Intel's Dothan

darko21 · May 11, 2004

To begin with, Intel's model numbers are 3 digits long, AMD's FX series is 2 digits long,

Who cares it tells the uniformed consumer nothing unless comparing identical CPU’s.

Re: it's apples to oranges, there are no UNITS.

Yes that is exactly what I have been saying over and over and over. It would have been nice for the consumer if Intel had adopted a set of benchmarks to rate performance. So the consumer was not confused into making a bad choice.

If I told you my monitor was 40 wide, you might say "Wow, a 40" wide monitor?", and I'd say No, 40cm. Without units you have no system for basing anything, 3 digits, 2 digits,

At least try and say something useful I know this stuff can’t be over your head and you said I was dancing.

Re: there's no room for Intel to be "dishonest" there if the numbers don't mean anything.

Oh they will mean something cause the media will ask. But it will never tell a true story on performance.

Re: Your argument about Intel using higher numbers is like saying "Hey, it's unfair to call your bicycle a Mongoose, because mine's a Diamond Back, I know Mongoose eat snakes, but my bikes better than yours". The numbers simply don't relate to anything, they're names. If a Jaguar 120 went 120MPH, would a Chrysler 300 go 300? LOL.

At least try and say something useful I know this stuff can’t be over your head and you said I was dancing.

Re: It's the same story, Intel's now doing what AMD's been doing, for the same reasons.

NO how many times do I have to say this????????????
AMD tried for the last few years to implement an industry wide set of benchmark to rate performance over all. Intel refused. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS CRASH
???????? It was only after Intel refused that that they let the whole thing go. What’s the alternative MHz trying to figure out how to rate to a Prescott and p4c xenon and dothon biannas whatever.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

Crashman · May 11, 2004

LMAO, you can explain until you're blue in the face that the XP Rating system is based on a scientify formula averaging benchmarks, but those explainations are meaningless simply because they aren't true. The XP rating "formula" is based on nothing more than what AMD felt the number should be. You keep talking of the MHz myth, your logic fails. Bartons for example weren't rating using the same "system" as thoroughbreds, AMD added a new "system" when they came up with the bartons and combined those TWO "systems" into what you're calling a formula!

They adopted a new naming system because their "slower" processors were providing better performance.-Crashman

Both AMD and Intel. I keep telling you both companies are doing the same thing.

and you are WRONG amd went to a naming scheme cause Intel refused to adopt a proper benchmarking scheme. I thought I had explained this already why do you make me repeat it?

I thought I had explained this to you already, AMD didn't need Intel's permission to come up with their own model numbers, such as FX51, they didn't need Intel's colaboration to come up with a new performance based system, such as mFlops or IPS or whatever they would choose. Intel agreeing is irrelavent, AMD did come up with their own labeling system.

Funny how you twist things around. A couple of months ago Intel had the advanced new generation p4 and amd’s k8 was was 1990’s k7 technology. So funny how you phrase it now. But of course you would never see it that way.

No, you twist things around. You can go all the way back to the 2001 archives and see what I've told people, I always told them the PIII offered more clock-for-clock performance than the P4. The P-M has it's roots in the Pentium Pro, the A64 has it's roots in the Athlon, both use core logic from those old processors. I never claimed P4 superiority, you simply implied I did because you're dishonest with your implications and you think you can win arguments that way.

You mean like my grand parents? They gotta be better than that.

Funny how the guys in charge over here are basically clueless about these things, one says Sun's processors are always more powerfull than anything PC based, and doesn't differentiate, the other says "Sun, PC, and Mac, it's a matter of preference" and he doesn't differentiate either. Both rely on Sun exclusively for their servers and really don't care about what's inside as long as Sun say's it's fast. They support PC and Mac platforms and upgrade every 3 or 4 years when the money is given to them. They know that whatever they buy will be powerfull enough and rely on GATEWAY to provide them the best deal on X-quantity of systems.

AMD tried for the last few years to implement an industry wide set of benchmarck to rate performance over all. Intel refused. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS CRASH

Because Intel knew that Customers were aquanted only with MHz and did the best they could to provide more MHz regardless of performance.

Please don’t speak for me. For all we know AMD could have made a 5 giz cpu but preformed like a 500MHZ k6.

No, that would have required them to invest a lot of money in designing a new, suckier core. Intel has that kind of developement money, AMD doesn't. Remember when investors sued AMD for spending too much money on Athlon development?

Re: Reason 2 is they both know they can produce faster performing processors at slower clock rates.

Wrong again only Intel can do that. Because only Intel implemented a misleading design.

AMD XP3200+:2.2GHz, A64 3200+:2.0GHz. Looks like I'm almost always right, and that misleading designs have nothing to do with my statment. In fact, the A64 3200+ is not only clocked slower than the XP3200+, but it also performs better in 32-bit mode than the XP3200+!

Oh, and once again, just to burn this into your memory, AMD could have come up with any standard benchmark system they wanted, they didn't need Intel's collaboration. Intel's refusal doesn't matter, AMD picked their own model.

If you spilled a box of toothpicks on the floor, could I tell you how many there are?
No, but what does that matter, I got a free Motherboard!

Crashman · May 11, 2004

Whatever happens, I'll just be glad when I can cool a processor with 2x the power of my overclocked 2.6C without the need of additional cooling!

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

darko21 · May 11, 2004

Re: LMAO, you can explain until you're blue in the face that the XP Rating system is based on a scientify formula averaging benchmarks

Keep swallowing the prozac. Even that is far supeior to a pick a number from a hat system. Remember intel refusesed a benchmark system.

Re: but those explainations are meaningless simply because they aren't true.

what-ever! based on somthing like 14 benchmarks in 3 different fields of personal computing but ok prozac boy meaningless.

Re: The XP rating "formula" is based on nothing more than what AMD felt the number should be.

Yup they picked the benchies but but why not intel sure did not want to play that game.

Re: You keep talking of the MHz myth, your logic fails.

MHz is a myth!!!!! so pop another prozac and keep on laughing.

Re: Bartons for example weren't rating using the same "system" as thoroughbreds, AMD added a new "system" when they came up with the bartons and combined those TWO "systems" into what you're calling a formula!

This is getting wierd. I have fully explained this to you in previous threads. You could not win your bash amd arguments then why re bring it up now? looks like you have a serious problem with amd fudging numbers calling them liars ther is no end to it. It's twisted and personal with you.

Re: Both AMD and Intel. I keep telling you both companies are doing the same thing.

and as I am saying for the what? 100th time.... Its only because intel refused to adopt an industry wide initative benchmarking cpu's. For the 100th time why do you think that is crash or do you just pick the easy questions to answer and mislead. Maybe you should work for intel?

Re: I thought I had explained this to you already

Good one that prozac must be kicking in good. Just how do you come up with these one liners?

Re: AMD didn't need Intel's permission to come up with their own model numbers, such as FX51, they didn't need Intel's colaboration to come up with a new performance based system, such as mFlops or IPS or whatever they would choose. Intel agreeing is irrelavent, AMD did come up with their own labeling system.

Pop another pill no one has ever said amd needed intels permission to come up with a model number. Please feel free to re-read the last few posts. But there is no point in a model or benchmark system unless everyone is on the same page. AMD pushed an industy wide initiative but intel refused. Why do you think that is crash?

Re: No, you twist things around. You can go all the way back to the 2001 archives and see what I've told people, I always told them the PIII offered more clock-for-clock performance than the P4. The P-M has it's roots in the Pentium Pro, the A64 has it's roots in the Athlon, both use core logic from those old processors. I never claimed P4 superiority, you simply implied I did because you're dishonest with your implications and you think you can win arguments that way.

I don't twist things around it's what you said only a couple of months ago. No one is arguing what you just said above. but how does that compare to (((((Intel has the advanced new generation p4 and amd’s k8 was was 1990’s k7 technology)))))??

Re: you simply implied I did because you're dishonest with your implications

I'm dishonest? Did I not rip you a new one over you calling me a liar? Based on ABSOLUTLY nothing. and now crash once again can't stand the heat so I'm dishonest? Based on what you spinless coward?

Re: Funny how the guys in charge over here are basically clueless about these things, one says Sun's processors are always more powerfull than anything PC based, and doesn't differentiate, the other says "Sun, PC, and Mac, it's a matter of preference" and he doesn't differentiate either. Both rely on Sun exclusively for their servers and really don't care about what's inside as long as Sun say's it's fast. They support PC and Mac platforms and upgrade every 3 or 4 years when the money is given to them. They know that whatever they buy will be powerfull enough and rely on GATEWAY to provide them the best deal on X-quantity of systems.

Thats why we need an industry wide set of benchmarks to show what is what. Too bad intel refused this. Why do you think that is crash?

Re: Because Intel knew that Customers were aquanted only with MHz and did the best they could to provide more MHz regardless of performance.

So you are calling me dishonest and intel only thinking of the consumer with the high MHz low IPC rip off cpu's like the celeron.

Re: No, that would have required them to invest a lot of money in designing a new, suckier core. Intel has that kind of developement money, AMD doesn't. Remember when investors sued AMD for spending too much money on Athlon development?

Yes lots of money to do nothing but mislead. Thank god amd don't have that kind of money to burn. Oh well as much money as intel put into this misleading design it has now back fired and I say they made their bed so lye in it.

Re: AMD XP3200+:2.2GHz, A64 3200+:2.0GHz. Looks like I'm almost always right, and that misleading designs have nothing to do with my statment. In fact, the A64 3200+ is not only clocked slower than the XP3200+, but it also performs better in 32-bit mode than the XP3200+!

I know you know the answer to that. Sad that you are so weak as to bring that up again. Pathetic really! I am not going to repost it but I'll show a link where the answer you can't grasp has been fully explained to YOU!. Just because the average reader don't understand this, I know full well I have explained it all to you. Would you like me to show one the links where this was explained to you crash?

Re: Oh, and once again, just to burn this into your memory, AMD could have come up with any standard benchmark system they wanted, they didn't need Intel's collaboration. Intel's refusal doesn't matter, AMD picked their own model.

Its only because intel refused to adopt an industry wide initative benchmarking cpu's. For the 100th time why do you think that is crash? or do you just pick the easy questions to answer and mislead. Maybe you should work for intel?

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

P4Man · May 11, 2004

> The XP rating "formula" is based on nothing more than what
>AMD felt the number should be. You keep talking of the MHz
>myth, your logic fails. Bartons for example weren't rating
>using the same "system" as thoroughbreds, AMD added a new
>"system" when they came up with the bartons and combined
>those TWO "systems" into what you're calling a formula!

This is not quite true either. you make it sound as if AMD pulls the numbers out of their arse, which they don't. At least for the Athlon XP line, they used a consistent benchmarking set which can be found <A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/SellAMDProducts/0,,30_177_3472_1353^3841^9078^3750,00.html" target="_new">here</A>. its the exact same set of benchmarks they used to rate their first 1500+ XP cpu's in 2001. Using those benchmarks, the PR rating is representative of the performance of all those different XP cores, wether it is Palomino, Tbred, Barton,..

This approach does not let you conclude a 3200+ is exactly 2x as fast as a 1600+; nor that a 3000+ is faster than a 3 GHz P4, nor that a 2800+ is twice as fast as 1400 tbird, but it does tell you a 2800+ is faster on those apps than a 2700+, which is faster than a 2600+ regardless of architectural difference (fsb speed, cache, clockspeed,..).

Now you can bitch and moan that the selection of benchmarks is not representative, outdated but it has been consistent which is more important IMHO, You could argue that the numbers are chosen to be comparable to P4 speeds, while they are clearly not always, and you'd get the eternal discussion; but what you can't claim is these numbers are meaningless, because they are not: they are completely accurate in comparing relative performance of all different kinds of XP processors running those selected benchmarks. And as such, I think they did a good job of helping customers.

>Both AMD and Intel. I keep telling you both companies are
>doing the same thing

Have to agree here. Only that I think AMD's system is easier to grasp, and doesnt have nearly as many numbers as Intel. intels product numbering scheme really makes my head hurt.Without looking it up, do you know how a 733 compares to a 735 or what chip it is in the first place ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Crashman · May 11, 2004

You're going to love this one then. You're lying about what I said. That's right, the same old complaint. I don't even have to go into your giberish about 18+ benchmarks or whatever, I said "The XP rating "formula" is based on nothing more than what AMD felt the number should be. You keep talking of the MHz myth, your logic fails."

In other words I said the XP rating system is based on a myth if it's based on the P4, and now you're arguing that the XP rating isn't a myth but P4 MHz is. So it sounds to me like it's a MYTH when you want it to be, but NOT A MYTH when AMD tries to approximate those numbers. And you imply that I'm giving that myth validity, proving your dishonesty once and for all. Let's go through this long, lame post and see what kind of false hope you can drag from that sewer you call a pool of knowledge:

based on somthing like 14 benchmarks in 3 different fields of personal computing

Prove it.

Yup they picked the benchies but but why not intel sure did not want to play that game.

What benchmarks is AMD using?

MHz is a myth!!!!! so pop another prozac and keep on laughing.

I never said otherwise, though you implied I did. MHz actually is real, performance based purely on MHz is a myth, but you claim I'm saying the opposite because you like to creat falsehoods by distorting what others say. A "white lie" perhaps? Not comming from your black heart!

You could not win your bash amd arguments then why re bring it up now? looks like you have a serious problem with amd fudging numbers calling them liars ther is no end to it. It's twisted and personal with you.

No, your dishonesty is personal with me, AMD's claim that the XP rating system is based on the performance per clock speed of the Thunderbird doesn't bother me, even if it is a lie.

Maybe you should work for intel?

Only if they offer me a job before AMD does.

Just how do you come up with these one liners?

When you say something truely stupid I use your own words against you. I thought you were smart enough to figure that out.

no one has ever said amd needed intels permission to come up with a model number.

Gee, my mistake? I thought you said AMD couldn't come up with a performance rating scheme not based on MHz, simply because Intel wouldn't agree to it. I'll have to REREAD what you said!

and you are WRONG amd went to a naming scheme cause Intel refused to adopt a proper benchmarking scheme

Hey, you did say that!

how does that compare to (((((Intel has the advanced new generation p4 and amd’s k8 was was 1990’s k7 technology)))))??

Not my exact words, the P4 isn't that advanced and the PIII has always performed better, clock for clock. But yes, the P4 was completely new, the P-M is based on the PIII, and the A64 is based on the original Athlon. And for that matter, the P3 was based on the Pentium Pro. Why would any of that hurt your feelings?

so I'm dishonest? Based on what you spinless coward?

If I was afraid of you, I wouldn't be here, LOL. If you want a bases for what I've said, read the rest of the post!

So you are calling me dishonest and intel only thinking of the consumer with the high MHz low IPC rip off cpu's like the celeron.

I never said Intel was honest, you're putting words in my mouth...hey, isn't that a form of lying? Hehehehe, I know you love me now!

Sad that you are so weak as to bring that up again. Pathetic really!

Wait, I said they both know they can produce faster performing processors at slower clock rates, and you said "Wrong again only Intel can do that". I proved you wrong, both companies can do that.

I'll show a link where the answer you can't grasp has been fully explained to YOU!

Here's your <A HREF="http://www.newegg.com" target="_new">link</A> Sure enough, the XP3200+ is clocked higher than the better performing A64 3200+, just like I said it was! But wait, YOU'RE the one that said "Only Intel can do that"!

So once again it boils down to: Both companies are producing products that perform much better than MHz would imply, so both companies went to alternative naming schemes. AMD lead the way with their Opteron, and Intel did the same thing, using different aribitrary numbers.

Glad to do business with you, anything else you'd like to turn around, misquote, or put out of context?

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Crashman · May 11, 2004

[/quote]>Both AMD and Intel. I keep telling you both companies are
>doing the same thing

Have to agree here. Only that I think AMD's system is easier to grasp, and doesnt have nearly as many numbers as Intel.[/quote]

That's what the whole entire argument is about. Everything else you're reading are his ways of trying to throw read herrings...distracting anyone from the original arguement, because he knows he can't win. Even if he wins on a couple other points, he can't win there. So he thinks as long as he puts up some arguments that he can match or win, he'll be able to hide the fact he's loosing the original argument.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Crashman · May 11, 2004

BTW, I'm seeing in the XP3200+ audit that the other hardware is much newer than the XP1500+. Have they retested the XP1500+ to get new benchmarks on the same new hardware? It would almost appear as though a big part of the increase is due to newer parts being used!

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

TheRod · May 11, 2004

Of course, Intel copied AMD. They are now in the same position, they have to promote lower speed processor. They can't market MHz anymore, MHz are becoming only 1 element in the equation.

The problem I see for the future is that the AMD system is based on MHz comparison and this is now becoming irrevelant. AMD will have to change their "+" model numbers for something more neutral.

What I like from Intel is the 3xx/5xx/7xx declinations, it's not that bad. On the other hand AMD identification (Duron/Athlon XP/Athlon 64/Athlon FX) are good too, but the different Athlon flavor can be a bit confusing for the average Joe.

--
Lookin' to fill that GOD shape hole!

Mephistopheles · May 11, 2004

Ooo ooo ooo, a fight!

***grabs popcorn and sits down***

You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete - Buckminster Fuller

Spitfire_x86 · May 11, 2004

So AMD's FX and Opteron numbers can't be compared to other processors, and now Intel's setting up the same type of scheme. If Intel had used AMD's numbers, they'd have a couple problems: 1.) Everyone would know for SURE they coppied AMD completely, 2.) It would be up to them to maintain honesty, just as it was up to AMD to maintain honesty on the XP rating system.

Nope, AMD's model numbers don't compare to other processor families, and neither will Intel's. Same deal, different numbers

Amen!

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>

Asymal · May 11, 2004

Really, does it matter to the real world (i.e. consumers- not hardcores who sit and post here all day. 😉) what number system a CPU manu uses?! If Joe Nongeek goes into Best Buy or <yourfavonlinecompstore>.com to buy a system; do you think he cares what the CPU number is? NO He is going to find out what the price is for what best GHz/$ ratio he can get. If those are 'made up' numbers by AMD or Intel, so be it, he'll buy it anyway. But most likely he won't care, because he got a 'free' $90 "quality" printer with the deal.

Remember- there is life outside of OC. I've now been living OC clean for ~4 years and am happy to say I can now walk through a computer store without having to debate the sales folks. 😉 LOL

Edited by Asymal on 05/11/04 11:28 AM.

sonoran · May 11, 2004

Its only because intel refused to adopt an industry wide initative benchmarking cpu's. For the 100th time why do you think that is

Funny - I thought I pointed out earlier that Intel (and a lot of other industry leaders) had adopted "an industry wide initative (sic) benchmarking cpu's". Are those benchmarks relevant to the SOHO user? Maybe not. No game benchies there. But they are industry wide benchmarks. Your argument (in the general sense) has been irrefutably proven false, sorry. But it will be amusing watching you repeat yourself another 100 times trying to show otherwise.

Regarding "why do you think that is" - I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, that benchmarking initiative you keep harping about was bound to be slanted toward the strength of one architecture over the other? And which architecture do you think that would be, hmmm? I wonder... Reality check for you - how many multimedia benchies do you see in the XP rating scheme P4MAN so graciously provided a link to above?

Tell you what dark, instead of repeating yourself ad nauseum, why not propose some way of doing this "industry wide benchmarking"? The fact is no one will ever come up with a benchmark standard that everyone (or even most) will agree represents the be all and end all of processor performance. And nothing you or I say here is going to change that.

PS - Meph, here's a coke. Could you please pass the popcorn?

Crashman · May 11, 2004

Hey, but if AMD sticks with XP+ numbers, perhaps people, confused with Intel's model numbers, will move to AMD? W00T, that would do nice things for the market, except that AMD might not be prepared for a spike in sales!

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Mephistopheles · May 11, 2004

Uuum.... Wasn't SPEC supposed to be one such iniative of standardizing performance according to a series of benchmarks? Remember, SPEC has the viewperf suite, with Pro-E, 3DSmax and so on modules... Plus, FP suites and INT suites as well... This went well, didn't it? (this is called sarcasm, OK?)

Just to point out that it is harder than it looks to make an adequate set of benchmarks with which everyone would be OK with...

(Here's the popcorn, sonoran... thanks for the coke... maybe we should get some potato chips?)

You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete - Buckminster Fuller

TheRod · May 11, 2004

HA HA HA!!! That would be funny. But AMD need a reference, today they have Intel MHz, so they can use "+" model numbers. When Intel will drop MHz... They will not have anymore Mhz comparison...

If Intel move to Dothan, AMD will make Athlon 64 2200+ that would be faster than Athlon 64 3000+. This doesn't make sense. I really think AMD will drop "+" numbering and move to something like the Opteron models numbers. Probably not this year, but this will happen.

--
Lookin' to fill that GOD shape hole!

Mephistopheles · May 11, 2004

Yes, but this simply has to happen, so there's nothing new about it.

***chewing popcorn***

You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete - Buckminster Fuller

TheRod · May 11, 2004

Today is not my day... I always get weird replys to my posts... In fact, I know my post was somewhat worthless...

Someday, do you feel the need to write?

--
Lookin' to fill that GOD shape hole!

darko21 · May 11, 2004

You're going to love this one then. You're lying about what I said. That's right, the same old complaint. I don't even have to go into your giberish about 18+ benchmarks or whatever, I said "The XP rating "formula" is based on nothing more than what AMD felt the number should be. You keep talking of the MHz myth, your logic fails."

I got the proof now you got eat you ridiculous claims that I am a liar. You tried hard calling me a liar last time we argued. All you can do is give a link to newegg? What is that? I'm a liar and you give us a link to newegg!!

In other words I said the XP rating system is based on a myth if it's based on the P4,

It was not based on the p4 it was based on benchmarks to try and compare to the p4. The problem is the benchies remained the same and the p4 was a moving target greatly improving with added cache higher FSB. I have fully explained this to you in the past.

and now you're arguing that the XP rating isn't a myth

It's not a myth it's scientific benchmarks. Why do you have so much trouble grasping that?

but P4 MHz is.

Once the p4 came about MHz went out the window it did not compare to previous cpu's or competitors only relevant to p4's. MHz was never completely accurate but was usually a good indicator of performance. Thus the p4 turned it into a myth.

So it sounds to me like it's a MYTH when you want it to be,

I did not coin the phrase MHz myth. I only remember it once the p4 was introduced. Why do you think that is crash?

but NOT A MYTH when AMD tries to approximate those numbers.

Call it a myth if you want but its relevant and accurate and was the closest we ever got to comparing older cpu's Just think for a sec how accurate it would if amd used that formula and intel did as well. Kinda hard when intel refused amd's industry wide initiative. Why do you think that is crash?

And you imply that I'm giving that myth validity,

I am implying you are a biased intel fanboy

proving your dishonesty once and for all.

Not this lame crap again. Lost month YOU called me a liar based on ABSOLUTLY nothing I made you eat those words. Now crash can't win another argument and his huge ego is bruised so I am dishonest.

Let's go through this long, lame post and see what kind of false hope you can drag from that sewer you call a pool of knowledge:

Yes we will do that. I am ready so let’s begin.

 In reply to:

Based on something like 14 benchmarks in 3 different fields of personal computing

Prove it.

Ok crash I have shown YOU this before but others might be unaware so I'll repost for the others as I know YOU have already been shown and you have the nerve to call me dishonest!
<A HREF="http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20011009/athlonxp-12.html#amds_new_model_policy" target="_new"> AMD's old Model Policy for the xp </A> based on 14 benchmarks that represent 34 applications of the three fields 'visual computing', 'gaming' and 'office productivity

<A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/26169b_Performance-Overview.pdf" target="_new"> AMD's web site on old policy or old formula for the XP</A>

AMD's new (now the old model xprating) model rating is based on 14 benchmarks that represent 34 applications of the three fields 'visual computing', 'gaming' and 'office productivity'. AMD was trying to be as fair as possible, with the effect that the current model numbering of AthlonXP processors is a bit overly humble, as you can see from our benchmarks. Once Intel releases Pentium 4 processors based on Northwood however, the model numbers may become more realistic.

There will be a lot of criticism of AMD now. Yes, it is true that the model numbering might confuse customers right now, since it is indeed difficult to know if Athlon 1400 is now slower or faster than AthlonXP 1500+. However, these are transitional times. AMD's new model number system deserves better than being compared with the old and confusing P-Rating. AMD hasn't got an alternative right now and so I respect the new system and accept it, even though I might not like it too much. I suggest that we all give it a chance.

 In reply to:

Yup they picked the benchies but why not intel sure did not want to play that game.

What benchmarks is AMD using?

For the xprating the exact benchies are in the amd link above a64 rating see below.

Lets keep going shall we.

 In reply to:

MHz is a myth!!!!! so pop another prozac and keep on laughing.

I never said otherwise, though you implied I did. MHz actually is real, performance based purely on MHz is a myth, but you claim I'm saying the opposite because you like to creat falsehoods by distorting what others say. A "white lie" perhaps? Not comming from your black heart!

No not a lie white black or anything else. Maybe a misunderstanding after all you said "You keep talking of the MHz myth, your logic fails." That’s how I interpreted it. If you want to cliaify fine but calling me a liar is retarded you religious freak. And why do you think I have a black heart. Because I expose you as an uneducated intel fanboy? amd hater.

 In reply to:

You could not win your bash amd arguments then why re bring it up now? looks like you have a serious problem with amd fudging numbers calling them liars there is no end to it. It's twisted and personal with you.

No, your dishonesty is personal with me, AMD's claim that the XP rating system is based on the performance per clock speed of the Thunderbird doesn't bother me, even if it is a lie.

Wrong I am not dishonest. amd never lied so wrong again and I know I have fully explained this to you with all the facts not stupid links to newegg. Do you remember how you originally said AMD lied because the xp formula was was based off a tbird but an xp1600+ was not twice as fast as say a tbird 800 or p3 800? (Which it is not) Then later I explained the truth to you and you said you were tricked or forced into saying AMD lied (or something like that) Now you say they lied again!! Cause you know it will take 20 post to get you to admit they did not lie. Who's the liar now crash?

 In reply to:

Maybe you should work for intel?

Only if they offer me a job before AMD does.

I think that's as likely as THG hiring you as an editor. Big ego's and I am never wrong don't look to good on a resume.

Just how do you come up with these one liners?

When you say something truely stupid I use your own words against you. I thought you were smart enough to figure that out.

I think it's pretty clear you are biased and wrong about amd. How does this make me look stupid maybe for arguing with an idiot. But your shameless bias brings out the worst in me.

 In reply to:

no one has ever said amd needed intels permission to come up with a model number.

Gee, my mistake? I thought you said AMD couldn't come up with a performance rating scheme not based on MHz, simply because Intel wouldn't agree to it. I'll have to REREAD what you said!

Mistake or misunderstanding? Are you not going to call yourself a liar? AMD did come up with a rating scheme look at xp and a64 then the industry wide initiative to use a universal scheme based on true relative performance. So with intel refusing to use something like that and more or less going with number picking from a hat. The game is over numbers MHz letters how can one compare amd to intel without reading a review site like this. Intel was given the chance to go with a universal rating system and the refused. so amd picks meaningless numbers MHz is meaningless and since intel will not play why not what does it matter. Intel refuse the industry wide initiative so uniformed people will remain confused.

 In reply to:

and you are WRONG amd went to a naming scheme cause Intel refused to adopt a proper benchmarking scheme

Hey, you did say that!

Yes and it's true another misunderstanding by you. Or are you calling yourself a liar again? See above intel refused the industry wide initiative.

 In reply to:

how does that compare to (((((Intel has the advanced new generation p4 and amd’s k8 was was 1990’s k7 technology)))))??

Not my exact words, the P4 isn't that advanced and the PIII has always performed better, clock for clock. But yes, the P4 was completely new, the P-M is based on the PIII, and the A64 is based on the original Athlon. And for that matter, the P3 was based on the Pentium Pro.

I'd have to look it up to be exact but its close enough to what you said. I doubt you will be saying that too much in the future now that intels pushing the p3 design.

Why would any of that hurt your feelings?

You could never hurt my feeling irritate yes. I'm merely used it to show your bias.

 In reply to: 

so I'm dishonest? Based on what you spinless coward?

If I was afraid of you, I wouldn't be here, LOL. If you want a bases for what I've said, read the rest of the post!

Well that post never explained me as dishonest. So I guess we will have to keep on reading shall we continue?

 In reply to:

So you are calling me dishonest and intel only thinking of the consumer with the high MHz low IPC rip off cpu's like the celeron.

I never said Intel was honest, you're putting words in my mouth...hey, isn't that a form of lying? Hehehehe, I know you love me now!

Intel does not lye AFAIK. Mislead yes. (Misleading is a form of dishonesty if done intentionally) i'm not saying amd is a saint and You call me dishonest cause you misunderstand something. Keep it coming crash cause I will though it all back in your face.

 In reply to:

Sad that you are so weak as to bring that up again. Pathetic really!

Wait, I said they both know they can produce faster performing processors at slower clock rates, and you said "Wrong again only Intel can do that". I proved you wrong, both companies can do that.

That statement I said (((((Sad that you are so weak as to bring that up again. Pathetic really!))) was in response to this that you said!! ((((AMD XP3200+:2.2GHz, A64 3200+:2.0GHz. Looks like I'm almost always right, and that misleading designs have nothing to do with my statment. In fact, the A64 3200+ is not only clocked slower than the XP3200+, but it also performs better in 32-bit mode than the XP3200+!))) 

I will prove once again you don't know what you are talking about. It was explained in perevious posts and I will supply the link to back it up. See below.

 In reply to:

I'll show a link where the answer you can't grasp has been fully explained to YOU!

Here's your link Sure enough, the XP3200+ is clocked higher than the better performing A64 3200+, just like I said it was! But wait, YOU'RE the one that said "Only Intel can do that"!

Yeah great information there a link to newegg oooohhhwweeee yes we all know the a64 performs slightly better that xp on a clock per clock entrey level stuff here. What you don't grasp is why this is not misleading ((((AMD XP3200+:2.2GHz, A64 3200+:2.0GHz. Looks like I'm almost always right, and that misleading designs have nothing to do with my statement. In fact, the A64 3200+ is not only clocked slower than the XP3200+, but it also performs better in 32-bit mode than the XP3200+!))) You see crash with the introduction of a new generation cpu amd created a new formula for a64 to be better inline with the improved p4 design. Which fully explains why an a64 3200+ beats a xp3200+ remember crash MHz don't mean to much unless comparing identical cpu's.

<A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^9500,00.html" target="_new"> AMD's new Model Policy for the a64 </A> based on Office productivity 4 Digital media 5 Gaming 15 including thing like 3dmark 03 and aquamark3 these benchies did not even exist when xp formula was made.

Anything else?

Edited for Quote tags :tongue:
Edited by darko21 on 05/11/04 04:59 PM.

darko21 · May 11, 2004

Funny - I thought I pointed out earlier that Intel (and a lot of other industry leaders) had adopted "an industry wide initative (sic) benchmarking cpu's". Are those benchmarks relevant to the SOHO user? Maybe not. No game benchies there. But they are industry wide benchmarks. Your argument (in the general sense) has been irrefutably proven false, sorry. But it will be amusing watching you repeat yourself another 100 times trying to show otherwise.

Regarding "why do you think that is" - I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, that benchmarking initiative you keep harping about was bound to be slanted toward the strength of one architecture over the other? And which architecture do you think that would be, hmmm? I wonder... Reality check for you - how many multimedia benchies do you see in the XP rating scheme P4MAN so graciously provided a link to above?

Tell you what dark, instead of repeating yourself ad nauseum, why not propose some way of doing this "industry wide benchmarking"? The fact is no one will ever come up with a benchmark standard that everyone (or even most) will agree represents the be all and end all of processor performance. And nothing you or I say here is going to change that.

I don't think you are even on the same page. No one has denied your web link does not exist or that it supplies usful information on industry wide relative performance. but the idea is to market cpu's with some kind of usefull information not have it on some obscure web site. I think amd's latest formula includes 5 multimedia benchies (see link above) Yes amd picked those benchies and for the most part favor amd but that is because intel will have no part of it. I'm sure an industry wide initiative for marketing cpu's on relative performance could have been setup by an independant meadiator to pick fair benchies for an over all performance rating. No one would expect intel to adopt amd's rating formula.

Unfortunatly intel would have no part of it. So we are stuck were we are. meaningless numbers, shame really.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

trooper11 · May 11, 2004

hey share some of that popcorn with the rest of us lol

i really cant ready any of it lol, but seeing so much space taken up on this, when the simple answer is number systems will never help users compare products, not as long as the numberings are form two differnt companies that use differnt hardware and differnt soruces to number things.

And I relaly do think its worse for average consumers, becuase it was easy to say what they wanted, just by looking at mhz or amds mhz related number, now its a shot in the dark. now higher is better..well not really since they cant ask for the 700s since thats for mobile processor , thats just crazy, the 500s are for desktops. I hope intel straightens thier numbering out, even im confused by the logic behind them lol.

i dont think there cna ever be a fair benchmark becuase it will always be apples to oranges, never a level playing field, there are way too many variables.

how about amd and intel just name like intel p4 good, intel p4 better, p4 best...etc. Same wiht amd, amd ahtlon 64 good, better, best.. lol ok back to the show ^^

Mephistopheles · May 11, 2004

Someday, do you feel the need to write?

Within this flamey thread? Yes, Absolutely. Anyway, sorry about the very short post there, it's just that this thread has gotten so out of proportion that I can't even write anything serious in it! :lol:

So we just let others be consumed in the flames of the moment. :evil:

You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete - Buckminster Fuller

Crashman · May 12, 2004

Yep, you don't need more than a link to Newegg to see that AMD is producing better performing processors at slower clock speeds. You said only Intel was doing that. And you implied that I offered validity to the MHz myth, when I was actually stating the facts: You refer to the XP rating system as valid, yet you say that MHz doesn't mean anything. Therefor the XP rating system, based on MHz, doesn't mean anything by your own logic. And since you claim XP's are valid but MHz's aren't, your logic fails. I don't know how to explain this to you any any simpler terms, but to imply that I meant the MHz system is adequate would be dishonest on your part.

You see, I'm grasping all your BS. You can't have it both ways. For the XP rating system to be valid, the MHz myth has to be valid. Since you and I both agree that basing performance purely on MHz is invalid, the XP rating system isn't perfect, and your logic is flawed.

I am implying you are a biased intel fanboy

Yes, you're biased, I'm not, so you spread your hate. Like a KKK member calling M.L. King a racist, it's worse than the pot calling the kettle black, it's like a cast iron pot calling a new stanless steal kettle black.

Now back to the original "your logic fails" statement, you have to actually read the entire paragraph to put the comment in context, but I knew you'd select whatever portions out of anything I said to suit your needs and imply a different meaning, because that's what dishonest people do. As hard as you try, you can't prevent your obvious bias from blinding your judgement.

Big ego's and I am never wrong

You aren't? Ever? BTW, I'm just playing your game on this one, taking it out of context. Just thought I'd give you some of your own medicine, again.

you said you were tricked or forced into saying AMD lied

Nope, I never said that about AMD, I've always stated that AMD's statement was untrue. Aparently it bothers you a lot more than it bothers me.

I'm merely used it to show your bias.

No, you're mearly showing your own.

Mistake or misunderstanding? Are you not going to call yourself a liar?

No, I'm going to have to call you a liar because once again you took what I said out of context. I followed that statement with this one from you

and you are WRONG amd went to a naming scheme cause Intel refused to adopt a proper benchmarking scheme

Conclusion was that I was not mistaken, you really did say it.

You call me dishonest cause you misunderstand something. Keep it coming crash cause I will though it all back in your face.

No, you keep saying that I've said things I didn't, and purposely putting what I've said out of context, in order to suit your weak argument. And what is your argument? Do you even remember? Your argument is that Intel isn't doing the same thing as AMD, or for the same reasons, on their model names. Everything else you said is a vain attempt to distract everyone from your claims.

yes we all know the a64 performs slightly better that xp on a clock per clock entrey level stuff here. What you don't grasp is why this is not misleading

I never said it was misleading. In fact I said the A64 3200+ actually performs better than the XP3200+. Bonus. You would imply that I was saying otherwise because it's in your nature to be deceptive. In fact, you knew I had a firm grasp of it. I never claimed it was misleading for AMD to offer a better performing processor with the same performance "rating" at a slower clock speed. The buyer benifits from the added performance, so that the lower clock rate isn't important. I've been saying this all along, but it's your intent to imply otherwise because you can't "win" an honest argument based on your weak idea that Intel isn't doing now the sort of thing that AMD has already done.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Crashman · May 12, 2004

AMD could continue with XP ratings all the way up to the sky, if they just stick with the system they're using on the A64. As long as the A64 is around, they could continue using that system to rate new speeds at higher and higher XP's. And when they eventually replace the A64, they could come up with a new system for the next processor, based on the A64's performance. And they could continue to do this for infinity, eventually having an XP8000+ if they liked. After all, it is their rating system. I would be really funny if 5 years from now AMD had an XP8000+, Intel had an X78 or whatever, and people were buying the 8000+ because they new it was faster than the 6000+, faster than the 4000+, faster than the 3200+ we have now, but they couldn't understand Intel's naming system!

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Crashman · May 12, 2004

Not a problem for me, I'm wearing my Nomex suit!

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Intel's Dothan

Distinguished

Polypheme

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Polypheme

Polypheme

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Polypheme

Polypheme

Polypheme

Share this page