Intel "insults INQUIRER readers' intelligence"

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

AMD_Man

Splendid
Jul 3, 2001
7,376
2
25,780
No flame bait here. Just something extremely laughable. I can't believe the Inquirer and Intel are fighting over temperature vs. MHz vs Performance. Ohh, this is silly:

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/24010221.htm" target="_new">http://www.theinquirer.net/24010221.htm</A>

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
 
The first guy flaming the inq. sounds a lot like AmdMeltdown--or at least like AmdMeltdown would if he were trying to sound smarter than he really is. :wink: Same flawed arguments, same lame catch phrases, and an overuse of the word "whom."

<i>If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?
 
Intel is really wrong about this one.
Preformance VS Heat is the ONLY way to compare which CPU is Cooler...

you dont care about Clock speed if its not able to give you the same preformnce you would get out of buying another type of CPU which Runs Cooler...

Moreover - ITS A real PATHETIC atempt by intel trying to avoid the PENALTIES of going the HIGH CLOCK SPEED (and high transistor count) INSTED OF HIGH IPC.

Intel PR department really seem to lack technical knowledge over this one...
 
The guy who wrote this is a retard, how he slips into the win2K problem at the end.

It has nothing to do with Intel, AMD or heat issues. its more of a rant from a lemming without a intrest worthy topic.

Why do people still read that crap? its like prono for AMD users, they get off on it.
 
"its like prono for AMD users,"

What's prono?

Sorry, I had to do it before Fatburger had the chance to.

<b>"The events of my life are quite inconsequential.." - Dr. Evil</b> :lol:
 
The guy who wrote this is a retard, how he slips into the win2K problem at the end.

It has nothing to do with Intel, AMD or heat issues. its more of a rant from a lemming without a intrest worthy topic.

Why do people still read that crap? its like prono for AMD users, they get off on it
Click to expand...
Exactly my point Fugger, the guys at Inquirer need to get a life!! However, it's always fun now and again to read some rumours off there. Not that I take any of it seriously, but they can't hurt, if you don't go bashing people with a rumour.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
 
That's just an excuse to justify AMD's PR rating. Fact is that a P4 1.4GHz runs cooler than an XP 1600+ (1.4GHz). AMD would be more honest to simply state the MHz and use the performance difference in their advertizing.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
No, I do it by helping people out. Actually, if you counted the PMs and emails as well, I'd probably have over 10k by now.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
 
You know, I couldn't care less about what they are actually discussing but simply the fact that Intel and the Inquirer are bashing each other is laughable.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
 
I'm just blowing off steam again about AMD's dishonest numbering policy.
It's like this...a 350 Chevy makes more power than a 351W Ford. But you don't see Chevrolet calling it a 400, they instead give you real horsepower numbers.
Or compair a Porche to a Chevy Lumina, same sized engine, the Porche makes about 3 times the power. But they don't lie about engine size either.
I go to buy a vacuum cleaner, it says 12HP. I'm thinking "what a crock of [-peep-], a 12HP electric motor cost about 10 times what this vacuum cost, and weighs about 20KG or more. So I look at the manual and it says "12 High Peformance, gives 12 times the performance of an ordinary vacuum) or something like that.

So then I see another one that says 5.5A, I'm thinking "Wow, I only have a 3.5A motor in my drill"! Read the manual and it says "give the cleaning performance of a 5.5A vacuum but using less power". Find out it's only a ~2 amp motor!
New slogen for AMD: "Bringing you the inflated numbers seen in the Vacuum Cleaner industry for YEARS".


What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
Well that analogy about engine size and cpu speed in mega/gigaherz is kind of flawed imho. Just as engine size gives an indication but doesn't tell the whole story about it's performance no longer does CPU clock cycles tell the whole story about how "fast" it is on particular applications.

I would think that CPU speed in megahertz or gigahertz would be comparable to the size of a car engine, while the performance of the cpu according to benchmarks would be comparable to the horsepower and torque that an engine produces.

So in your analogy, the Athlon XP would be the Chevy 350 and the P4 chip would be the ford 351. My reasons for that conclusion is that an Athlon XP running at a lower mhz speed can get scores on benchmarks that are competitive with the scores a P4 running a few hundred mhz faster produces.

Car makers have been giving numbers for engine displacement and horspower for quite a while. CPU makers have just given that megahertz of their products as a indicator of perfomance except for a couple of notable instances Cyrix's speed ratings for their chips a few years ago and AMD's PR ratings for their chips today. What I'm saying is that the PR rating could be seen as the horsepower rating for AMD's cpu.
I can see how you call AMD dishonest because there is no similar rating for an Intel chip. Intel just uses the higher ghz rating to make their products seem better to the average consumer. In my modification of your analogy Intel just give the Ghz(displacement) of their CPU's while AMD gives the the PR (horsepower) of their CPU's. AMD dosn't advertise the Ghz of their CPU's but they're easy enough to find out.

Now it's easier to compare horsepower and torque ratings for an indicator of an engine's performance that it is to compare several benchmarks for a CPU and say conclusively that it performs better than another CPU, unless it beats the other CPU in all the benchmarks.

And yes the fastest P4 is faster than the fastest Athlon XP right now, but using a car engine analogy it would be comparable to a 350 cubic inch engine making 375 horsepower and a 400 cubic inch engine making about 400 horsepower.

Before anyone call me an AMD zealot (I do like AMD admittedly) I'm probably going to buy an Intel based machine. I'm in the market for a destop replacement laptop and, well, the best mobile graphics chip isn't offered with an AMD chip. I'll just get one with a CPU from Intel.
 
Well that analogy about engine size and cpu speed in mega/gigaherz is kind of flawed imho. Just as engine size gives an indication but doesn't tell the whole story about it's performance no longer does CPU clock cycles tell the whole story about how "fast" it is on particular applications.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why it is NOT a flawed comparison! Two engines, same size, one makes more power than the other. Two processors, same speed, one performs more operations per cycle than the other. In both cases your measuring two variables, a certain quantity and work. Just because an engine produces more work doesn't give a company the right to lie about its size.
I like AMD's products, but think their marketing shenanagens will come back to bite them BIG time. Especially when you consider this: under there PR scheme, a processor gets 100 PR's for every 66MHz. At that scale, an XP1000+ would have REALLY been 1000MHz, but an XP2000+ is only 1666MHz. That means when the PR goes up 100%, the performance only goes up 66%! A 4000+ would only be 3000MHz!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
Especially when you consider this: under there PR scheme, a processor gets 100 PR's for every 66MHz. At that scale, an XP1000+ would have REALLY been 1000MHz, but an XP2000+ is only 1666MHz. That means when the PR goes up 100%, the performance only goes up 66%! A 4000+ would only be 3000MHz!
Click to expand...
You're extrapolating. We haven't seen any future products from AMD. We don't know their clock speeds, or processor efficiencies.

<A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/model_number_methodology_MP_v6.pdf" target="_new">AMD Athlon™ MP Processor
Benchmarking and Model
Numbering Methodology</A>
 
Actually, Hammer will likely have a higher IPC rating than Athlon does by 20-30%.

That's why it will have a PR of around 3400 when it debuts late this year (if AMD can keep to their currently advertised roadmap/schedule, and it will only be around a 2ghz processor.



When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
 
It is a flawed comparison simply by the nature in which cars are sold. Show me one car where the manufacturer doesn't flaunt horsepower figures around, especially on big blocks like your refering to. Now show one computer manufacturer who can tell you how many average IPCs the processor in teh case performs? People buy computers in a <b>completely</b> different way. Intel was the orininator of the dirty speed game when they maliciously designed their "Netburst" architecture. They knew the Athlon was a runaway train picking up speed that the P3 couldnt keep up with. So they figured out a way to make it look their trains were going faster without actually doing more work. People see 2 ghz P4(which probably has sdram) and think "Wow, I could brag to all my co-workers about this bad boy". Then they see the 1.6 ghz Athlon next to it and scoff at its lesser power. The PR ratings weren't intended for people like us. AMD is just trying to stay afloat in the dirty game Intel itself instantiated.

Hard work often pays off in time, but laziness always pays off now.
 
I'm trying to compare what they are doing NOW to speeds of past and future for better frame of reference. Obviously they will be changing their numbering system before they hit 3GHz.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
These engines are "small blocks" by V8 standards. While most cars DO advertise the engine size on the window sticker, they DO NOT usually list the horsepower on the window sticker itself.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
That's just an excuse to justify AMD's PR rating. Fact is that a P4 1.4GHz runs cooler than an XP 1600+ (1.4GHz). AMD would be more honest to simply state the MHz and use the performance difference in their advertizing.
Click to expand...
But a 1.4ghz athlon performs as fast as a 1.9ghz p4, you should compare performance/heat because as ray has said before, clock speed is only half of the processor equasion.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 
In both cases your measuring two variables, a certain quantity and work. Just because an engine produces more work doesn't give a company the right to lie about its size.
Click to expand...

Pr ratings are not intended to be mhz ratings.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 
Processor Performance = (Work Per Clock Cycle) x (Clock Speed)

I believe the PR rating is an attempt to level the playing field <b>when comparing Athlon processor performance with Intel P4 processors</b>. Doesn't take as many Athlon MHz to gain the same P4 performance increment. Model numbers for Athlon products can't be used to predict relative performance increments/decrements against itself.
 
Model numbers for Athlon products can't be extrapolated to predict relative performance increments/decrements against itself.
Click to expand...

Actually amd says themselves thats exactly what they are for, and they are a comparision to the tbird.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 
But a 351-c eats chevy 350's for lunch :).

AMD is no more ( or less for that matter) guilty of playing the marketing game with us then Intel. Kinda like them 600 watt PMPO speakers you can buy for 10 bucks ( come on gimmee a break). A one gig p4 ( williamete) would perform significantly less then a one gig p3. Does this make Intel guilty as well?

Fact of the matter is, we need a standard to which we can apply a rating and then force to have all CPU manufactorers use for marketing purposes. The government has done this in the past here in the states on other products, its time may be near for the CPU market if the major players cannot agree on a standard to apply.

Do I like AMD's pr rating scheme? No I don't. But I equally dislike Intel's hollow hertz rating as well. Kinda reminds me of a car engine capable of extremly high RPM's but stuck in second gear.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
 
Hey, the Cadilac 500 only made something like 300HP, yet it was still a 500 (then again, it made over 500ft/lbs of torque). Intel is only guilty of making a processor that underperforms. VIA even does that with the CyrixIII.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom