Intel "insults INQUIRER readers' intelligence"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Model numbers for Athlon products can't be used to predict relative performance increments/decrements against itself.
Click to expand...
Well, I would certainly hope the PIII 1000EB could perform twice as many operations per second as the PIII 500E. So let's change the rules for AMD so that they can sell a processor at a MHz it isn't instead of selling it as a more efficient processor.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
It is very dishonest to rate a 1.4GHz processor against a 1.9GHz processor, or even a 1.6GHz processor, and call it a match. I can't put a V6 radiator before a V8 even if the V6 makes the same power.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
Crash, megahertz DOES NOT MATTER!

It is one facet of a processors performance, IPC is the other, rating processors equally by PERFORMANCE, is the only way one can get a good comparison. If the p4@1.4ghz uses less power than an axp at 1.4ghz thats all well and good, EXCEPT, the axp is SIGNIFIGANTLY more powerful than the p4 at those speeds, and that makes the comparision in the matter of powerusage pointless at the same mhz rating. Performance of a processor is the only validly comparable feature, anything else neglects to take account of the processors design etc.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 
It is not dishonest, they designed a rating system, and they stick to it, and even if they meant it to be used versus the p4, they are very conservative in their assesment, I find no faults with the pr system.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 
Yes it is. AMD does this so that the uneducated consumer will see XP2000+ and think they are buying a 2000MHz system.
Click to expand...

And if the system they buy out performs the ONLY real 2000mhz system there is, who gives a rats ass about it?



"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 
It is very dishonest to rate a 1.4GHz processor against a 1.9GHz processor, or even a 1.6GHz processor, and call it a match.
Click to expand...
Why is it dishonest? If they perform the same, then what difference does it make how many MHz they have? Why don't we throw the IPC into the rating to make it more fair? It's just as unfair to compare only MHz without taking the IPC into consideration.

<i>There are two theories on arguing with women. Neither one works.</i>
 
Ok, PR rating is relative to the TBird.

Wouldn't doubling the processor frequency of the Athlon XP double its performance? I would think so!

I believe there is a fallacy in the following statement:

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...
The PR rating for the Athlon XP has no meaning unless you are comparing the Athlon XP with the TBird.
 
The PR rating for the Athlon XP has no meaning unless you are comparing the Athlon XP with the TBird.
Click to expand...

Yes, thats exactly right, 1 palomino mhz is worth more than 1 tbird mhz, and the 66 palominomhz may be worth 100 tbird mhz's. I am sure that there is a slight off ness of the pr rating, and I am equallysure that amd will recorrect every few chip releases or so.(ie giving 100mhz for a pr 100 rating to reset the balance).

Remember performance is not just a chip alone, and a chips performance must be in a system to be measured, systems vary which can alter performance even amongst the same chips, having said that, I feel AMD did the best job possible to ensure the pr rating is fair and accurate, and any issues which may creep into them I believe they will repair and iron out.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 
The PR rating for the Athlon XP has no meaning unless you are comparing the Athlon XP with the TBird.
Click to expand...
The PR rating is useless for the technically oriented. It is obviously a method to trick unknowledgeable consumers into thinking the XP chips have a higher mhz .

<i>Hi I am from Canada, I don't use amd cause they melt my igloo eh.</i>
 
Heat for a processor is a matter of speed and distance. The faster a processor clocks at, the hotter it gets. This has no bearing on the poor performance of the P4, performance is a separate issue.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
There is a certain issue you should look into concerning integrity. People who buy Cadilacs aren't looking for porche speed. That's like taking 200lbs off the weight of that Porche and then advertizing it as having more horsepower, then explaining "but with the weight reduction if PERFORMS like it has more horsepower".

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
You seem to think it's OK to deceive people simply because they don't know any better. That's OK, what goes around comes around, eventually you'll get screwed buying something you don't know to much about.

"You said it was a Pecan pie".
It is a pecan pie sir.
"But it says on the wrapper that the nuts are half pecans and half peanuts".
That's true sir, but these new biopeanuts taste like Pecans, only with more flavor.
"But I'm alergic to peanuts"!
I'm sorry sir, please talk to your distributor.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
Integrity? The pr ratings are accurate, fair and unbiased. AMD does not hide its true mhz and makes a damn fair case as to why pr ratings are neccicary. I see no loss of integrity in their offerings or pr system.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 
MHz DOES matter if that's what you're using as a frame of reference. If they want to do it differently they could use GigaFlops or something instead of perpetrating a deception against their customers.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
"... The PR rating is useless for the technically oriented. It is obviously a method to trick unknowledgeable consumers into thinking the XP chips have a higher mhz ...."

I was merely explaining a fallacy of using the PR number when not comparing the performance of the Athlon XP with the performance baseline of the Thunderbird. All you did was interject a political statement to slam AMD. Didn't really add anything new to the discussion.
 
They are NOT decieving anyone, the mhz speed of the processors is NOT hidden. The performance rating is NOT tauted as mhz. I fail to see ANY deception in amds marketing.


As for your example, cpus cant kill you, and there is nothing performance wise different between an amd cpu at 1700+ and a p4@1.7ghz (except for the fact the amd system is STILL faster.)


I would see amds actions as wrong if either they
A: Overblew the numbers.
OR B:Hid the mhz rating of their processors from the public.


They do NEITHER.

The ignorant consumer has been brainwashed to treat mhz as a performance rating, when intel released a cpu which sacrifised IPC for higher mhz, AMD was forced to attamept to educate the consumer on the value of BOTH mhz AND IPC, their performance project website shows their goals. THe pr rating was devised for many reasons, one of which was to show the relative performance of the axp OVER A TBIRD!


There is nothing wrong with how they implemented the pr rating, or in the way it works that I can see.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 
HOW are they using mhz as a frame of reference for their pr ratings. They are comparing an axp to a tbird in mhz, NOT to a p4 in mhz. What you THINK they are doing is not an issue, what they STATE they are doing is the only thing you can attack realistically. Now if you want to argue against the pr system claiming that the pr rating is in comparison to the p4's mhz, you would be wrong, amd has said itself its not...whether they are lying or not is an OPPINION, and to debate an oppinion is pointless.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 
That's like taking 200lbs off the weight of that Porche and then advertizing it as having more horsepower, then explaining "but with the weight reduction if PERFORMS like it has more horsepower".
Click to expand...

And herein lies the cruxt of the debate, the pr system is NOT horespower, it is NOT mhz, and amd does NOT claim it is, and NEVER WILL.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 
Yes, but thats far from the point.
the comparison they did is Preformance VS Heat and thats the only resonable way to do it.

since if you want to by cooler CPU and your thinking a 1.7GHZ Pentium 4 and look for other CPUs to compare it to you wouldnt go with a 1.67GHZ Athlon Xp. you would compare it to a 1.4Ghz Athlon XP 1600 becouse an XP 1600 and a Pentium 4 1.7GHZ preforme alike - and preforemnce is the GUIDE LINE for any System since MHZ ALONE IS USLEES.

if Intel went the clock speed way and gave up high IPC
it should take the Penalties of higher clock speed and higher transistor counts and MORE HEAT in ORDER TO PREFORM ON PAR WITH OTHER PROCESSORS.

and it shoud stop bitch about it.
 
Your right, the PR system doesn't claim to be MHz, it simply dupes the uninformed public into thinking it is. It's a nonsense number based on whatever criteria AMD wants to apply at the time, just like those artificial "12HP" and "5.5A" ratings on vacuum cleaners.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
Crash, what we are saying, is that there is no point to compare processors mhz to mhz on ANYTHING, because it is pointless. So what if a 1.4ghz p4 is cooler than a 1.4ghz axp, a 100mhz p1 is cooler as well, its a pointless argument.

If you wish to compart heat or powerconsumption, the only meaningful measure would be on a per performance basis, because mhz and ipc are only 2 halves of the cpus power.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 
It isnt a nonsense number, it is the relative performace of an axp processor to a tbird, so an axp1600+ performs about the same as a tbird@1.6ghz would, this has been independantly verified.

Again, there is no dishonest thing about the pr ratings, sure some people think they are to confuse uneducated buyers so they dont get a p4 which LOOKS faster, but is not. And I ask, what is wrong with that, even if it were true, the CONSUMER wins, they get a better processor for cheaper. It is far from dishonest.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
 
HOW are they using mhz as a frame of reference for their pr ratings.
Click to expand...
You're flat out lying on this one to save your own arse and defend the industries lies. Damn hatred can make a person loose their logic. Look, imagine you're Joe Blow, an automotive mechinic. You and your brother the plumber go to Best Buy and see XP2000+ on a system. You automatically think "I'm getting a 2GHz system".
If you DON'T think this was the INTENT of AMD in the first place, you're either dilusional, lying to yourself, or extremely niave.

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