Jump to content


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.

Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.



  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Megaman1


  • Members
  • 81 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:09:25 PM

Posted 29 July 2009 - 01:12 AM


why are AMD CPUs shown as 4200+ instead of the normal GHz?

And also on Intel CPUs it shows the FSB on the cpu but on AMD cpus it doesnt show the FSB, why is this?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)


#2 dpunisher


  • BC Advisor
  • 2,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South TX
  • Local time:09:25 PM

Posted 29 July 2009 - 09:25 AM

I can answer the first part of that at least.

When Intel released the P4 it was discovered that MHz no longer was indicative of performance. P4 CPUs had higher clocks, but clock for clock performed worse than PIII and then current AMD offerings. The marketing guys at AMD, in order to "educate" the buying public, came up with "Performance Ratings". The idea was a 3200+ rated AMD was comparable to a P4 3.2 Ghz piece etc. Now with the myriad of architectures out there, the numbers are just a number and can only be used to rate a CPU within it's own family.

Edited by dpunisher, 29 July 2009 - 09:26 AM.

I am a retired Ford tech. Next to Fords, any computer is a piece of cake. (The cake, its not a lie)

3770K @4.5, Corsair H100, GTX780, 16gig Samsung, Obsidian 700 (yes there is a 700)

#3 fairjoeblue


  • Members
  • 1,594 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:09:25 PM

Posted 29 July 2009 - 10:52 AM

"". The idea was a 3200+ rated AMD was comparable to a P4 3.2 Ghz piece etc."

I knew what AMD's "theory" in naming their CPU's was but I have always felt it is simply misleading & a blatent attempt to make thier product sound better then it is.
When AMD started that I wonder how many people were disappointed to find out their spiffy new "3200+" CPU was actualy 2.2GHz.

Calling a 2.2GHz CPU "3200+" didn't make it "as fast" as a Intel 3.2GHz in the real world.

That is one of the reasons I don't like AMD .

If you go here,


& compare the Athlon XP 3200+ to a Pentium 4 3.2GHz you will see the difference.
I am comparing the Athlon XP 3200+ to the P4 to keep it real.
The Athon XP is the CPU that AMD originally released & claimed was rated "3200+" because it is "equal to a P4 3.2"
the later Athlon 64 3200+ was STILL a tad slower.

Chart ratings,
Athlon XP 3200+ = 446
[Athlon 64 3200+ =486]

Pantium 4 3.2GHz = 510

Keep in mind "almost as fast" doesn't count .
AMD rated thier CPU's as the equivalent of the Intel's

That 64 points difference in the rating may not look like much but in the real world it's noticable .

BTW, To find the Athlon XP 3200+ simply go to the bottom of the chart. :thumbsup:

Edited by fairjoeblue, 29 July 2009 - 03:18 PM.

OCZ StealthXstream 700W,Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R , E8500, Arctic Freezer Pro 7, 3GB G.Skill PC8500,Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 OC [1GB ], Seagate 250GB SATA II X2 in RAID 0, Samsung SATA DVD burner.

#4 ohai


  • Banned
  • 78 posts
  • Local time:08:25 PM

Posted 29 July 2009 - 02:48 PM

AMD doesn't have a true FSB. Intel does.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users