Anand says 9800XT hitting shelves?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Whoops, it looks like I turned this thread into a CPU discussion. Oh well.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
 
Careful, Kinney's gonna jump the gun on ya!!!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:
 
Hello Grub,
Yes I am labeled a (NEWBIE) and I realize people move up the ranks in responce to the # of posts.. I have zero problem being labled a newbie. My real name is Rob I'm a structrual Fire Fighter in Canada. I also run a web site on the side since I'm on holidays right now I'm @home working on the website with nothing but time on my hands, thus all the recent posts by me..

You probably will not believe this but if I remember corrrectly I was the VERY FIRST poster in all of thg forums
so newbie or not I have been around a while.

rob
(stranger )
11/11/00 03:08 AM

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/software/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=5#5

I never really had the time to make lots of post and I have completly lost the password for my original postings under Rob.

6 months ago I did create an account under the name tyee but I lost that pass word as well and made a new user name darko21. After making darko21 and a couple of posts I noticed winxp had stored my password but I just started posting under darko21.

I don't know Crash personaly, and if you say hes well informed OK. I have no problem with Crash he seems mature and calm enough.. I just disagree with his interpitaion of the xp rating system. If a xp1600 should be twice as fast as an p3 @ 800 then a p4 @ 1.6 giz should also be twice as fast as a p3 @ 800..

In re-reading my posts looks like I did come off a little aggressive so I appologise to you Crash if I came accross abrupt. and I noticed I did infact mention the tbird in a prior post so I see why you thought I was refering to a Tbird (my mistake) I did in fact mean athlon where I did use the word thunderbird.

Anyhow this thread is way off topic and should really die..
 
Tualatins were available with either 256k (desktop) or 512k (server) versions. The so called "server" versions were named so because they supported dual CPU operation. Hence the name PIII-S. The PIII-S 1400 used the Tualatin core. It works in most Tualatin compatable dektop boards.

So yes, The PIII went up to 1.4GHz. It wasn't a threat to the P4 1.4 because it was released after the P4 1.4 was no longer available from Intel.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
The Pentium 200 could perform twice as many raw operations per second as the Pentium 100.

The information you seek should be available by reading old THG articles, which would point to the original source within AMD.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
THG (and Anandtech I believe) actually got this information from AMD. If you care to look through the archives you'll probably even find an interview.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
Maybe it was exactly twice as fast but the p1 @ 100 did not support mmx unlike the p1 @ 200 which did have mmx so my point was there are other things to consider in performance then just doubling the megahertz..
 
OK I give up where is it? I cant find it.. I do agree it was based on an athlon core.. Which core chip etc is the question. and I'm not saying it is not based on a tbird core, it could be I don't really know. But good luck finding I have never seen it. Its just as AMD wanted they wanted it compared to the p4 from the publics point of view and it generally worked that way. I don't know for sure but I'd guess it was based on an athlon for leagle reasons.. Anyway the xp rating stinks now because the general public sees it as a rating against the p4 and we both know its inferior to the high end p4s.
 
I wasn't talking about the Xeon. The PIII-S is a Socket 370 processor like any other.

With Coppermine PIII's nearly any would run Dual. When they switched to Tualatin cores, they came out with two PIII versions, the Desktop 256k (locked out from dual use), and the Server 512k (allowing dual use). I believe both versions originally had 512k, but half the cache was disabled on the Desktop version.

Xeons always used different sockets, the PIII-S used a standard socket.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
The Pentium 200 didn't support MMX. The 200MMX did. The earlier versions (often called Classics) were available at 75, 90, 100, 120, 133, 150 (rare), 166, and 200MHz. The MMX was available at 166, 200, and 233.

I thought you were speaking of two otherwise identicle chips when you mentioned the 100 and 200. And yes, the 200 could perform twice as many operations per second as the 100.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
OK Crash,
looks like it boils down to a missunderstanding from now on I'll try to be a little more specific when talking about chips. (rare), 166, and 200MHz non mmx and the not so rare but different Xeon.
 
The Pentium 150 was rare, the 166 and 200 were not that rare.

And the PIII 1400 might be a "-S" CPU, but it's definately not a Xeon! It works in standard desktop boards!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
No offense ment Darko...that's just my standard greeting to new people around here...unless they look like jerks...which you don't seem to be...so welcome back to THGC!!!!

Scamtron doesn't like my sig...
 
I did some thinking about the original off topic, topic in regards to

It was even a rip off back then, because the 1600+ wasn't twice as fast as a PIII 800EB. You could compare it to the sucky Willy and say it was better, or the Northwood and say it was about right, but it was supposed to be based on previous AMD processors, which was a complete falsehood..

Lets say it was based on a tbird core. Because even if it was an earlier core the numbers still would not add up.. I did a lot of thinking about that and came to the conclusion that the xp model rating system must be based on a formula.. They did this to bring the athlon to an equal performance comparison with the under performing MHz wise P4 of the day..

So for arguments sake lets say an athlon at 1.2 giz (and lets for argument sake say that a 1.2 giz tbird performed about the same as a P4 @1.4 ) they run a purposely set up set of bench marks bringing the athlon 1.2 giz to a score or rating of 1400 . Now you take an athlon @ 1333 run the same bench marks and it comes in at say 1470 thus xp1470, then say athlon @ 1470 giz runs the formula and gets 1700 thus xp1700. Just so you know I picked all these numbers out of a hat, the point is I’d bet my left nut the xp model rating system used some kinda formula to compare on an equal footing with the P4. It could have been benchmarks or just a mathematical equation but I’ll bet it was a formula non the less. I’m taking a stand on this that the xp1600 was a rip off because it did not perform twice as fast as a p3 @ 800. A xp1600 would have been a bargain back then because not only did it perform a little better over all that a p4 @ 1.6 it would also have been for the most part cheaper..

PS yes I don’t know for sure that the xp rating system used a formula but it makes the most sense. I’d love to see that article on the xp rating system..
 
and I dare you to post a link were ((( AMD))) cliams which core there xp rating is based on
Click to expand...
There you <A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/26169b_Performance-Overview.pdf" target="_new">go</A>!
On the second page on the left : " ...AMD Athlon XP processor over preevious-generation AMD Athlon processors,..."

<b><font color=red>Psychiatrist says I'm crazy but the voices in my head say I'm not 😎 </font color=red></b>
 
I have one of those P150s. It is sad to think of all of the stuff I still have accumulated.





<A HREF="http://www.stompfest.com" target="_new">Stompfest Sept. 13-14 - Indy. IN</A> - Should be some good gaming!!!
 
Actually I think I have two of them. I picked them up when I bought some ALR board a while back. Back when I was rebuilding that ALR dual P90 system. hehe... I love that machine.

<A HREF="http://www.stompfest.com" target="_new">Stompfest Sept. 13-14 - Indy. IN</A> - Should be some good gaming!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom