the current speed ratings on AMD CPUs are not intended to correspond to a particular P4, but with the previous generation Athlon (non-XP) CPUs. It just so happens that an XP2400+ outperforms a P4 2.4GHz.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,093 Posts
I'm running a Shuttle AK35 GT and I had to configure the FSB and the CPU frequency in the bios to enable the correct speed for the CPU. Once I it was configured properly, the post screen shows the processor as a AMD XP 2000+ (which it is). BTW, I'm running Windows XP Home and it shows my CPU as an AMD Athon XP 2000+



You're motherboard/bios may be different in that it posts the actual speed of the CPU. Just make sure that your multiplier is 15 or 15.5 and your running the bus @ 133MHz.


(15x133= 1995MHz; 15.5x133= 2061.5MHz )




Good luck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,170 Posts
Matt- that's exactly what I said. The thunderbird core was the old Athlon processor, which is the reference for the model numbers....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,137 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Thanks guys, everything is OK then.


Nicholas
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Interesting, my XP Pro recognised my 2400+ as a 1800+ on the default settings. My board (asus A7N8X Deluxe) bios was at 100hz.


I may be getting my FSB's chips speed etc muddled, but when I rack up the bus to 166 and use the right multiplier to get it at 2400+, the screen's stabliity is naff.


Thought this may have been the Graphic card ( 9700 Pro) so have RMA'ed that back and got a refund and went for the MP-1 modded 9700 Pro instead to help it with my barco1208.


Should I be getting conflicks?


rgds


Nathan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,093 Posts
Esben said:

Quote:
If you set it to 166 MHz it will try to run 2,5 GHz with a multiplier of 15.
No doubt it will. Except it would really be running at around 2400MHz. The problem is, when you run your bus speed that fast, you can encounter problems with peripheral devices, hard drives, PCI cards, etc... just like what you described.


I'd notch it back down to the default 133MHz bus, and set your multiplier at 15. Everything should be copacetic then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,751 Posts
His motherboard (A7N8X) supports both 166 MHz FSB and asynchroneous bus speed vs. PCI and AGP.


So if his multiplier was reduced he wouldn't have any problems running it at 166 MHz bus.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top