Now AMD follows Intel's lead

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

AMD may begin adopting Intel's model numbering scheme for its own
Athlon 64's. Strange, AMD adopts model numbers and then Intel follows,
and then AMD retweaks to fit Intel. Well, so much for the PR-rating
system being an indicator of relative performance from an Athlon
Thunderbird. :)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040331173218.html
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Black Jack wrote:

> AMD may begin adopting Intel's model numbering scheme for its own
> Athlon 64's. Strange, AMD adopts model numbers and then Intel follows,
> and then AMD retweaks to fit Intel. Well, so much for the PR-rating
> system being an indicator of relative performance from an Athlon
> Thunderbird. :)

http://www.hardware.fr/news/imprimer/6484/

The slide from AMD's presentation says:

Since AMD Processors P-Rating has always be a meant [sic] for
us to position our products in comparison with Intel processors
and since Intel has decided to give up their CPU branding based
on the frequency, we have also to move towards a new P-Rating
system. It is mandatory in order to let our customers understand
how we position our processors. These P-rating will be used from
third quarter 2004 and will concern only the Athlon 64's processors.

Prescott LGA775 @ 3.6 GHz = P4E 560
Prescott LGA775 @ 3.4 GHz = P4E 550
Prescott LGA775 @ 3.2 GHz = P4E 540
Prescott LGA775 @ 3.0 GHz = P4E 530
Prescott LGA775 @ 2.8 GHz = P4E 520

Athlon 64 3400+ (2.2 GHz ??) = Athlon 64 560+
Athlon 64 3200+ (2.0 GHz ??) = Athlon 64 550+
Athlon 64 3000+ (1.8 GHz ??) = Athlon 64 540+
Athlon 64 2800+ (1.6 GHz ??) = Athlon 64 530+

2800+ could be 1.6 GHz + 1 MB L2 or 1.8 GHz + 512 KB L2 (Newcastle)
3000+ could be 1.8 GHz + 1 MB L2 or 2.0 GHz + 512 KB L2 (Newcastle)
3200+ could be 2.0 GHz + 1 MB L2 or 2.2 GHz + 512 KB L2 (Newcastle)

Thus, in AMD's mind:

Prescott @ 3.6 GHz = Athlon 64 @ 2.2 GHz
Prescott @ 3.2 GHz = Athlon 64 @ 1.8 GHz (perhaps 2.0 GHz)

--
Regards, Grumble
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Black Jack wrote:

> AMD may begin adopting Intel's model numbering scheme for its own
> Athlon 64's. Strange, AMD adopts model numbers and then Intel follows,
> and then AMD retweaks to fit Intel. Well, so much for the PR-rating
> system being an indicator of relative performance from an Athlon
> Thunderbird. :)

http://theregister.co.uk/content/51/36722.html

:-o
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', Grumble <invalid@kma.eu.org>
scribbled:

>Black Jack wrote:
>
>> AMD may begin adopting Intel's model numbering scheme for its own
>> Athlon 64's. Strange, AMD adopts model numbers and then Intel follows,
>> and then AMD retweaks to fit Intel. Well, so much for the PR-rating
>> system being an indicator of relative performance from an Athlon
>> Thunderbird. :)
>
>http://theregister.co.uk/content/51/36722.html0

Got this far without twigging? Yes, it's an April Fool's gag, as the 1 April
2004 date on the original Chinese story reveals, but the French, reading the
story late at night on 31 March didn't spot. Nor did a number of US sites who
spotted the Hardware.fr piece early in their timezones, but long after it had
already become April in the Far East.






To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Black Jack" <news.yaya.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:d8bc87ef.0403312216.3766d324@posting.google.com...
> AMD may begin adopting Intel's model numbering scheme for its own
> Athlon 64's. Strange, AMD adopts model numbers and then Intel follows,
> and then AMD retweaks to fit Intel. Well, so much for the PR-rating
> system being an indicator of relative performance from an Athlon
> Thunderbird. :)
>
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040331173218.html

Actually in a strange way this exactly what AMD wanted from the start.
Universal model numbers for all processors that describe their relitive
preformance to eachother better than MHz. I guess in a weird way it's an AMD
win still.

Carlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Drift...

Given the number of times the old guard in comp.arch is able to
describe how some "new thing in computing" being touted somewhere or
other was done N years ago on system bar or OS foo, I have to wonder
if despite various peoples' desire to anoint "leaders" and "followers"
the proper description of the industry is really closer to "Duck Duck
Goose" or "Ring Around the Rosy" than "Follow the Leader."

rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com but NOT BOTH...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Rick Jones wrote:
> Drift...
>
> Given the number of times the old guard in comp.arch is able to
> describe how some "new thing in computing" being touted somewhere or
> other was done N years ago on system bar or OS foo, I have to wonder
> if despite various peoples' desire to anoint "leaders" and "followers"
> the proper description of the industry is really closer to "Duck Duck
> Goose" or "Ring Around the Rosy" than "Follow the Leader."
>
> rick jones

damn, that's what i call a long sentence!!! ;-)

--

Nadeem M Nayeck [ m n n a y e c k @ i n t n e t . m u ]
______ ______ .
.:_\_ . \\_ . \_::.
. .::./ ./ // ./__/.:::. . Registered LU #290695
:_<_____/<____ >_:.
. \/ .
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 15:25:04 -0500, "Carlo Razzeto"
<crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Universal model numbers for all processors that describe their relitive
>preformance to eachother better than MHz. I guess in a weird way it's an AMD
>win still.

The question is, will the consumers win? I can envisage a situation
that goes like this

1 May 200x : Intel announces x.1 Ghz Model 810 CPU
3 May 200x : AMD announces a.1 Ghz Model 810+ CPU
5 May 200x : Intel annnounces x.15 Ghz Model 812 CPU
7 May 200x : AMD announces a.15 Model 815+ CPU
9 May 200x : Intel announces x.2 Ghz Model 820 CPU
11 May 200x :.... and so on and so forth...

:ppP


--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
message news:406cfbc1.36203046@news.pacific.net.sg...
> The question is, will the consumers win? I can envisage a situation
> that goes like this
>
> 1 May 200x : Intel announces x.1 Ghz Model 810 CPU
> 3 May 200x : AMD announces a.1 Ghz Model 810+ CPU
> 5 May 200x : Intel annnounces x.15 Ghz Model 812 CPU
> 7 May 200x : AMD announces a.15 Model 815+ CPU
> 9 May 200x : Intel announces x.2 Ghz Model 820 CPU
> 11 May 200x :.... and so on and so forth...
>
> :ppP
>
>
> --
> L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
> If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
:)
> Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
> If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
> But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

Is the customer really winning with the old MHz is the only way to measure
preformance method? For Intel customers looking at laptops it means they
were buying P4-M systems when it's really not the best mobil solution out
there...

Carlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 20:56:20 -0500, "Carlo Razzeto"
<crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Is the customer really winning with the old MHz is the only way to measure
>preformance method? For Intel customers looking at laptops it means they
>were buying P4-M systems when it's really not the best mobil solution out
>there...

Definitely, I don't agree that the Mhz was that fantastic a measure of
actual performance, but this entire model number thing is going to
murk up the waters even more because the marketing dept is just going
to have a field day with it and this time, they don't even have to ask
the engineering department a single question! :p

If they could get away with it, they would probably sell a Model 580
and Model 585 that is no difference except for a CPU ID that tells the
BIOS I'm 580 and the other guy is 585 :D

At the very least with an actual measureable metric like Mhz or a
equivalence rating, we make a good guess within the same architecture.
After a few models, it's also quite easy to establish X Mhz of A is
around Y Mhz of B in a general ratio of c.xx : d.xx

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
message news:406f5fe7.192912781@news.pacific.net.sg...
> Definitely, I don't agree that the Mhz was that fantastic a measure of
> actual performance, but this entire model number thing is going to
> murk up the waters even more because the marketing dept is just going
> to have a field day with it and this time, they don't even have to ask
> the engineering department a single question! :p
>
> If they could get away with it, they would probably sell a Model 580
> and Model 585 that is no difference except for a CPU ID that tells the
> BIOS I'm 580 and the other guy is 585 :D
>
> At the very least with an actual measureable metric like Mhz or a
> equivalence rating, we make a good guess within the same architecture.
> After a few models, it's also quite easy to establish X Mhz of A is
> around Y Mhz of B in a general ratio of c.xx : d.xx
<snip signature>

Marketing would probably have to ask the engineers all kinds of questions
assuming neither Intel nor AMD want to pull a Cyrix (ever use a P-150+ or
contemporary processor)? They would have to know how cache size, bus speed
MHz and core refinements interact to affect performance.

Carlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 01:12:30 GMT,
a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 20:56:20 -0500, "Carlo Razzeto"
><crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Is the customer really winning with the old MHz is the only way to measure
>>preformance method? For Intel customers looking at laptops it means they
>>were buying P4-M systems when it's really not the best mobil solution out
>>there...
>
>Definitely, I don't agree that the Mhz was that fantastic a measure of
>actual performance, but this entire model number thing is going to
>murk up the waters even more because the marketing dept is just going
>to have a field day with it and this time, they don't even have to ask
>the engineering department a single question! :p
>
>If they could get away with it, they would probably sell a Model 580
>and Model 585 that is no difference except for a CPU ID that tells the
>BIOS I'm 580 and the other guy is 585 :D

I don't think we'll have to worry TOO much about that. We don't
generally see this with other products marketed using model
name/numbers (and that is virtually every product in the world) for
the simple reason that it quickly becomes obvious that the marketing
department is trying to pull a quick one on consumers. Consumers
really don't like this and tend to react rather negatively, so such a
move just isn't worth it.

>At the very least with an actual measureable metric like Mhz or a
>equivalence rating, we make a good guess within the same architecture.

The problem is that only a small percentage of the buying public know
enough about the architectures to tell one from the other. How many
of the buying public know that the Celeron 1.4GHz was a TOTALLY
different (and MUCH faster) chip than the Celeron 1.7GHz? Probably
about 1%. It's a little bit better with the P4 line, though there are
still some tricky parts there, ie the P4 3.0GHz being faster than the
P4 3.2GHz. It's also rather complicated on the mobile front where
there is a "Mobile Pentium 4" and a "Pentium 4-M" that had VERY
different power consumption characteristics (though similar
performance).

In short, I like model numbers, because at least everyone KNOWS that
they're a meaningless indicator of performance. MHz was pushed as an
important measure of performance when really it wasn't.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
R

rush

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
214
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Carlo Razzeto" <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote :

> questions assuming neither Intel nor AMD want to pull a Cyrix
> (ever use a P-150+ or contemporary processor)?

Cyrix P120 was as fast as P200MMX in RC56 crunching (weird) so its not
an obvious example.



Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"RusH" <rush@pulse.pdi.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94C1B59C2EC3BRusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.80...
> "Carlo Razzeto" <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote :
>
> > questions assuming neither Intel nor AMD want to pull a Cyrix
> > (ever use a P-150+ or contemporary processor)?
>
> Cyrix P120 was as fast as P200MMX in RC56 crunching (weird) so its not
> an obvious example.
>
>
>
> Pozdrawiam.
> --
> RusH //
> http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
> Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
> You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

You really can't just take once benchmark and declare the chip a winner, I'm
sure that there are certain situations where these chips were as good or
better than their Intel counter parts... However in terms of general usage
these chips simply could not live up to their name/model number. Not like
the AthlonXP/64's have been able to more recently. This is one of the big
reasons why Cyrix ended up going under, they never abandoned PR ratings and
they also never really improved the preformace of thier chips (relitive to
the pentium it was competing against).

Carlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 21:12:40 -0500, "Carlo Razzeto"
<crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Marketing would probably have to ask the engineers all kinds of questions
>assuming neither Intel nor AMD want to pull a Cyrix (ever use a P-150+ or
>contemporary processor)?

I was a very happy user of my Cyrix 150Mhz PR 233 or something like
that. It did everything I wanted it to do in general and was much
cheaper than what the equivalent Pentium was.

>they would have to know how cache size, bus speed
>MHz and core refinements interact to affect performance.

They do? Ok maybe they do, but do they really care? I certainly don't
remember seeing any marketing materials describing in any details that
bigger memory bandwidth doesn't help with latency bound applications.
:ppppP

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
message news:407032f3.246940828@news.pacific.net.sg...
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 21:12:40 -0500, "Carlo Razzeto"
> <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Marketing would probably have to ask the engineers all kinds of questions
> >assuming neither Intel nor AMD want to pull a Cyrix (ever use a P-150+ or
> >contemporary processor)?
>
> I was a very happy user of my Cyrix 150Mhz PR 233 or something like
> that. It did everything I wanted it to do in general and was much
> cheaper than what the equivalent Pentium was.
>
<snip>

I wasn't very happy at all with my Cyrix PR-150+. It was ok I suppose,
usually better than my old P75... But I wasn't really happy until I got my
K62.. I never used the later Cyrix chips, but I really never felt the need
to after switching to AMD. Those chips went clock for clock with the
pentiums on the integer unit, and they were acceptable for gaming at the
time.

Carlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

> The problem is that only a small percentage of the buying public
> know enough about the architectures to tell one from the other.
> How many of the buying public know that the Celeron 1.4GHz was a
> TOTALLY different (and MUCH faster) chip than the Celeron 1.7GHz?
> Probably about 1%. It's a little bit better with the P4 line,
> though there are still some tricky parts there, ie the P4 3.0GHz
> being faster than the P4 3.2GHz.

Is that Northwood (P4C) @ 3.0 GHz vs Prescott (P4E) @ 3.2 GHz?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Carlo Razzeto" <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<w8CdnfYICpoC5_Hd4p2dnA@giganews.com>...
> Actually in a strange way this exactly what AMD wanted from the start.
> Universal model numbers for all processors that describe their relitive
> preformance to eachother better than MHz. I guess in a weird way it's an AMD
> win still.

I'm not sure why anyone would want or need universal performance
numbers to describe the chips from one maker to another? BMW and
Mercedes don't line up their model numbers just to make it easier for
consumers to compare their models between each other. BMW model
numbers are comparable only to other BMW models, and ditto for Merc
vs. Merc. At this point it is upto the salesman of the computer
systems to tell consumers that AMD X processor is competive to Intel Y
processor.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Black Jack <news.yaya.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> numbers to describe the chips from one maker to another? BMW and
> Mercedes don't line up their model numbers just to make it easier for
> consumers to compare their models between each other. BMW model
> numbers are comparable only to other BMW models, and ditto for Merc
> vs. Merc.

Actually, they're pretty close in several major classes:
Compact/low-end luxury: C-class to 3-series 4 door
Roadster: SLK to Z3
Mid-size luxury: E-class to 5-series
Full-size luxury: S-class to 7-series

> At this point it is upto the salesman of the computer systems to tell
> consumers that AMD X processor is competive to Intel Y processor.

Or general market positioning.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Black Jack" <news.yaya.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:d8bc87ef.0404052349.5485ea1a@posting.google.com...
> I'm not sure why anyone would want or need universal performance
> numbers to describe the chips from one maker to another? BMW and
> Mercedes don't line up their model numbers just to make it easier for
> consumers to compare their models between each other. BMW model
> numbers are comparable only to other BMW models, and ditto for Merc
> vs. Merc. At this point it is upto the salesman of the computer
> systems to tell consumers that AMD X processor is competive to Intel Y
> processor.
>
> Yousuf Khan

Actually, if you remember back to when AMD was first coming out with model
numbers for the AXP line they did bring up that they really wanted universal
performance ratings. I believe they even talked about setting up an industry
wide consortium for this purpose. I'd look up links but I'm too tried/lazy
to do that right now.

Carlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Carlo Razzeto <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, if you remember back to when AMD was first coming out with model
> numbers for the AXP line they did bring up that they really wanted universal
> performance ratings. I believe they even talked about setting up an industry
> wide consortium for this purpose. I'd look up links but I'm too tried/lazy
> to do that right now.

There is one, for what little it's worth. It's called SPEC.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Carlo Razzeto" <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<SqOdnZJCN5PxrO7dRVn-jg@giganews.com>...
> Actually, if you remember back to when AMD was first coming out with model
> numbers for the AXP line they did bring up that they really wanted universal
> performance ratings. I believe they even talked about setting up an industry
> wide consortium for this purpose. I'd look up links but I'm too tried/lazy
> to do that right now.
>
> Carlo

No, I know they did, I wasn't disputing that. What I was disputing was
what the necessity of such a system is in the first place? Carmakers
don't really try to name their cars after their performance numbers.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:01:41 GMT, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Black Jack <news.yaya.bbbl67@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>> numbers to describe the chips from one maker to another? BMW and
>> Mercedes don't line up their model numbers just to make it easier for
>> consumers to compare their models between each other. BMW model
>> numbers are comparable only to other BMW models, and ditto for Merc
>> vs. Merc.
>
>Actually, they're pretty close in several major classes:
>Compact/low-end luxury: C-class to 3-series 4 door
>Roadster: SLK to Z3
>Mid-size luxury: E-class to 5-series
>Full-size luxury: S-class to 7-series

They do offer comparable models, but that's not the same as lining up
model numbers between the two.

For example, no one would expect a Mercedes S320 to be roughly the
same as a BMW 320i. These are quite different cars sold at very
different price-points, but their model numbers are almost the same.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:01:41 GMT, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
> wrote:
> >Actually, they're pretty close in several major classes:
> >Compact/low-end luxury: C-class to 3-series 4 door
> >Roadster: SLK to Z3
> >Mid-size luxury: E-class to 5-series
> >Full-size luxury: S-class to 7-series
>
> They do offer comparable models, but that's not the same as lining up
> model numbers between the two.
>
> For example, no one would expect a Mercedes S320 to be roughly the
> same as a BMW 320i. These are quite different cars sold at very
> different price-points, but their model numbers are almost the same.

True, although once you know how to read the model numbers from either,
they're encoding roughly the same information: ie, I _would_ expect a
Mercedes C240 (C-class, 2.4 liter engine) to be roughly comparable to a BMW
325i (3-series, 2.5 liter engine, i for fuel injected, although it's been
ages since that 'i' wasn't on every 3-series ;) )

Then again, comparing displacement is like comparing megahertz; it's not the
whole story, of course.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 18:38:41 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto"
<crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Actually, if you remember back to when AMD was first coming out with model
>numbers for the AXP line they did bring up that they really wanted universal
>performance ratings. I believe they even talked about setting up an industry
>wide consortium for this purpose. I'd look up links but I'm too tried/lazy
>to do that right now.

I think it was the TPI: True Performance Initiative or something like
that.

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom