Athlon 1800 or 2200

  Goldcroft 15:02 26 Apr 2003
Locked

I have just used Belarc (which I downloaded following a suggestion on this forum)to analyse my computer's hardware and software. Under Processor it tells me I have an 1800 AMD Athlon XP processor, 128kbs of primary memory cache and 256 kbs of secondary memory cache.

My computer's delivery details tells me I have an "AMD XP Athlon 2200+ (266Mhz)".

Puzzled. Would be grateful for any explanation.

  cream. 15:11 26 Apr 2003

Basically both statements are correct.

Amd badge their products as the equivalant of pentium cpu's. So they are saying this is as fast as a 2.2 gig pentium

The actual clock speed of the AMD 2200+ is 1800 Mhz. So Belarc is correct as it is stating it as a 1.8 gig cpu.

  Totally-braindead 15:12 26 Apr 2003

The Athlon chips are not entirely what they say they are ,I'm sure someone can give you a long explanation about it , basically a 1800+ CPU which you have doesn't run at 1800Mhz it runs slower the 1800 is meant to give a comparison speed compared with other processors. I wouldn't worry about it its quite normal if you go to the AMD website they'll be lots of info about it if you're interested. PS my CPU is a 1600+ and runs at 1400 and something is I recall right.

  Totally-braindead 15:13 26 Apr 2003

The Athlon chips are not entirely what they say they are ,I'm sure someone can give you a long explanation about it , basically a 1800+ CPU which you have doesn't run at 1800Mhz it runs slower the 1800 is meant to give a comparison speed compared with other processors. I wouldn't worry about it its quite normal if you go to the AMD website they'll be lots of info about it if you're interested. PS my CPU is a 1600+ and runs at 1400 and something is I recall right.

  cream. 15:14 26 Apr 2003

This is your chip.

click here

  Totally-braindead 15:15 26 Apr 2003

Sorry my answer didn't seem to sent so I sent it twice. the village idiots answer is better than mine, but thats what I meant.

  Goldcroft 15:24 26 Apr 2003

Thanks everyone. Had a suspicion myself that it was due to AMD's dishonest product labelling and Belarc measuring it correctly.

  cream. 15:31 26 Apr 2003

Alright the labeling is misleading, but for everyday normal use they are as good as the equivalent pentium chip and a dam sight cheaper.

  Djohn 16:26 26 Apr 2003

From the AMD Site. Clock speed/ voltage/ max. Temp.

================================================


Model Number Operating Frequency (MHz) Nominal Voltage Max Die Temperature Front-Side Bus Frequency (MHz)
1700+ 1467 1.50V 90º Celsius 266
1800+ 1533
1900+ 1600
2000+ 1667 1.60/1.65V1
2100+ 1733 1.60V
2200+ 1800 1.60/1.65V1 85º Celsius
2400+ 2000
2600+ 2133/20832 1.65V 266/3333
2700+ 2167 333
Notes:
1. Refer to the processor's OPN for the proper operating voltage.
2. 266MHz FSB version / 333MHz FSB version.
3. Refer to the processor's OPN for the proper FSB frequency.

  mcullum_DX4Life 18:17 26 Apr 2003

Its not dishonest, its the truth. An AMD Athlon 2200+ will outperform even a Pentium 4 2400Mhz in most applications. AMD have never hidden the fact that they dont go by clockspeeds. The reason for this is because an AMD AthlonXP can calculate 9 operations every clock cycle (9 per Mhz) whereas the Pentium 4 can only calculate 6 operations per clock cycle (6 per Mhz).

There are of course other factors such as L2 cache and FSB speeds which hold the Atlon back, but in general, you will find that the PR ratings are true to their description.

PR ratings has been going on for years, such as the old Cyrix CPU's, they were slower then the Pentium 1 and 2 in Mhz but could perform general applications a lot faster then their equally rated Mhz couterparts.

Hope that helps ;-)

  Goldcroft 08:45 27 Apr 2003

the village idiot and mcullum_DX4Life: i have nothing against AMD chips at all - I am happy with mine and I know the performance vis a vis intel's and the price difference. It's not too important but I just find it distasteful that AMD find it necessary to fake the model numbers to make a point. Mine is an 1800 CPU, not a 2200. The fact that it is as good as a Pentium 2400 is great but surely AMD could make that point without changing the numbers. All the best, Mike

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

The Evil Within 2 review-in-progress

InVision Studio takes on Adobe XD and Sketch

iPhone X news: Release date, price, new features & specs

Comment transformer un iPhone en borne Wi-Fi ?