(06-25-2012, 06:12 AM)dannzen Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2012, 04:21 PM)tysonrss Wrote: [ -> ]It's a pity, I don't have a job, if I did that shit would be getting saved to get a new rig.
... guy thats 8year old shit...
we are living in 2012...
iam guessing that you are not working for now 4-5years? or going to school
smallest sandybridge rig would be at 300-400
I'd set the minimum at $400 myself.
Its something Cryix added to their performance rating back in in 96 and has been used in every performance rating since.
I assume its suppose to be mean that an A64x2 4600 is as fast a 4.6GHZ Athlon Tbird and the + means it could be faster. In reality a 4.6GHZ Tbird would probably be faster and could double as a BBQ.
The internet made up meaning of AMD's PR ratings of equal to the P4 of that speed would be more accurate here.
Quote:I assume its suppose to be mean that an A64x2 4600 is as fast a 4.6GHZ Athlon Tbird and the + means it could be faster. In reality a 4.6GHZ Tbird would probably be faster and could double as a BBQ.
uh no.....I don't know where you got any of that from. It's just a model number. The 2500 in 2500K for example has no significance other than indicating the relative performance (500 is inbetween 600 and 400) and the series (2xxx).
the + stopped having any significance after the Athlon XP chips
Wow, talk about a blast from the past. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the "+" moniker was added by AMD in the early Athlon XP days to make it more obvious that overclocking was possible with it. Before, you bought a chip at 1700mhz and that was that, but with an Athlon XP 1700+ you could, gasp, go higher than 1700mhz! Hence the "+". Of course, that was more or less a fallacy, since overclocking had been possible for some time, on both AMD and Intel chips, but it was a pain in the ass and few people knew about it. But I guess it was successful in a way, AMDs marketing push helped spread the word about overclocking to a wider audience.
TL-DR: The "+" never meant it was faster.
Quote:that overclocking was possible with it
No. the labelling implied "Faster Than" with the chip numbering being the reference to an equivalent thunderbird if Tbird would run at that clockrate (it couldn't)
so the 2200+ is faster than a Thunderbird at 2200mhz (while the actual clockrate of the 2200+ is around the 1600mhz mark)
Hmm. Well, I got it wrong, so I did some digging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_Rating#Pentium_4_competition
http://techreport.com/articles.x/2975/3
techreport Wrote:The "plus" after each number supposedly denotes that the Athlon XP is actually faster than competing chips at 1.8GHz.
The Techreport article covers it pretty thoroughly. According to that, the Performance Rating used the Tbird comparison to raise the numbers to something closer to the ghz rating on the Pentium 4, and the + was to denote that it's better than the competition (Pentium 4) at that speed. Interesting.
(06-25-2012, 04:18 PM)MaJoR Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm. Well, I got it wrong, so I did some digging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_Rating#Pentium_4_competition
http://techreport.com/articles.x/2975/3
techreport Wrote:The "plus" after each number supposedly denotes that the Athlon XP is actually faster than competing chips at 1.8GHz.
The Techreport article covers it pretty thoroughly. According to that, the Performance Rating used the Tbird comparison to raise the numbers to something closer to the ghz rating on the Pentium 4, and the + was to denote that it's better than the competition (Pentium 4) at that speed. Interesting.
Claiming to be as fast as a Pentium 4 at 4.6 ghz isn't exactly an accomplishment.
(That would be how fast the Celeron G440 is, and it costs $40, and is vastly more efficient, not to mention better RAM and the architectural improvements.)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116410&Tpk=g440
The G530 DESTROYS the athlon 4600 +.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116409
And at $50, no less.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Celeron+G440+%40+1.60GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+4+3.80GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+64+X2+Dual+Core+4600%2B
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Celeron+G530+%40+2.40GHz
Not the best example, but good for ball park guesses.
Quote:(That would be how fast the Celeron G440 is, and it costs $40, and is vastly more efficient, not to mention better RAM and the architectural improvements.)
Quote:The G530 DESTROYS the athlon 4600 +.
Man I should have bought one of those instead when I was in the market for a new cpu back in 2004.....oh wait.
Quote:Claiming to be as fast as a Pentium 4 at 4.6 ghz isn't exactly an accomplishment.
It sure as hell was back then! And I don't think the 4600+ would have been anywhere close to the performance of a 4.6 GHz pentium IV since it would have to be running at something like 3.6Ghz to do that.
Damn, I just got owned...
