Will the real FSB please stand up?

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:12:53 GMT, Bob <Bob.RemoveThis@nospam.net>
wrote:

>I'm confused. Is my CPU FSB running at 200 MHz or 800MHz?

It's running at a 200MHz clock rate, quad pumped.
Intel should've called it QDR200, akin to the prior industry
standard DDR200, but Intel chose to use deceptive marketing
in some instances and in others users just repeated this
kind of technical error.

>
>I've an Intel P4 Prescott, 3.2GHz.Intel Pentium 4 3.2E Prescott 800MHz FSB
>Socket 478 Processor Model BX80546PG3200E. The FSB is 800MHz (at least that's
>what the mobo specifications state:
>
>Specifications:
>Socket Type:Socket 478
>Chipset:Intel 865PE Chipset
>Processor:Intel® Pentium® 4
>Max FSB:400/533/800MHz)

yes, they continue the mistake.
It's using a quad pumped (4X)
100/133/200 MHz clocked bus.


>
>but it appears that my FSB is running at 200MHz.

It is. BIOS manufacturers have no reason to try to deceive
CPU customers so they state the plain truth.
 >> Stay informed about: Will the real FSB please stand up? 

kony wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:12:53 GMT, Bob <Bob.RemoveThis@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm confused. Is my CPU FSB running at 200 MHz or 800MHz?
>
>
> It's running at a 200MHz clock rate, quad pumped.
> Intel should've called it QDR200, akin to the prior industry
> standard DDR200, but Intel chose to use deceptive marketing

It's deceptive to call it deceptive.

> in some instances and in others users just repeated this
> kind of technical error.

It isn't a 'technical error' to report the data rate of 4 cycles per clock
as 800MHz when using a 200Mhz clock.

>
>
>>I've an Intel P4 Prescott, 3.2GHz.Intel Pentium 4 3.2E Prescott 800MHz FSB
>>Socket 478 Processor Model BX80546PG3200E. The FSB is 800MHz (at least that's
>>what the mobo specifications state:
>>
>>Specifications:
>>Socket Type:Socket 478
>>Chipset:Intel 865PE Chipset
>>Processor:Intel® Pentium® 4
>>Max FSB:400/533/800MHz)
>
>
> yes, they continue the mistake.
> It's using a quad pumped (4X)
> 100/133/200 MHz clocked bus.
>
>
>
>>but it appears that my FSB is running at 200MHz.
>
>
> It is. BIOS manufacturers have no reason to try to deceive
> CPU customers so they state the plain truth.
>
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Will the real FSB please stand up? 

David Maynard wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
>> I'm confused. Is my CPU FSB running at 200 MHz or 800MHz?
>
>
> Both, as the data down below shows.
>
> 200Mhz is the clock speed but the bus is, as the entry down below shows,
> (QDR), which stands for "Quad Data Rate," meaning it has 4 data cycles
> per clock cycle so the effective data bus (FSB) rate is 800 MHz when
> using a 200MHz clock.
>
> Not too dissimilar from the fact that your CPU is fed a 200MHz clock and
> then multiplies it up by 16 to run at 3200MHz internally.
>
>>
>> I've an Intel P4 Prescott, 3.2GHz.Intel Pentium 4 3.2E Prescott 800MHz
>> FSB Socket 478 Processor Model BX80546PG3200E. The FSB is 800MHz (at
>> least that's what the mobo specifications state:
>>
>> Specifications:
>> Socket Type:Socket 478
>> Chipset:Intel 865PE Chipset
>> Processor:Intel® Pentium® 4
>> Max FSB:400/533/800MHz)
>>
>> but it appears that my FSB is running at 200MHz.
>>
>> My BIOS is Phoenix Technologies, LTD. Version : 6.00 PG Date: Date :
>> March 19, 2004.
>>
>> 03/19/2004-Springdale-PE-6A79APADC-00
>> OEM Signature : 03/19/2004 For Intel Springdale-PE Chipset
>>
>>
>> From PC Wizard 2005:
>>
>> General Information :
>> Real Frequency : 3222.53 MHz
>> Multiplier : 16x
>> Low/High Multiplier : 14x / 16x
>> Multiplier Locked : Yes
>> Stock Frequency : 3200 MHz
>>
>> Front Side Bus Information :
>> FSB Frequency : 201.4 MHz
>> Bus Speed : 805.6 MHz (QDR)
>>
>> Initial Frequencies :
>> Frequency : 3200 MHz
>> FSB Frequency : 200 MHz
>> Multiplier : 16x
>>
>> Control Clock Frequency :
>> Type : None
>>
>> Thermal Information :
>> Thermal control TM1 : Yes
>> Thermal control TM2 : No
>> ODCM Enabled : No
>> Thermal Status : Normal
>>
>> Processor Performance Information :
>> Throttle Mode AC : None
>> Throttle Mode DC : Adaptive
>> Current Configuration : None
>> Throttle : 3222 MHz
>>
>>
>> Am I misunderstanding something here?
>
>

Thank you for clearing this up. I thought I had to tweak something in CMOS.
 >> Stay informed about: Will the real FSB please stand up? 

Bob wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>>> I'm confused. Is my CPU FSB running at 200 MHz or 800MHz?
>>
>>
>>
>> Both, as the data down below shows.
>>
>> 200Mhz is the clock speed but the bus is, as the entry down below
>> shows, (QDR), which stands for "Quad Data Rate," meaning it has 4 data
>> cycles per clock cycle so the effective data bus (FSB) rate is 800 MHz
>> when using a 200MHz clock.
>>
>> Not too dissimilar from the fact that your CPU is fed a 200MHz clock
>> and then multiplies it up by 16 to run at 3200MHz internally.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thank you for clearing this up. I thought I had to tweak something in
> CMOS.

You're quite welcome.
 >> Stay informed about: Will the real FSB please stand up? 

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:46:34 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam.TakeThisOut@private.net> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:12:53 GMT, Bob <Bob.TakeThisOut@nospam.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm confused. Is my CPU FSB running at 200 MHz or 800MHz?
>>
>>
>> It's running at a 200MHz clock rate, quad pumped.
>> Intel should've called it QDR200, akin to the prior industry
>> standard DDR200, but Intel chose to use deceptive marketing
>
>It's deceptive to call it deceptive.

There was already a standard for multi-data rate busses. It
was NOT to claim the bus data rate was the MHz rate. They
chose to name it in same fashion as the clock rate knowing
it was ambiguous when ambiguity is exactly the thing to
avoid when determing terminology, the whole purpose of
terminology.

>
>> in some instances and in others users just repeated this
>> kind of technical error.
>
>It isn't a 'technical error' to report the data rate of 4 cycles per clock
>as 800MHz when using a 200Mhz clock.

yes it is if only the 800MHz is mentioned, that it is not
quite specifically mentioned as "data rate" or similar to
distinguish it from the standard clock rates used from the
beginning until now.
 >> Stay informed about: Will the real FSB please stand up? 

kony wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:46:34 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam.TakeThisOut@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>>kony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:12:53 GMT, Bob <Bob.TakeThisOut@nospam.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm confused. Is my CPU FSB running at 200 MHz or 800MHz?
>>>
>>>
>>>It's running at a 200MHz clock rate, quad pumped.
>>>Intel should've called it QDR200, akin to the prior industry
>>>standard DDR200, but Intel chose to use deceptive marketing
>>
>>It's deceptive to call it deceptive.
>
>
> There was already a standard for multi-data rate busses. It
> was NOT to claim the bus data rate was the MHz rate.

What 'standard' are you referring to? Memory? Because that went to data
rate MHz long before Intel did a QDR data bus.

> They
> chose to name it in same fashion as the clock rate knowing
> it was ambiguous when ambiguity is exactly the thing to
> avoid when determing terminology, the whole purpose of
> terminology.

To the vast majority of the market there's nothing more 'ambiguous' than
QDR200. Might as well say it's got 200ppm MFP Fluoride.

They chose to name it in the same manner as memory speed and for the same
reason. PC3200 being 'faster' than PC2700 is easy to comprehend and so is
800 being 'faster' than 200. And it's technically correct the bus data rate
IS 800MHz.

>>>in some instances and in others users just repeated this
>>>kind of technical error.
>>
>>It isn't a 'technical error' to report the data rate of 4 cycles per clock
>>as 800MHz when using a 200Mhz clock.
>
>
> yes it is if only the 800MHz is mentioned,

No it isn't. You only think so because you're a hardware geek but the
purpose of the rating isn't to explain how to build the dern thing.

You must be positively apoplectic with AMD because they haven't used a
'clock' number since the XP came out and that rating is closer to an
invention than "800 MHz FSB" could ever be because the 'clock' does, in
fact, physically 'clock' it at 800 MHz.

> that it is not
> quite specifically mentioned as "data rate" or similar to
> distinguish it from the standard clock rates used from the
> beginning until now.

To say "distinguish it from the standard clock rates used from the
beginning until now" is making a distinction without a difference as, up
till 'now', the clock rate WAS the data rate so continuing to give the
*data rate* is perfectly consistent with the past, technically correct, and
a hell of a lot more intuitive and representative than trying to explain
what a 200Mhz FSB vs a DDR 200MHz FSB vs a QDR 200MHz FSB is. What's the
difference? Well, the first one sends data 200 times per second and the DDR
one does it 400 times a second and the QDR one does it 800 times a second
(except that's a burst rate for all of them and there are timing delays...
<their eyes glazed over before you got past "burst">).

Well, then, why the hell didn't you just SAY so to beGIN with?

Now, you can argue all you want that you 'like', or 'prefer', one over the
other, and that's fine, but it is a deception to claim it's a deception as
the two designations arrive at exactly the same result, after you finish
'explaining' yours to the great unwashed masses.
 >> Stay informed about: Will the real FSB please stand up? 

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:02:50 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam.RemoveThis@private.net> wrote:


>You must be positively apoplectic with AMD because they haven't used a
>'clock' number since the XP came out and that rating is closer to an
>invention than "800 MHz FSB" could ever be because the 'clock' does, in
>fact, physically 'clock' it at 800 MHz.

With AMD, they're not tacking "MHz" on. If they had,
certainly I'd be opposed. Still I AM against their
convention for naming though, also find it deceptive... just
not AS deceptive.


>Now, you can argue all you want that you 'like', or 'prefer', one over the
>other, and that's fine, but it is a deception to claim it's a deception as
>the two designations arrive at exactly the same result, after you finish
>'explaining' yours to the great unwashed masses.

Well, you can argue that it's not to your liking to consider
it deceptive, but it IS deceptive and was clearly used as a
marketing trick instead of adhering to the conventions
already in place. Put simply, they did it because "800"
looks better than "200" without regard for standard
terminology... and hence the needless confusion as evidenced
by the very existence of this thread. Just because you
"understand" what they did, doesn't make it any less
deceptive in concept.
 >> Stay informed about: Will the real FSB please stand up?