Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:21:23 12/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 2002 at 14:58:33, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >About faked picture. > >Simplest explanation is that it was modified to preserve anonimity of the person >who gave CPU for testing (and thus violated the NDA). Probably Tom decided that >just wiping out part of the digits and letters is not enough, so he >cut-and-pasted some letters to further confuse the things. > >Thanks, >Eugene Didn't think about that but that's another entirely plausible explanation. Much better than to shout "fakery". > >On December 02, 2002 at 14:33:40, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On December 02, 2002 at 12:17:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 02, 2002 at 10:18:42, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>> >>>>You can find out where the chip was made, when it was made and what stepping the >>>>CPU is. For example.. if someone walked up to you with three Thunderbird cpus. >>>>One was an AFFA stepping, one was a BXHA stepping and the other was an AXIA.. >>>>which would you choose? No idea? Only by LOOKING at the top of the cpu can you >>>>figure out which particular chip it is (I'm not talking about just the cpuid >>>>stepping info). Someone that knows what they're doing would choose the AXIA. It >>>>has a 1.5GHz core (doesn't matter what it's marked) and can run 1.5GHz without >>>>problems. BXHA can't do over 1.2GHz and an AFFA has problems hitting 1GHz. How >>>>about on the line below the stepping? There are two possibilities.. one will >>>>start with a number, the other with a letter. Any idea which one to choose? The >>>>CPU w/ a letter (usually a 'Y') can run a good 50MHz faster. If you don't like >>>>overclocking you can always drop the voltage and leave the chip at it's current >>>>clock speed. An AFFA Tbird at 1GHz would need 1.75v at the least. A 1GHz AXIA >>>>could run 1.3v. Thats going from 54.3 watts to 29.96 watts. If you get an AYHJA >>>>you can just do watts * 0.80. >>> >>>You are answering your own query. I look at the specs. I order the product. >>>If it >>>doesn't meet its specifications, back it goes. Regardless of stepping, >>>revision, manufacture >>>date, fab plant id, or anything else... >>> >>>Numbers on the top of the chip don't mean a thing without an encyclopedia from >>>the >>>vendor explaining the differences between various steppings. The write-up >>>generally >>>explains what the chip being discussed does, which is the important bit of >>>data... >>> >>>your VIN on your auto contains a _lot_ of info. Do you use it? I don't. My >>>insurance >>>company does of course... but not me... >>> >>>> >>>>How about this one.. an AYHJA core. These run 20% cooler than standard Tbird >>>>cores. How do you know if you've got one? LOOK AT THE CHIP. >>> >>>Totally wrong example. We are not looking "at the chip" since we don't have it >>>in our hands. We are looking at a picture that goes along with a long article >>>that >>>discusses the specific chip. That's a _big_ difference... >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Look at the AMD and Intel datasheets on their CPUs. Look at the information >>>>on where it was made, the area where it shows the date (what week of the year) >>>>it was made, etc. Another example.. Week 25 and newer Celeron 366's came with a >>>>550MHz core. Every single one could do 550 at default voltage without problems >>>>at all. I wonder how you could tell? Hrm.. perhaps by LOOKING AT THE CPU. :) So, >>>>lets go back over this. By looking at the CPU you can figure out where it was >>>>made (has an effect sometimes on overclockability), what stepping the CPU is and >>>>you can possibly get a cooler running CPU. Yeah, looking at the CPU is useless. >>>>Good one Hyatt, very amusing. :) >>> >>>Didn't say "looking at the CPU is useless". So your comment _is_ very amusing. >>>We >>>are talking about a _photograph_ of a chip we won't every have in our hands, >>>along with >>>a review of the chip that we can read to make conclusions... >>> >>>I don't see why that is so hard to understand... >> >>Didn't say looking at the CPU is useless? I quote you from your previous >>message... "Except that the picture of a microprocessor chip carries absolutely >>no technical information of any kind...". This was said by you. A bit >>contradictory don't you think? >> >>As far as you not using stepping codes and all that stuff.. it's better to do >>so. You can specify in the comments tab when buying something. Lets say you >>order an AthlonXP 2200+. It's a big tossup right there whether you'll get the >>older Thoroughbred-B core or the newer Thoroughbred-A core (runs cooler, clocks >>MUCH higher). If you knew what you were doing you could just specify in the >>comments tab that you'll want one with the markings, "AXDA2200DUV3C" and NOT >>"AXDA2200DKV3C". >> >>Before they ship your order most companies will spend a few minutes looking >>around for one of those for you. Now you get a cpu with a superb core. You could >>run it at default speed with a much lower voltage or push it from 1.8 up into >>the 2.4-2.5GHz range. If you had not bothered specifying the DUVC3 then you >>could very well have received the Tbred-A and have a hot running cpu that will >>have problems making it up to 2GHz (just 200MHz from your current clock). >> >>So perhaps instead of generalizing you should instead say, "I haven't a clue >>what all that stuff means on the CPU so it has no value to me". Saying, and I >>quote again, "Except that the picture of a microprocessor chip carries >>absolutely no technical information of any kind..." is pretty ridiculous. >> >>Also.. Yes, I do understand what you were saying previously. You're aparently >>not caring that Tom faked the picture and the review. The facts are there, >>choosing to believe them is entirely up to you. Personally I think looking at >>faked reviews is a waste of time but.. thats just me. ;)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.