Windows reports Wrong CPU Speed.

[BigBadger]

Oh, come on. I think it's rather obvious he is unaware that PCChips put
the processor on the board, since he said "AFAIK PC Chips do not sell
CPUs," and that he assumed it was the more 'traditional' situation where
the mobo manufacturer sells the board and someone ELSE, I.E. "the vendor
of the CPU," places the processor on it.

He's incorrect but that doesn't mean your 'interpretation' makes any
sense.

I guess that depends on how you define 'CPU Vendor'... ie. the original
Vendor AMD, or the re-seller which in this case is PC Chips but could be
anyone else in a 'conventional' build.

 

[Tony Hill]

That may be so, but AFAIK PC Chips do not sell CPUs. So if anyone is
defrauding customers in this particular case, it is the vendor of the
CPU, not PC Chips.

In this case it really IS PC Chips selling the processor, and that's
why I say that it's definitely them that is defrauding the customer.
They have repackaged an AMD AthlonXP 2000+ and sold it as an "AMD
Athlon 3100A+".

Note the important difference between how AMD markets their chips with
model numbers vs. what PC Chips is doing. AMD does not sell their
processors as an "Intel Pentium4 2000A+", they sell them as an "AMD
AthlonXP 2000+", quite different.

However PCChips here is selling their chip as an "AMD Athlon Pro". If
they had marketed the thing as a "PC Chips SuperDooperCPU Pro 3100A",
I wouldn't have cared so much, because then it would be obvious that
their processor is something quite different from what everyone else
is selling. However selling the chip as an AMD Athlon one would
expect it to be sold the same as other AMD Athlon products.


FWIW though, AMD is definitely not without fault in this deal as well.
You would *NEVER* see Intel allow this sort of nonsense; they would
fight VERY hard to protect their trademark. AMD, however, seems just
fine about letting PCChips stomp on their trademark while defrauding
customers, all the while continuing to sell chips to the company.
This sort of thing is not likely to be a good business plan for AMD in
the long wrong.

 

[Lo Salt]

In this case it really IS PC Chips selling the processor, and that's
why I say that it's definitely them that is defrauding the customer.
They have repackaged an AMD AthlonXP 2000+ and sold it as an "AMD
Athlon 3100A+".

Note the important difference between how AMD markets their chips with
model numbers vs. what PC Chips is doing. AMD does not sell their
processors as an "Intel Pentium4 2000A+", they sell them as an "AMD
AthlonXP 2000+", quite different.

However PCChips here is selling their chip as an "AMD Athlon Pro". If
they had marketed the thing as a "PC Chips SuperDooperCPU Pro 3100A",
I wouldn't have cared so much, because then it would be obvious that
their processor is something quite different from what everyone else
is selling. However selling the chip as an AMD Athlon one would
expect it to be sold the same as other AMD Athlon products.


FWIW though, AMD is definitely not without fault in this deal as well.
You would *NEVER* see Intel allow this sort of nonsense; they would
fight VERY hard to protect their trademark. AMD, however, seems just
fine about letting PCChips stomp on their trademark while defrauding
customers, all the while continuing to sell chips to the company.
This sort of thing is not likely to be a good business plan for AMD in
the long wrong.

I used to have a AMD 2200XP+ and this one I have now is alot faster then my
old CPU!

 

[kony]

I used to have a AMD 2200XP+ and this one I have now is alot faster then my
old CPU!

No, maybe the system as a whole seems (or even IS) faster at
particular tasks due to other component differences, but the
CPU itself is slower than the XP2200, and if you COULD swap
CPUs, the box would be even faster with the XP2200 in it.

 

[Wes Newell]

FWIW though, AMD is definitely not without fault in this deal as well.
You would *NEVER* see Intel allow this sort of nonsense; they would
fight VERY hard to protect their trademark. AMD, however, seems just
fine about letting PCChips stomp on their trademark while defrauding
customers, all the while continuing to sell chips to the company.
This sort of thing is not likely to be a good business plan for AMD in
the long wrong.

AMD has absolutely no control over this. And there's nothing legally wrong
with what PC Chips does. Deceptive I would agree with, but they do list
the CPU's used in their "Pro system" right on their web page. So if you
buy an AMD Pro 3100A+ MB thinking you're getting an AMD XP 3100+ cpu which
isn't even a real number, then you have nothing to blame but your own lack
of research into what you are buying.

 

[David Maynard]

And one can always find the facts. Copied form the pdf. I'll let whoever
wants to read it sort it out, but note the reference to the P4.

Of course there's a 'reference' to a P4. They want to tell you their
processor is better than the P4. and they'd be doing that regardless of
numbering systems or anything else.

Page 2 AMD Athlon" XP Processor June 4, 2002 Benchmarking and Model
Numbering Methodology Performance and Frequency With the advent of the AMD
Athlon" processor and the Intel Pentium® 4 processor, the design
architectures of these two companies fundamentally diverged. This design
divergence has resulted in a difference in work done per clock cycle.
Thus, microprocessors operating at identical frequencies may offer
dramatically different levels of performance. Consequently, frequency is
no longer the most meaningful metric for judging relative microprocessor
performance. Today s end users need a better approach W H I T E P A P ER
for comparing relative processor performance. This new approach must
recognize that end users: " Care about the performance of the applications
that they use and care less about the results of synthetic tests "
Typically use a variety of application software " Care about the
performance of the system that they purchase " Need the ability to easily
and simply conduct comparative shopping AMD is driving the True
Performance Initiative (TPI) a strategic initiative with industry leaders
and consumer advocates to develop a reliable processor performance metric
that PC users can trust.

And then there's the tables that compare it to the P4 and even a list of
the P4 hardware used in the comparative systems. The only conclusing on
can come to is that the PR is for comparison to the P4.

It may be the conclusion you come to from mistaking typical marketing
babble where they show their processor is better than the P4, but just what
would you expect anyway?

What you're missing is how they came UP with the rating numbers.

Go find where they give the benchmark suite used to derive the rating, the
explanation of how they picked those particular benchmarks, and how they
turn the benchmarks into a 'rating'.

That, btw, is the 'reliable metric' babble they refer to.

<snip of more marketing babble>

 

[David Maynard]

I guess that depends on how you define 'CPU Vendor'... ie. the original
Vendor AMD, or the re-seller which in this case is PC Chips but could be
anyone else in a 'conventional' build.

Actually, no, it doesn't 'depend' because he presumed PCChips doesn't sell
processors, so it must be 'someone else'. Which was the whole point of what
he said and that you missed since you opined he was blaming AMD for what
PCChips did (but he said PCChips wasn't doing it).

He's incorrect, however.

 

[David Maynard]

AMD has absolutely no control over this.

They certainly have some actions they could take: trademark
infringement/violation suit for one.

And there's nothing legally wrong
with what PC Chips does.

That's debatable and probably dependent on the country where the suit is filed.

Deceptive I would agree with, but they do list
the CPU's used in their "Pro system" right on their web page.

Well, they list FSB and clock speed. That's not quite listing 'the CPU'.

So if you
buy an AMD Pro 3100A+ MB thinking you're getting an AMD XP 3100+ cpu which
isn't even a real number, then you have nothing to blame but your own lack
of research into what you are buying.

No offense, but that's what perpetrators of fraud always say in defense:
that if you had tried hard enough you *could* have figured it out.

It prima facie obvious they *intend* for people to think it's something
it's not.

 

[~misfit~]

~misfit~ wrote:


Yeah? And why does everyone just automatically assume it's "certain
companies in the USA"? Looks to me like this is a PCChips 'exclusive'
in a long like of 'Pro' exclusives, like their "BX Pro" (also BXcel
and BXToo
and BXPert) that wasn't a BX chipset and the "TX Pro" and "TX Pro II"
that weren't TX chipsets, not to mention the infamous "PC100 Pro"
that didn't support a 100Mhz FSB. "Pro" seems to be the PCChips code
word for "we're lying."

Just for the record, PCChips is not a 'U.S. company'.

http://www.7bytes.com/sys1s.cgi?035+BBAM102

Those people may be selling it but they warn you about it too.

Ok, ok. Sit yourself down David, have a Valium. I only said "certain
company's in the US" because that's the only country I've ever heard of this
happening in. Tiger Direct ring a bell? I talk hardware with Aussie's and
people from the UK, from here in NZ as well as from the states and I've
heard of this "AMD Pro" thing *only* from the USA. And I've 'heard' people
complaining about it several times, all Americans.

Because it's 'their name' for whatever it is, or so they might argue.
Just
as AMD calls a 1.67GHz processor an "XP 2000+." How do THEY 'get away
with it'?

Speaking of it isn't what it says it is, maybe Dan Rather and CBS
should
try calling them the "National Guard 'Pro'" documents.

Ok, lost me there. The whole world doesn't know what's going on in the
states. You want another Valium?

Take it easy David,

 

[~misfit~]

Yes, they do. AMD Duron, AMD Athlon (PCChips description), and VIA C3
soldered onto the motherboard.


http://www.pcchipsusa.com/prod-m789cluv12.asp

· VIA C3 Samual 2 1500+(800MHz/133) processor onboard at 133MHz FSB


http://www.pcchipsusa.com/prod-m825gv92c.asp

On-Board CPU CPU Speed FSB
AMD Athlon™/PRO 2700A+ 1333MHz 133 MHz FSB
AMD Duron™/PRO 2200+ 1200MHz 100 MHz FSB
AMD Duron™/PRO 2800+ 1600MHz 133 MHz FSB

http://www.pcchipsusa.com/prod-m825luv72c.asp

On-Board CPU CPU Speed FSB
AMD Athlon™/PRO 2100A+ 1100MHz 133 MHz FSB
AMD Athlon™ /PRO 2700A+ 1333MHz 133 MHz FSB
AMD Athlon™/PRO 3000A+ 1700MHz 133 MHz FSB
AMD Athlon™/PRO 3100A+ 2000MHz 133 MHz FSB
AMD Duron™/PRO 2100+ 1100MHz 100 MHz FSB

http://www.pcchipsusa.com/prod-m863gv15c.asp

On-Board CPU CPU Speed FSB
AMD Athlon™/PRO 3000A+ 1800MHz 133 MHz FSB

How they arrive at those 'Pro' ratings is a mystery.


Think again.

You may be right when you said to me in your rather blunt reply that PCChips
isn't an american company but just look at those URLs David. Who are they
selling to and where?

 

[~misfit~]

Actually, no, it doesn't 'depend' because he presumed PCChips doesn't
sell processors, so it must be 'someone else'. Which was the whole
point of what he said and that you missed since you opined he was
blaming AMD for what PCChips did (but he said PCChips wasn't doing
it).

And be factual, it isn't PCChips, It's PCChips-usa.

 

[BigBadger]

Actually, no, it doesn't 'depend' because he presumed PCChips doesn't sell
processors, so it must be 'someone else'. Which was the whole point of
what he said and that you missed since you opined he was blaming AMD for
what PCChips did (but he said PCChips wasn't doing it).

He's incorrect, however.

Well at least we both agree he is incorrect. Coming to an agreement with you
on anything is quite an achievement so I'll leave it at that.

 

[David Maynard]

Ok, ok. Sit yourself down David, have a Valium. I only said "certain
company's in the US" because that's the only country I've ever heard of this
happening in. Tiger Direct ring a bell? I talk hardware with Aussie's and
people from the UK, from here in NZ as well as from the states and I've
heard of this "AMD Pro" thing *only* from the USA. And I've 'heard' people
complaining about it several times, all Americans.

Tell your UK buddies to take a gander here.

http://www.byronsystems.co.uk/dynamic/eshop_products.set/ref/434/display2.html

Netherlands?

http://www.speurders.nl/computersha...n/1771387/amd_pro_3200_.2.1.0.1.441.3360.html

Canada?

http://www.etccomputer.ca/eShop/default.asp?systemid=21

France?

http://www.pearl.fr/article-PC2041.html

Ok, lost me there. The whole world doesn't know what's going on in the
states. You want another Valium?

You're missing a hoot of a story then. CBS decided to break a 'big story'
about George Bush's 30 year old National Guard duty (don't ask who cares)
and all indications are the documents they put up as 'evidence' were faked.

The excuses they're using run the entire gamut of loony; my favorite being
that the experts who told them they were no good and to not use them didn't
protest loud enough.

So far, every expert on the planet has indicated they're fake, except for a
fellah who was a typewriter salesman 30 years ago that CBS seems to really
love, and the people supposedly quoted in the documents have disavowed
them, and the quotes.

But CBS "stands by the story."

Must be a 'Captain goes down with the ship' sort of thing cause it's
sinking like a rock tied to lead weights.

Take it easy David,

Those two paragraphs are not mine.

 

[David Maynard]

You may be right when you said to me in your rather blunt reply that PCChips
isn't an american company but just look at those URLs David. Who are they
selling to and where?

For Pete's sake. Just because *I* went to the USA site to get the data
doesn't mean diddle doodle.

 

[David Maynard]

And be factual, it isn't PCChips, It's PCChips-usa.

I was factual: it's PCChips.

PCChips 'usa' doesn't make ANY thing.

From the 'intro'

"PCCHIPS has sales outlets in North America, European countries, and China...
The production facility based in China is one of the world's largest
motherboard manufacturing factory."

The only thing in the US is a bleeding warehouse. Well, 'sales and service
facilities'.

 

[David Maynard]

Well at least we both agree he is incorrect. Coming to an agreement with you
on anything is quite an achievement so I'll leave it at that.

Hehe. Ok.

 

[kony]

Tell your UK buddies to take a gander here.

http://www.byronsystems.co.uk/dynamic/eshop_products.set/ref/434/display2.html

Netherlands?

http://www.speurders.nl/computersha...n/1771387/amd_pro_3200_.2.1.0.1.441.3360.html

Canada?

http://www.etccomputer.ca/eShop/default.asp?systemid=21

France?

http://www.pearl.fr/article-PC2041.html

Who knows where all the PCCHip et al factories are?

Probably made in China, named there too. Doesn't really
matter where they're sold except the legalities of the
practice at destination, though with the CPU integrated
perhaps they have more latitude on what they call it...
still it's their decision to name 'em such that it will
deceive a few uneducated buyers, when there was already an
industry standard name for the CPU... just another example
of why to avoid PCChips, IMO.

 

[David Maynard]

Who knows where all the PCCHip et al factories are?

China. At least that's what *they* say on the web site.

I listed those sites only because misfit didn't know of any other place
they're sold but the U.S..

Probably made in China, named there too. Doesn't really
matter where they're sold except the legalities of the
practice at destination, though with the CPU integrated
perhaps they have more latitude on what they call it...
still it's their decision to name 'em such that it will
deceive a few uneducated buyers, when there was already an
industry standard name for the CPU... just another example
of why to avoid PCChips, IMO.

Yeah. As I said in another post, on the surface it seems obvious that they
intend to deceive people. Why else call the processor something other than
what it is already known by?

 

[~misfit~]

Tell your UK buddies to take a gander here.

http://www.byronsystems.co.uk/dynamic/eshop_products.set/ref/434/display2.ht
ml
http://www.speurders.nl/computershardware/completepcsamdduronenathlon/177138
7/amd_pro_3200_.2.1.0.1.441.3360.html

Canada?

http://www.etccomputer.ca/eShop/default.asp?systemid=21

France?

http://www.pearl.fr/article-PC2041.html

I see all of the sites. except the Canadian one, state either what AMD XP
rating it is or the speed in Mhz.

You're missing a hoot of a story then. CBS decided to break a 'big
story' about George Bush's 30 year old National Guard duty (don't ask
who cares) and all indications are the documents they put up as
'evidence' were faked.

The excuses they're using run the entire gamut of loony; my favorite
being that the experts who told them they were no good and to not use
them didn't protest loud enough.

So far, every expert on the planet has indicated they're fake, except
for a fellah who was a typewriter salesman 30 years ago that CBS
seems to really love, and the people supposedly quoted in the
documents have disavowed them, and the quotes.

But CBS "stands by the story."

Must be a 'Captain goes down with the ship' sort of thing cause it's
sinking like a rock tied to lead weights.

Sounds very American-in-an-election-frenzy. Sounds like CBS got really
sucked in.

 

[ECM]

When I was in the second grade I was taught that 177 * 2 was very
close to 354 You have a naughty keyboard.

Yup, thet durn "new maths" thang gits me evr' time.... LOL sorry.
166MHz is correct.

I also incorrectly stated an AthlonXP 3000+ 400MHz FSB runs at
2.2GHz.... it's actually 2.1GHz. Which I should have known, since I
just built a system 2 months ago with one.... That's what I get for
cruising the groups at work - I'm in a hurry.

Thanks for the (very polite, I might add) correction!
ECM