# Did I buy a dud (Athlon XP)?

## SoulSe

I bought an Athlon XP 2500+ boxed CPU. Got it for a good price and 64bit is still too expensive IMHO.

I also bought an ASUS mobo to go with it, uh... the A7V600 (nice features).

Now, if I enter the CMOS setup, it reports the CPU mHz as 1469.99 <- something like that, which is way slower then expected, I thought that I would get at least around 1950 from a 2500+ I could, however, change this setting in the CMOS, but this seems to be a bult-in overclocking feature of the BIOS. One of the settings, besides for speeds, was 'manual' not sure what that means.

Ok, so I booted Gentoo and did 

```
$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
```

 This confirms that the chips is, in fact, an Athlon-XP 2500+ and gives the same mHz reading as the CMOS.

Now, I bought the chip from AMD's official suppliers in my country and it was boxed with full warranties, etc.

So, am I doing something wrong? Or was I sold a dud and should I return it.

Thanks!

----------

## trapperjohn

You have to set the right cpu-clocking - look in your mobo-manual or in your processors specs.

----------

## SoulSe

 *trapperjohn wrote:*   

> You have to set the right cpu-clocking - look in your mobo-manual or in your processors specs.

 uh... The Asus board does not have dips or jumpers or clock multipliers, etc. AFAIK this should all happen automatically, there aren't any settings in the CMOS for these things either.

----------

## lamekain

I have an AthlonXP 1700+. Had the same problem as you have. If I remember correctly, I had to raise the System Bus Frequency, which determines the processor speed when multiplied with the Clock Ratio.

----------

## trapperjohn

 *Quote:*   

> uh... The Asus board does not have dips or jumpers or clock multipliers, etc. AFAIK this should all happen automatically, there aren't any settings in the CMOS for these things either.

 

? AFAIK have ALL new boards BIOS-settings for this - you always have to set clock speed etc. when installing a processor.

----------

## kamikaz3

you have it set on 133 * 11 = 1466

it must be 166 * 11 = 1833

If you bought pc3200 RAM you could also try to lower the multiplier and up the FSB (some thing like 200*9.5) this is faster without overclocking.

----------

## SlashGentoo

Had the same problem. Turned out to be a dud. Got it replaced and everything works sweet now  :Smile: 

----------

## gmichels

you probably have the fsb set to 133 instead of 166, as said above. or maybe you have 266 ddr ram which must run at 133, limiting your processor.

if you happen to have at least ddr333, just go to your bios setup and put the fsb at 166.

----------

## SoulSe

Thanks for all the responses! I did have the fsb set to 133, so I changed it to 166, the cpu now clocks at 1833. My RAM is DDR400.

This is supposed to be normal for an Athlon XP 2500+ which bothers me, because A) I payed for 2500, not an 1800 - AMD claim that their chip runs at the same speed as a Pentium 4 2500. Fair enough, I guess I can live with that, but: B) I could have bought a cheaper chip, like the 2200 or 2000 and I probably would get the same speed out of it... or am I wrong?

This is the first system I have built for myself in two years... the lag is eating me   :Razz: 

Thanks again!

----------

## lamekain

the 2200 , 2400, 2500 are the same processor. 2500 is just better quality, so it can handle the higher clockspeed. the 2500+ number is not the speed, it is just there to remind you that it works just as fast as a pentium 4 2500MHz. Anyway you don't want to be too focused on the MHz-number - it doesn't tell you the real speed of the processor(other things matter too.. like the size of the L1 and L2)

----------

## SoulSe

Live and learn.... ok rad, so it's time to get cracking with a fresh Gentoo install for Athlon-XP   :Cool:   and then Neverwinter Nights.... and then... 

<<< SoulSe risks an orgasm >>>

I've been winblows-clean for a year and a half... and this new system will not smell it.

----------

## gmichels

your ram is underused. it's supposed to run at 400 mhz but it's doing only 333 mhz.

if your board supports it, you should change the fsb and multiplier values to something like 200*9 or even 200*9.5, as kamikaz3 suggested. this way you get better performance using more throughput from your ram.

----------

## secondshadow

 *Drago wrote:*   

> your ram is underused. it's supposed to run at 400 mhz but it's doing only 333 mhz.
> 
> if your board supports it, you should change the fsb and multiplier values to something like 200*9 or even 200*9.5, as kamikaz3 suggested. this way you get better performance using more throughput from your ram.

 

To clarify what he said: Before you attempt this make ABSOLUTELY sure that your motherboard supports 400MHz DDR. You can have lots of strange problems if it doesn't (I've seen WIERD things happen...)

As far as the 2500 thing, yes it means it was rated to contend with the Intel P4 2.5GHz processor. That doesn't not mean that it is 2.5GHz. Example: I have a 1600 right now (old stuff, I know.... :Sad:  ). It runs at 1.4GHz. This is correct. The newest Athlon 3200's (Athlon64's) run at 2.2GHz. Hope that helps.

----------

## SoulSe

My MoBo does support DDR400, so I've switched multipliers to 200*9 and it seems to be happy with that,

Good thread, thanks for the help, I think I have it down now   :Wink: 

----------

## blueworm

Overclocking the newer Bartons is harder since they are multiplier locked.

You can only adjust the FrontSideBus speed...

----------

## floffe

 *lamekain wrote:*   

> the 2200 , 2400, 2500 are the same processor. 2500 is just better quality, so it can handle the higher clockspeed.

 

No, the 2500+ is the same as 2800+ and 3200+, they're all Barton's with 166*2 MHZ FSB & 512Kb L2 cache. The earlier AthlonXPs are thunderbirds, whihc is an older core.

----------

## blueworm

 *floffe wrote:*   

>  *lamekain wrote:*   the 2200 , 2400, 2500 are the same processor. 2500 is just better quality, so it can handle the higher clockspeed. 
> 
> No, the 2500+ is the same as 2800+ and 3200+, they're all Barton's with 166*2 MHZ FSB & 512Kb L2 cache. The earlier AthlonXPs are thunderbirds, whihc is an older core.

 

Negative previous Athlon XP Core was the Thoroghbred B core 133 Mhz FSB 256K L2 except 2800+ which had a 166Mhz FSB.

Barton 3200+ has a 200Mhz FSB, and there is also a 3000+ with 200Mhz FSB.

----------

## CharlieS

hah.. been there and done the same thing..   quite funny..

----------

## greg32

I will never understand AMD's marketing strategy with their comparative labels to intel speeds.  Without making it clear to people who are not so aware, it really jibs them.  They think they are buying a 2500mhz proc, when they are not!  How bloody stupid.  

Imaging I sold 300kw 2.0ltr turbo four, but labled it as 5.0ltr just so people think it is as big as a v8.  It may be as fast as a v8 (probably faster and more fun!!!  hehe, hate big cube cars), but it is not a v8.  Just like AMD are not Intels.  I am an Intel man, but I do appreciate that AMD proc acheive very good results at lower clock speeds (In their latest ones anyway - initially they were a heap of junk, struggling to copy Intels every move to stay in the market).  Simply, they are completely different procs, made by completly different companies.  If I was AMD, instead of marketing their cpus with lables to match Intel, I would have put up a huge marketing campain making people aware that MHZ does not necessarily mean faster - but this would have been hard for them, as they are broke, and can't afford it!

After all, AMD cpus are really only an "Intel compatable processor", aren't they?

regards Greg

----------

## Malakin

 *Quote:*   

> I will never understand AMD's marketing strategy with their comparative labels to intel speeds.

 AMD's labelling is actually a great idea since most people can look at one number without knowing anything about computers and be able to compare processor performance.

I can just imagine trying to explain to someone who's not computer literate how fsb, L2 cache, processor frequency, prefetch, sse and everything else that differentiates Athlon's with PR ratings. It's much easier to just give them a performance number.

There are some cpu speeds which have more then one model of cpu that was available. For example the xp2800+ was available as both a thoroughbred-b and then a barton. Here's a chart:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/barton-09.html

----------

## greg32

Yes, I know this.  There are many things that would be hard to explain, over and above the features you mentioned.  But, although this is the case, most still know what megahertz are, and they purchase a 2800+ as the equal equivalent of a 2.8p4.  And all over the place, there are thousands of people disheartened when they discover the lover clock ratings of the AMD chips.  I have even come accross people who simply can't grasp the idea, and when I try to explain it to them, they get pissed off.

----------

## CheshireCat

 *greg32 wrote:*   

> And all over the place, there are thousands of people disheartened when they discover the lover clock ratings of the AMD chips.  I have even come accross people who simply can't grasp the idea, and when I try to explain it to them, they get pissed off.

 

These tend to be the same people who really think that MHz == performance, so without this labelling, they would never have even considered AMD to begin with.  The only reasonable alternative would be to label it something like "Athlon XP 1.8GHz (performs same as P4 2.5GHz)".  I don't think this would be effective, people who "know" that clock speed == performance won't read past the 1.8GHz.  It could also turn into a legal and PR nightmare for AMD.Last edited by CheshireCat on Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:16 pm; edited 1 time in total

----------

## mukwuknuk

I hope this is still on-topic: where does one get Gentoo live-CDs and stages for AMD architecture?  I'm looking at all the download sites and all I see is AMD64 which I, like the originator of this thread, have not gone to yet.  Why does AMD32 seem to be lacking?  Are we supposed to use x86 images and stages, figuring AMD matches Intel fairly closely?  I don't think that will work, since I tried booting my AMD box off an i86 Gentoo CD but it refused to boot.  Should I start a new thread about this, or can someone give a few quick pointers?

----------

## SoulSe

 *mukwuknuk wrote:*   

> I hope this is still on-topic: where does one get Gentoo live-CDs and stages for AMD architecture?  I'm looking at all the download sites and all I see is AMD64 which I, like the originator of this thread, have not gone to yet.  Why does AMD32 seem to be lacking?  Are we supposed to use x86 images and stages, figuring AMD matches Intel fairly closely?  I don't think that will work, since I tried booting my AMD box off an i86 Gentoo CD but it refused to boot.  Should I start a new thread about this, or can someone give a few quick pointers?

 

I bought my Live CD set for Athlon XP from the store on this website. They are available for download as well, definately...

----------

## mukwuknuk

Oh I see it.... the AMD stuff is stored under x86.  My bad; I didn't expect it to be there.  Thanks.

----------

## richba5tard

Just to clear things up: AMD *never* claimed the XP rating system was supposed to compare it to the P4 equivalent, but to the older Athlon ThunderBird series.

For those who feel cheated, don't be. The PC enthousiasts aren't cheated because they know Mhz is just one of the many factors determening the overall speed of a processor, and Jhon Doe doesn't get cheated either, because the average AMD processor is cheaper than the equivalent P4 processor.

----------

## Malakin

 *Quote:*   

> Just to clear things up: AMD *never* claimed the XP rating system was supposed to compare it to the P4 equivalent, but to the older Athlon ThunderBird series.

 Almost everyone either thinks the performance ratings are based on the P4 or thinks they should be so they automatically start using it that way. Reading just about any review on new AMD processors a major point is always whether or not the AMD CPU lives up to it's performance rating compared to a P4 so like it or not AMD has to do so or it gets bad reviews.

Personally I think for the sake of the consumer it should be compared to "the competition" which in the case of an Athlon XP is the P4.

Going back and looking at some of the first Athlon XP articles they seem to think the Athlon XP's were rated against the P4 and some even make it sound like AMD had said it was this way. My guess is AMD's PR guys said it was rated against the thunderbird but inside they were really trying to rate it against the P4 and didn't want to publically say this for whatever reason. The Athlon XP's performance increased more steeply when the P4's introduced faster fsb's and faster chipsets, this would only make sense if they really were trying to match the P4.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20010829/news-02.html

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1543

----------

## bennerstul

The big difference with the 2500 is that it is the 'slowest' AMD processor with the 512 cache, even the 2700 still has 256 but higher clock speed.

----------

## Malakin

 *bennerstul wrote:*   

> The big difference with the 2500 is that it is the 'slowest' AMD processor with the 512 cache, even the 2700 still has 256 but higher clock speed.

 The early 2800+'s were still thoroughbreds with a 256K cache.

The Athlon XP 2500+ runs at a freqency of 1.83Ghz although there are mobile Athlons with 512K cache that run at 1.6Ghz.

The low frequency of the 2500+ has several advantages, one that it can overclock quite a bit and secondly if you leave it at the default speed it only uses 53.7 watts which is fairly low and easy to keep cool especialy with the larger die from the bigger L2 cache (P4 2.4C is 66 watts).

----------

