IS THIS FALSE REPRESENTATION

[Guest]

Hello allI have a AMD CPU XP2000+BOXED i assumed i was getting a 2000ghz processer, when i look at the system information it tells me i have 1.300ghz,now is this a gimmick to make people think they are getting more than they actually are?or have i got it all wrong ? Also would i see a big improvement if i updated to AMD XP 3000.My framerates at the moment are set to 25 that i get away from busy airports, i can get upto 40plus ,but at busy airports i drop down to 3 to6 and traffic shuffles along with stops and starts.Iwould like to improve ready for sf2004Thanks for any help and advice Don amd-xp2000seagate barracuda hard drives 40 gig 80gig 512ddr ram2700 + 512ddr ram pc210 hyundaigeforce4 ti4400 128 mgb8k3a amd kt333.ddr333-epox mainboard

[Guest ba747heavy]

Sir,#1) This is a HW issue, and as such belongs in the HW forum.#2) Your BIOS is set wrong for your CPU. Please search the Hard Ware forum, there are 2 or 3 posts on the first and second pages that detail this problem, and the solution.If you still have trouble, I will do my best to help you.BTW, this isn't a gimmic.

[Azapata87 173]

hi,You got it all wrong... :-) I think it works this way, Amd processors are more efficient than say... pentium 4s. An Athlon xp processor can do more calculations per clock cycle than a Pentium 4 running at the same speed. So you buy an Athlon xp 2000 at the store and you buy a pentium 4 2000. Since the AMD procesor is more efficient than the intel processor it doesent have to run as fast to get the same performance as the pentium 4 running at 2 gigs. So basically your getting the performance (maybe more) of a 2 gig processor but actually not running at 2 gigs. Meanwhile the pentium 4 is more inefficient so it has to actually has to have it's clock at 2 gigs to get the performance of a 2 gig processor and the Amd processor can run at 1.3 or 1.5 and be able to crunch numbers as fast as the pentium 4 running at 2 gigs. I hope you understand this. :-) I'll try to come up with an analogy. EX: my AMD Athlon xp 1800+ has the performance of a pentium 4 running at 1.8 gigs but its only running at 1.5 gigs (I did overclock it to 1.8 gigs so now I'm faster than a pentium 4 running at 1.8 since the Amd processor can do more "stuff" per clock cycle.)AndrewPS. I think you will see a great speed improvement by updating to the Amd Athlon 3000+ xp since it has a barton core I believe, besides it's faster clock speed, the new barton core also has more cache so that should also help with the speed increase. Your 2000+ processor has the older core which has less cache along with my processor.

[Guest ba747heavy]

No, I am right. Doesn't matter that AMD is more effcient, it still has a mhz rating, and 1300 isn't right for that processor. I had the same problem, so I happen to know what I am talking about ;-)

[Azapata87 173]

hi fred,When I said "nonono you got it all wrong" I was refering to the original poster he asked "Is this a gimmick or do I have it all wrong":-)AndrewI do agree 1.3 isint right for that proccesor it should be like 1.73 or 1.8 my processor is slower than his and it has a higher stock speed than his (1.53)

[Guest ba747heavy]

>hi fred,>When I said "nonono you got it all wrong" I was refering to>the original poster he asked "Is this a gimmick or do I have>it all wrong">:-)Ah, ok, my mistake :D

[Guest]

Brian Gladden is having the same problem... defective 2000XP processers being shipped maybe?

[Guest jase439]

Sometime back, AMD made a decision to market their CPU's based on what they called 'effective cpu frequency' as opposed to the actual operating frequency of the processor. This was done as a means of competing with Intel. Their architecture was such that while they could match the performance of Intel's CPU, they could not match them in raw cpu frequency. Unfortunately, your average 'Joe User' equates raw cpu frequency to greater efficiency and speed. By nature, people assume a 1.8 Ghz processor is slower than a 2.6 - regardless of architecture. Intel has long had the practice of naming their CPU's after their cpu speed. This naming convention is what consumers use most to gauge which processor is faster. AMD, caved into this ignoramous mentality and decided to cater to the ignorant in an effort to boost sales, and started naming their CPU's based on their 'effective cpu frequency' - as they compare to their Intel CPU counterparts. So your XP2000 should roughly 'perform at the effective level' of an Intel P4-2Ghz. As someone stated before, the AMD architecture allows the XP2000 to roughly process as many instructions per cycle as the P4-2Ghz.The upshot - don't stress. You got what you paid for at the end of the day, and you should be batting with the effective firepower of a P4-2Ghz CPU. The confusion is understandable, however. I always felt this was a silly move by AMD.J

[Tabs 2,790]

Ok here's how this works:About a year and a half to two years ago AMD starting marketing its CPU's with what they call the "True Performance Initiative". Basically, they were upset that Intel was using pure clock speed (Mhz/GHz) to make it appear as if the Pentium 4 had a massive advantage over the Athlon, which was not the case. Even though the Athlon's were clocked lower than the Pentium 4's, the Athlon architecture was better and allowed the CPU to benchmark at the same level as a Pentium 4 with a higher clock speed. AMD started using the XXXX+ name instead of the actual GHz rating starting after the 1.4GHz Athlon Thunderbird. It did hold true for quite a while, but the distance has steadily widened now and the whole thing is getting rather ridiculous. Look at the latest Athlon XP 3200+ vs. the Pentium 4 3.2GHz, the 3200+ is actually rated at 2.2Ghz and no amount of architecture differences are going to make up a 1Ghz gap in clock speed - the benchmarks prove this.In the case of your CPU - an Athlon XP 2000+ is rated at 1.67Ghz. (see what I mean about the gap getting larger with the newer Athlon's? This is a 330MHz difference between the stated performance level and the actual clock speed, where as it's a 1000Mhz difference with the latest one)The reason you're getting 1.3Ghz is because your front side bus in the BIOS is set to 100MHz (200DDR) and not 133MHz (266 - the rated bus speed of the chip) 100MHz FSB X 12.5 clock multiplier = 1250MHz (which it reports as 1.3GHz) 133MHz FSB X 12.5 multiplier = 1667MHz. This is the problem, you need to set the system bus to 133 instead of 100 - there's nothing wrong with your chip.Ryan

[Guest]

After reading this interesting post, I have one question:Why are Intel CPUs a heck of a lot more expensive than AMD CPUs?I was checking the prices at my local computer storeand these are the prices I found:P4 2.4 GHz: $262.65 CDN (not 800 fsb)AMD 2400+ XP: $133.90 CDNIf an Athlon 2400+ can do the same amount of calculations per clock cycle as a P4 2.4, why is it priced at around half of the P4's price???

[Guest]

Because they're far more reliable, offer better performance, etc. etc..An Athlon 2000 as stated is effectively a 1.3GHz CPU.AMD calls it 2000 because it will on a highly optimised machine run about as fast as a Celeron 2000 on a non-optimised machine (that's the first trick they use, the second one is obviously misleading consumers into thinking they're buying a 2GHz CPU, the last one is that AMD themselves do the comparison without any outside controls and checks).Running side by side an Athlon 2000 and a PIV-2GHz, both on optimised machines (so best combination of hardware and software) will show a distinct advantage for the Intel.Your Intel CPU may be more expensive, but this is in large part offset by the more expensive Athlon motherboards (I've done some calculations and total cost of a machine with similar quality components is maybe

[Guest simpilot]

I beg to differ....First of all the XP2000 is rated at 1.67GHz and indeed can effectively keep up with a P4 2.0 GHz and in some cases surpass it in performance while the P4 does better in some benches. What it really boils down to is the components on your machine and how they interact with one another. I have had Intel based machines as well as AMD based machines and dollar for dollar, I feel that price vs. performance you cannot beat AMD processors.Just my 2 cents :-) Cheers!Richard

[Guest]

it's not false. some bioses do not auto set the AMD cpus for some stupid reason. You will have to set the FSB to 133MHZ then it will detect your CPU properly. Also I suggest to update you BIOS as well. it never hurts to update the bios.http://www.epox.nl/english/support/bios/socketa.htmTo switch the FSB (front side bus) to 133MHZ turn off your computer and turn it back on . Now hit DEL a couple of times so you get your bios screen . Select the following if you have a AWARD bios. Frequencey and Voltage and set the cpu clock to 133MHZ.now save it and reboot. You boot screen should say AMD XP 2000+and the clock speed should be about 1.7ghz or so. If some goes wrong you can hit and hold the insert key on reboot and it will default the bios settings.Capt.Richard Dillon (KATL)www.jetstarairlines.comhttp://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg"Lets Roll" 9/11 -----------------------Specs AMD 2400 XP MSI KTV4 768MB DDR 2100Asus GF4 ti 4200 128MBSB Audigy Gamer Ch Products Yoke and Pedals(usb)Windows XP pro SP1a

[Guest]

Thanks to all you people for help and advice.I altered the bios settings as advised and have a improvement from 1300ghz to 1700 ghzwent to KORD, framerate on the ground 25Everything running much better.Don

[SteveLewis 0]

Back in April, when I was set to upgrade from my AMD900 Mhz machine, I read a lot of posts in this forum and tried to determine which processor was best for what I wanted to do: FS2004. Even though I have had AMD processors in my last 3 computers I opted for the Pentium P4 2.4 Ghz with a 533 Mhz FSB. I'm very glad I switched. I'm getting 35 fps + with everything on and all of the sliders maxxed out. The lowest fps I've ever had with this computer is 12 fps and that's with the SimFlyers KEWR scenery which is still FSDS.My Intel board will support hyper threading for FS2004 and all I'll have to do is change out the processor chip (couldn't quite afford the 3.06 Mhz chip in April).For what it's worth. :-waveSteve