Careful to Mobile CPU buyers! false advertising!

**gospeed.racer** · 06-04-2004, 12:41 AM

I just bought a Ecs L7Vmm3 motherboard with an integrated AMD "3100a+" processor for a system build I was doing for a friend. So....after loading XP I find out it is a mobile 1900, which is only a 1.6. For some reason, they are calling a mobile 1900 a 3100A+ now. Supposedly the mobile can change it processing speed, so it can reach 3100, but it will always report as a 1900. Seems very misleading. I am not sure if this is AMD's idea of a joke, or ECS and all the other mobo manufacturers that use these integrated chips playing with numbers, but I dont find it very amusing. I could have bought a 2500 barton and seperate mobo, and a video card for only a few bucks more than this all in one.

So....what does everyone think of these Mobile processors? I feel bad after recommending this setup, I feel like I am the one that mislead my customer/friend and I really need to hear some positive stuff before I start emailing the companies and pitching a fit.

**Defiler** · 06-04-2004, 02:06 AM

What does it say on the CPU itself? I have a AMD XP-M 2000+ and it runs as it should.

<<Googleing>>

Oh. boy. Take a look at this and it will make you even more sick:

http://forums.amd.com/index.php?showtopic=7996

I guess it's the MB manufacturer that is BSing and putting false numbers. Sorry, man.

**Motoko** · 06-04-2004, 02:19 AM

I have a Mobile XP 1600+, but the bios reads it as 800Mhz? i dont know what to do, theres no options on the bios

**jjh221** · 06-04-2004, 02:26 AM

I wonder if the number is just like a chip/model number now. If it really means any thing? or does it have something to do with the bus thingy?

**Bodgy** · 06-04-2004, 02:28 AM

one of those threads the guy complained to the manufacturer and got an exchange so start pitching that fit...it could be worth it.

very misleading advertising but not false... they didn't say it was an xp or a duron, just a 3100+ which really means nothing without ghz behind it.

**Rob Withey** · 06-04-2004, 03:03 AM

AMD were numbering some of their later chips with an equivalent Intel bus speed. They clock lower but are meant to put out the same amount of work. I've always disliked AMD for playing second fiddle to Intel and misleading this way.

That and the extra power consumption and running hotter, and the inability of the thermal diode on the chip to slew at a rate fast enough to stop the processor burning if your heatsink drops off (cue famous Tom's hardware video).

**jjh221** · 06-04-2004, 03:11 AM

Im still happy with mine i dont mind ridding the short bus.

**Bravellir** · 06-04-2004, 03:41 AM

Originally Posted by Bodgy

one of those threads the guy complained to the manufacturer and got an exchange so start pitching that fit...it could be worth it.

very misleading advertising but not false... they didn't say it was an xp or a duron, just a 3100+ which really means nothing without ghz behind it.

yep, the 3100+ it's not about the processor, the board its model l7vmm3, the amd its a mobile 1900, but the bundle it's a 3100a+. Amd never had ****a+ chips. This is the board manufacturer (ECS and also pcchips) playing games with your minds.

i do onw two, my home teatre pc and my carpc are buid around the ecs 2500a+, and can´t complain about them. In fact i'm a little suprised, since my inverter it's shuting down because of high temperatures and the pc it's running happily.

even if still god value for money, i did get ****ed off when i found the truth behind the a+ thing and if i just could have a few minutes alone with the markting guy from ecs

Brave

**cdm** · 06-04-2004, 04:02 AM

AMD has been getting away with their backyard CPU misrepresentation for way too long. So keep buying them.

**Defiler** · 06-04-2004, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by cdm

AMD has been getting away with their backyard CPU misrepresentation for way too long. So keep buying them.

How do you feel they are misrepresenting their CPUs? The only ones that really were stretching the possiblity of not be on par with the Mhz equivalent of an Intel were in the 3000+ to 3400+ range of 32 bit CPUs. I think they would missrepresent more if they acctually labeled them with the acctual Mhz speed. I thought it was a well known thing they labeled their CPUs differently.