Intel disagrees with AMD's PR Rating

Kelledin · Mar 4, 2002

AMD did that with the introduction of the Athlon in Slot A format. It gained them more market share than they could handle--if you recall, they sold out of Athlons much more quickly than they expected at the time. That's why they're not doing commercials anymore.

The PR rating cost AMD some market share, but increased their average selling price. That probably suits them just fine, as they can keep about the same profit levels, and the decreased demand frees up more of their resources to work on future products.

As for the honesty of the PR rating, it's about as honest as Intel suggesting that MHz is all there is to performance. Plus, most of the benchmarks we've seen suggest that Intel's specific claim here is BS. The AthlonXP 2000+ generally meets or exceeds the performance of a Northwood 2GHz.

If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?

AMD_Man · Mar 4, 2002

Notice how Intel choses to look at only the apps where it beats the AXP? lol. There is a huge number of apps where the opposite is true. Ahh....if you ask me, I'm getting tired of all these half-truths that are coming from both AMD, Intel, ATI and nVidia. These are currently the big four in the PC market and they're all standing on the thin line between lying and stretching the truth.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

rickd59 · Mar 4, 2002

I don't think that either company is lying or fraudulent....IMHO, Intel was just putting forth (some of, but not all) the latest benchmarks in which their Northwood can best a rival CPU. If you were selling a Mercedes, you wouldn't start off by saying "It's great, even though the Corvette is faster and costs $40,000 less....". You market to your strengths and let the consumer find out your weaknesses. Intel's strength is it's name. People trust the name and really take comfort seeing "Intel Inside". Aside from many of your personal skepticisms (is that a word?), the majority of people, myself included still have a small degree of fear that AMD may have trouble running out of the ordinary apps (many still believe Office and Windows will run better and more stably on an Intel CPU). I have talked to lots of people and read lots of bulleting boards, and have not been told once that AMD has problems with any applications, but it's still one of those irrational fears that I can't overcome. Since it's my $1000 that I'm spending, stupid and irrational fears, unfortunately come into play (much to the dismay of AMD). If that's not true, it's AMD's responsibility, not Intel's, to make it known to the public. 3 or 4 years ago, it was my impression that there were many apps which couldn't run well on AMD and Cyrix chips....I don't remember them saying "buy our chips even though lots of stuff can't run on them" or "get our chips for gaming even though no software makers support 3D-NOW". I'm sure those problems have been fixed (Cyrix can now guarantee it

), but AMD needs to do some infomercials (or something). If they aren't advertising because they don't have the production capacity to meet that kind of demand, then whose idiotic idea was it to make a better chip than the leading company in the industry, and then not be able to make enough of them (and sell them tremendously cheaper than the competition)? Generally, in business, only the top dogs discount to put the squeeze on other businesses (Intel lowered their prices to compete), companies like DeBeers. I know the times are a little uncertain, but they missed the computer revolution of 2-3 years ago, and may never see it again.....if you want misleading companies to fess up, let's start with Dell's margins and claims about customer service. If you really look at either of Intel/AMD's claims ads objectively, it's not lying, they're just listing their strengths. BTW, I have an Intel, but was seriously considering an AMD this time....I just didn't yank the chain. I don't make a nickel from either company, so I don't consider myself pro- or con- for either.

-Rick

Matisaro · Mar 4, 2002

If the main reason you chose intel over amd was that you fear amd wont work with an app, you wasted your money IMO.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

rickd59 · Mar 4, 2002

That's your opinion, and I already stated that my fears are probably unfounded, The digging I did didn't turn over any negative dirt on AMD. The fact remains that me and 95% of the rest of the world still choose Intel over AMD. VHS beat beta, didn't it? Windows beats the daylight out of linux and unix in the consumer market (and linux is FREE). Which ever product is better may be quantifiable, but it doesn't mean that that company will sell more of them; right or wrong, it is what goes on in people's heads that sells stuff, and the strongest companies influence these notions the best....a la Coke vs. Pepsi. That stuff is just water, bubbles, sugar, and coloring, yet one dominates the market, and another up-and-comer (Mountain Dew), is now doing a tremendous job marketing their version of sugar water. I'm not defending either Matisaro, but I think people claiming that one of these companies is lying and fraudulent is ridiculous. Let's face it, every computer company (H/W or S/W) on the planet stole something from someone at sometime, and anyone that says they haven't is adding to their list of lies.

-RickEdited by rickd59 on 03/03/02 07:48 PM.

AMD_Man · Mar 4, 2002

The fact remains that me and 95% of the rest of the world still choose Intel over AMD.

No, that's not true. The last I heard, AMD had a market share in the computer industry of over 20%.

VHS beat beta, didn't it?

Correct me if I'm wrong but VHS and Beta were incompatible. AMD and Intel are both completely compatible with all available applications.

I'm not defending either Matisaro, but I think people claiming that one of these companies is lying and fraudulent is ridiculous. Let's face it, every computer company (H/W or S/W) on the planet stole something from someone at sometime, and anyone that says they haven't is adding to their list of lies.

Your words are so true!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

rcf84 · Mar 4, 2002

A 1.4ghz IBM Power4 can beat both the XP2000 and P4 2.0a !!!!

I wish i had $4,000 laying around till then im stuck with x86 processer :*) Well atleast they both but a cyrix ;*)

THGC, saving 1 pc user from buying a GeForce4 MX at a time.

spud · Mar 4, 2002

Ha ha what profits.
<A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/amd_ar2000.pdf" target="_new">Look at page 5 </A>

-Spuddy

Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man

rcf84 · Mar 4, 2002

amdMELTDOWN really needs to stop writing PDF's and sending them to the Inquirer.

THGC, saving 1 pc user from buying a GeForce4 MX at a time.

rickd59 · Mar 4, 2002

Yeah, I believe your number...I didn't mean for the 95% to be factual, since I have no idea what the breakdown really is....I simply meant to purport that it is heavily lopsided in Intel's favor.

-Rick

rickd59 · Mar 4, 2002

Oh yeah, and the other thing...VHS and Beta were totally incompatible, but competing standards. Beta was regarded as the better system, but lost out heavily in favor of VHS....the right companies jumped on board and marketed the crap out of it before Beta could become popular.

-Rick

Crashman · Mar 4, 2002

AMD is indeed intentionally confusing the customers. A 2000+ is only 66% faster than a PIII 1000. Forget the P4. Instead of confusing customers, AMD should have launched another add campaign explaining how their processors actually perform better than the P4. At least that would have been honest. Anyone who defends the PR rating as being honest is simply making excuses for the company they prefer. See "Machiavellian ethics".

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

spud · Mar 4, 2002

Finally someone sees it as it is

.

-Spuddy

Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man

ksoth · Mar 4, 2002

AMD doesn't have the funds that Intel does to launch a large scale ad campaign to educate people about the performance gap between P4's and Athlons. Using the PR ratings costs probably no more than displaying the true mHz of the chip, but does help to show that the AMD processor performs more equally as a higher clocked P4. 1800 mHz Pentium for or 1800+ Athlon XP to the layman looks the same, which they pretty much are, so it does its job. Sure, it's a little dishonest, but you are getting what you paid for performance wise compared to a P4.

"Trying is the first step towards failure."

dhlucke · Mar 4, 2002

Noticed something today and I'm not sure if it's something new...

There was an Intel commerical on the radio and their jingle and slogan went something like this: "performance where it counts".

There's a lot of ways to interpret the ad, but it really suprised me. Don't want to start a flame war, but it seemed weird for Intel to concede that their processor isn't the best anymore, but is merely tied if anything.

God Bless America!

zengeos · Mar 4, 2002

Was it Cyrix or another coimpany who in the mid 90's used a performance rating. It seems their processor clock speed was quite a bit higher than the pentium, but the actual performance wasn't as high. So they gave the processor a rating close to the actual Pentium's performance to be more equitable in performance relative to the industry standard processor.

Now, AMD is doing the opposite to indicate a more accurate performance. Nothing whatsoever dishonest about it at all. If anything, Intel is being dishonest by not being clear about the MUCH mower performance of their P4 compared to the P3.

They know that most of the less savvy people will look at the processor speed and buy based on that. So Intel is selling a lie. While consumers expect a performance improvement with the speed increase, they aren't really getting it.

But we've been through this circular argument time and again. Each side perceives the cup as half full or half empty and that's not going change so why belaborr it with circular discussion?

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!

scamtrOn · Mar 4, 2002

i'm going to kick my own asss if some one wont tell me WHAT THE FUCKK is going on.

a while back i remember i said that the PR rating is compared to the old P4 and i got flamed for it, but now you guys don't say a thing when it was mentioned!?!?!?!?!?

so what is it? P4 or Tbird? i remember i even mentioned that what i said was also what an AMD rep told me, but i still got flamed.

??????? HELP good people of THG. I'll see if i can find that post.

<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/scamtron2000/Lochel.html" target="_new"> go to my site </A>

Matisaro · Mar 4, 2002

It is based on the tbird, the link provided above proves it, specifically the quote I highlighted.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

scamtrOn · Mar 4, 2002

hold on for just a sec. firs i'm going to shoot me with a fake gun for not reading and then punch me in the face since i'm still confused.

<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/scamtron2000/Lochel.html" target="_new"> go to my site </A>

Matisaro · Mar 4, 2002

Desktop processors based on the "Palomino" core will be marketed as the AMD Athlon™ XP processor. As a way of communicating the performance improvements of the new AMD Athlon™ XP processor relative to the performance of the currently available AMD Athlon™ processor, AMD has developed a model numbering convention.

That says it all.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

Oni · Mar 4, 2002

The mistake AMD made was releasing processors at the speed of their already exhisting chips. They should have started with 1466 MHz and up and completely forgotten about a PR rating. Everyone knew that a 1400 Tbird spanked a 1400 Pentium 4. AMD seems to do very well with "word of mouth" advertising. Interesting information seems to spread pretty fast, so lots of people would start hearing "Oh my 1466 MHz Athlon XP delivers quite a nice spanking to 1400 MHz Thunderbird" and think twice before getting that Pentium 4.
To me the PR rating only seems to draw in the support from the big guns like Dell or Gateway. If AMD wants to get into these markets more they practically need the PR system, because most consumers unfortunately only look at the simplest numbers. Intel knew people looked almost completely at MHz so they developed a CPU with higher MHz. I'm sure they could have made a CPU with better instructions per clock and been right around the same MHz range as AMD. Its all in the marketing and all we can do is our own research and discover the better product. Unfortunately there are people that do almost no research and are more likely to make a mistake.

BTW I'm also pretty sure the PR rating is compared to the Thunderbird, I remember being suprised when it was NOT for comparing to Pentium 4. I also remember thinking that was a good idea because we all knew that the next "flavour" of pentium 4 was going to give a performance boost throwing the entire PR system out of whack.

"Why can't I be the man? I mean, I DO have harmony balls..." -epoth

Crashman · Mar 4, 2002

I would actually expect many corporations to use Machiavellian ethics, but get a little perturbed when people call such practices honest.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Crashman · Mar 4, 2002

Yes, it's dishonest, and yes, it does show performance equivalency to the P4. Machiavelli stated that you should lie when you must, and to make sure you have a good story to cover the lie. He also stated that the majority of people will believe the lie, and those that are smart enough to figure out the truth will be ridiculed by the majority to the point that they don't even bother trying.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

scamtrOn · Mar 4, 2002

did you pick your title or did fredi give it to you? thats a funny title man. Gigolo here Gigolo there Gigolo Gigolo Gigolo Gigolo, as you can see i have a song for it too.

<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/scamtron2000/Lochel.html" target="_new"> go to my site </A>

SammyBoy · Mar 4, 2002

Yeah, but Machiavelli isn't quite the demon he is made out to be. His other writings talk a lot about ethics and areas where the ends don't justify the means. But, business is a cutthroat world, and sometimes, if you want to play with the big guys, you have to be willing to step on toes and make yourself look better by hiding some things. It is up to the consumer to learn these things. I have yet to figure out why someone is willing to spend three thousand dollars on a system without researching the facts a little bit. That's a big purchase, and much like a car, a horrible investment. Not like it's hard to look things up, since everyone and their mother is connected to the internet now. AMD and Intel are both relying on the ignorance of consumers, Intel with inflated MHz/GHz, and AMD with an inflating PR. Both are dishonest, both are decieving, and both work equally well on stupid/uneducated people.

So, you can blame Intel for artificially increasing GHz to gain back lost market share, or AMD for not taking the "honest" approach of spending money for ad campains. But blame falls squarely on both companies shoulders. I couldn't care less, since it's keeping prices lower and innovations higher.

-SammyBoy

Intel disagrees with AMD's PR Rating

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Illustrious

Splendid

Illustrious

Splendid

Distinguished

Polypheme

Polypheme

Illustrious

Distinguished

Share this page