phial
Splendid
- Oct 29, 2002
- 6,757
- 0
- 25,780
is that like supposed to be insulting? i barely drink so its hilarious on teh contrary
secret edit: no one had replied yet and it wasnt what i wanted so there
-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
secret edit: no one had replied yet and it wasnt what i wanted so there
-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
True and edits are fair game if no one has replied yet. I'm sure you beat me by seconds but fair enough.
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.
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.
To clairify for you I am saying the xprating formula was created with a tbird. and when they ran the formula on it it gave a athlon 900 a score rating of xp1000 but they never used it untill the sse1 ondie cache 1333 athlon making it an xp1500.
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.
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.
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,594
- 91
- 66,190
BTW, I don't flame AMD, I just tell the truth 
Tell me how great the Celeron is or how the P4 was light years ahead of the P3 and you'll see me "flame" Intel, by your standards of flaming.
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
Tell me how great the Celeron is or how the P4 was light years ahead of the P3 and you'll see me "flame" Intel, by your standards of flaming.<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,594
- 91
- 66,190
I know the XP rating system approximates P4's MHz/performance. But that's not what AMD said. AMD said it was based on the Thunderbird. And giving the Barton 300 points for its extra cache is the reason an XP2400+ resembles a P4 2.4, but the XP3200+ resembles something between a 2.8B and 3.06.
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
Gotta link where amd states we just ignored the formula and gave the barton 300 more points. I could see a review site stating that, but I doubt amd would simply do that. like I said the barton 2500 does beat the 2400 thoughbred in aplications that utilize the cache more.
As to the highend p4's yeah the xp formula no longer compares. But that is because of advances in the p4 like hyperthreading 800fsb bigger improvment with more cache. The reason the xp 3200 don't come near a p4c3200MHz is because amd did not change the formula if a p4C 3200 used 256kb cache and 533 fsb it would be a lot closer.
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.
As to the highend p4's yeah the xp formula no longer compares. But that is because of advances in the p4 like hyperthreading 800fsb bigger improvment with more cache. The reason the xp 3200 don't come near a p4c3200MHz is because amd did not change the formula if a p4C 3200 used 256kb cache and 533 fsb it would be a lot closer.
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.
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,594
- 91
- 66,190
A site said that. Here's a simple question: Which came first, the XP rating formula or the processor? The processor, the formula was made to fit already existing processors.
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
Not to sure what you are getting at there some kind of chicken egg thing.
I'm not sure if you read the post below. If the below post is not true that would mean amd lied. I would think we should give amd the benifit of the doubt.
To clairify for you I am saying the xprating formula was created with a tbird. and when they ran the formula on it it gave a athlon 900 a score rating of xp1000 but they never used it untill the sse1 ondie cache 1333 athlon making it an xp1500.
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.
I'm not sure if you read the post below. If the below post is not true that would mean amd lied. I would think we should give amd the benifit of the doubt.
To clairify for you I am saying the xprating formula was created with a tbird. and when they ran the formula on it it gave a athlon 900 a score rating of xp1000 but they never used it untill the sse1 ondie cache 1333 athlon making it an xp1500.
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.
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,594
- 91
- 66,190
It has nothing to do with the quality of their processors, AMD makes fine processors. It's a matter of marketing and liability. AMD REALLY based their XP rating system on the P4's clock speed. BUT if they had said that, they would be liable to Intel whenever one of their CPU's fell short on a variety of benchmarks. And you KNOW Intel would use benchmarks that favor the P4 to prove damages. So instead AMD claimed the XP rating system was based on the Thunderbird core. That would mean an XP2800+ would have 2x the peak performance of the Athlon 1400. And it doesn't, but we don't really EXPECT it to. That's because we know the XP rating system is REALLY relative to P4 performance, and AMD lied when they said it was scaled to Thunderbird performance.
Now you can understand WHY they lied, it really was a liability issue. If AMD publically stated it was based on the P4, Intel would be filing lawsuits faster than I can write this post. So AMD had a GOOD REASON to lie.
But because of that lie, some people have unrealistic expectations of their replacement processors. And it opens up the debate where both sides can be argued. Which leaves us poking at each other.
No corporation is honest. Remember the adds where Intel claimed their latest Celerons made your internet faster?
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
Now you can understand WHY they lied, it really was a liability issue. If AMD publically stated it was based on the P4, Intel would be filing lawsuits faster than I can write this post. So AMD had a GOOD REASON to lie.
But because of that lie, some people have unrealistic expectations of their replacement processors. And it opens up the debate where both sides can be argued. Which leaves us poking at each other.
No corporation is honest. Remember the adds where Intel claimed their latest Celerons made your internet faster?
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
Re: It's a matter of marketing and liability.
Yes I can believe that.
Re: AMD REALLY based their XP rating system on the P4's clock speed.
No I believe amd based it on the athlon just like they said they did. The original athlon was slightly faster than the p3 on a clock per clock. Once amd implemented the formula a xp1500+ was slightly faster than a p4 @ 1.5 giz. Thus the plus
Re: So instead AMD claimed the XP rating system was based on the Thunderbird core.
No like I said I believe amd based it on the athlon just like they said they did. The real reason was to compare to the higher MHz lower performance p4 of the day.
Re: That would mean an XP2800+ would have 2x the peak performance of the Athlon 1400. And it doesn't, but we don't really EXPECT it to.
Yes and no. an xp2800+ can't compare to a athlon 1400 cause it is not running the benchmark formula. athlon 1400 running the xpformula would come with a rating around 1550+ or so.
Re: That's because we know the XP rating system is REALLY relative to P4 performance,
Yes the xp rating system is relative to the p4 just like the athlon was relative more or less to the p3.
Re: and AMD lied when they said it was scaled to Thunderbird performance.
You will have to produce a link on that one I only remember amd saying it was based on the athlon. Which it was.
Re: Now you can understand WHY they lied, it really was a liability issue.
If they lied (which I say they did not) amd might be liable for other things not to mention their reputation. AMD used the original athlon to produce the formula to compare the athlon with on die cache sse1 to that of the p4 of the day.
Re: But because of that lie, some people have unrealistic expectations of their replacement processors. And it opens up the debate where both sides can be argued.
Once again I don't see they lied at all. Yes an athlon 1400 might have preformed slightly better then an xp1500+ but if its so bad how all the people buying dells with a p4 @ 1.3 giz. Just exactly how much slower was a p3 @ 1.2 giz yup that’s right a p3 @ 1.2 completely smoked a p4 @ 1.3 giz. So who was fooling who?
Re: Which leaves us poking at each other.
Pokes crash in the eye
No corporation is honest. Remember the adds where Intel claimed their latest Celerons made your internet faster?
No greed seems to consume. I'm sure intel has a way to argue it's true. and when they explain it, it probably is. it would depend what chip you were comparing it to. Probably some kind of compression decompression thing that was not used on older cpu's. So yeah lots of misleading things out there for sure.
Amds pr rating formula might have been misleading for a few in that the formula did not compare to the old clocks of the athlon. But the formula was created with an athlon to compare to the MHz #'s of the misleading p4 of the day.
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.
Yes I can believe that.
Re: AMD REALLY based their XP rating system on the P4's clock speed.
No I believe amd based it on the athlon just like they said they did. The original athlon was slightly faster than the p3 on a clock per clock. Once amd implemented the formula a xp1500+ was slightly faster than a p4 @ 1.5 giz. Thus the plus
Re: So instead AMD claimed the XP rating system was based on the Thunderbird core.
No like I said I believe amd based it on the athlon just like they said they did. The real reason was to compare to the higher MHz lower performance p4 of the day.
Re: That would mean an XP2800+ would have 2x the peak performance of the Athlon 1400. And it doesn't, but we don't really EXPECT it to.
Yes and no. an xp2800+ can't compare to a athlon 1400 cause it is not running the benchmark formula. athlon 1400 running the xpformula would come with a rating around 1550+ or so.
Re: That's because we know the XP rating system is REALLY relative to P4 performance,
Yes the xp rating system is relative to the p4 just like the athlon was relative more or less to the p3.
Re: and AMD lied when they said it was scaled to Thunderbird performance.
You will have to produce a link on that one I only remember amd saying it was based on the athlon. Which it was.
Re: Now you can understand WHY they lied, it really was a liability issue.
If they lied (which I say they did not) amd might be liable for other things not to mention their reputation. AMD used the original athlon to produce the formula to compare the athlon with on die cache sse1 to that of the p4 of the day.
Re: But because of that lie, some people have unrealistic expectations of their replacement processors. And it opens up the debate where both sides can be argued.
Once again I don't see they lied at all. Yes an athlon 1400 might have preformed slightly better then an xp1500+ but if its so bad how all the people buying dells with a p4 @ 1.3 giz. Just exactly how much slower was a p3 @ 1.2 giz yup that’s right a p3 @ 1.2 completely smoked a p4 @ 1.3 giz. So who was fooling who?
Re: Which leaves us poking at each other.
Pokes crash in the eye
No corporation is honest. Remember the adds where Intel claimed their latest Celerons made your internet faster?
No greed seems to consume. I'm sure intel has a way to argue it's true. and when they explain it, it probably is. it would depend what chip you were comparing it to. Probably some kind of compression decompression thing that was not used on older cpu's. So yeah lots of misleading things out there for sure.
Amds pr rating formula might have been misleading for a few in that the formula did not compare to the old clocks of the athlon. But the formula was created with an athlon to compare to the MHz #'s of the misleading p4 of the day.
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.
I can't believe that <i>anyone</i> can <i>really</i> be that naive. You don't find the fact that AMD's XP ratings matched almost perfectly with P4s to be at all strange?
Intel release 3.2Ghz, and then AMD release 3200+ - They did not base it on anything, they merely released a Barton Core as fast as they could reliably make it in numbers, and labelled it the same as the current best performing intel chip. It's a marketing thing with only a very tenuous relationship to performance.
How come their 'Rating formula' never seems to produce XP numbers which round to anything other than whole '100' numbers? Since it's "not based on Mhz" at all (according to them) isn't it strange there's never been a XP2750+ or similar? Unless it's to try to get people looking at a 2600Mhz P4 to consider an XP2600+ instead.
And the Barton core being 300 points argument is based around the fact that a t-bred at 1.8Ghz is rated as XP2200+, but a Barton at 1.83Ghz is 2500+. an Extra 256K of cache and some extra FSB <i>do</i> help, but the XP2500+ is simply not 13.6% Faster than the XP2200+, which if the rating is founded on FACT it should be.
---
Epox 8RDA+ rev1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @205x11 (~2.26Ghz), 1.575Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 420/744
Corporations 'stretch the truth' all the time in the name of profitability. AMD is certainly no exception, though I realize you would like to believe otherwise. AMD's position as the underdog doesn't make it more 'saintly' than Intel.
Yes, AMD's official stance has always been that the rating system was based off the original Thunderbird core. However, when being forced to compete with Intel's higher-clocked processors, AMD had to come up with some sort of performance rating relative to the P4. When stacked up against a 2.4GHz CPU, 2400+ looks a lot more appealing than 1.8GHz. Yes, we all know that clock speed isn't everything, but we aren't the majority of people purchasing computers now are we?
<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
Yes, AMD's official stance has always been that the rating system was based off the original Thunderbird core. However, when being forced to compete with Intel's higher-clocked processors, AMD had to come up with some sort of performance rating relative to the P4. When stacked up against a 2.4GHz CPU, 2400+ looks a lot more appealing than 1.8GHz. Yes, we all know that clock speed isn't everything, but we aren't the majority of people purchasing computers now are we?
<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
phial
Splendid
- Oct 29, 2002
- 6,757
- 0
- 25,780
its just too obvious why AMD made the PR rating. to compare to Intel chips that offer similar performance, because stupid consumers get starry-eyed by large numbers
hence why people buy 2ghz Celerons over 1.6ghz Durons. everyone with half a brain knows that the Duron will perform a complete step above the celeron, but yet people still buy the celeron and for a higher price
AMD may SAY that its based off how a Tbird would perform, and that could be somewhat true, but it OBVIOUSLY made because thier chips are clocked lower and teh sad truth of the story is most computer outlets are FILLED with Intel-Fanboys.. goto to Futureshop, and ask any of the "computer techs" (computer [-peep-]-techs my ass) which is a better processor and youll see what i mean
-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
hence why people buy 2ghz Celerons over 1.6ghz Durons. everyone with half a brain knows that the Duron will perform a complete step above the celeron, but yet people still buy the celeron and for a higher price
AMD may SAY that its based off how a Tbird would perform, and that could be somewhat true, but it OBVIOUSLY made because thier chips are clocked lower and teh sad truth of the story is most computer outlets are FILLED with Intel-Fanboys.. goto to Futureshop, and ask any of the "computer techs" (computer [-peep-]-techs my ass) which is a better processor and youll see what i mean
-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
Re: I can't believe that anyone can really be that naive. You don't find the fact that AMD's XP ratings matched almost perfectly with P4s to be at all strange?
They did base the formula of the original athlon or it would be not misleading but an out an out lie. Of figging course it was designed to compare to the intel p4. Read the last few posts. It was NOT strange that was the purpose of the xp rating formula you just said it yourself.
Re: Intel release 3.2Ghz, and then AMD release 3200+ - They did not base it on anything, they merely released a Barton Core as fast as they could reliably make it in numbers, and labelled it the same as the current best performing intel chip. It's a marketing thing with only a very tenuous relationship to performance.
That was stupid! Intel did not base it on anything amd used the xp rating formula the formula does not change but the p4 improved dramatically with extra cache 800 fsb. Read the last 30 posts it explains it rather well. I am not going to repeat all that so read it yourself.
Re: How come their 'Rating formula' never seems to produce XP numbers which round to anything other than whole '100' numbers? Since it's "not based on Mhz" at all (according to them) isn't it strange there's never been a XP2750+ or similar? Unless it's to try to get people looking at a 2600Mhz P4 to consider an XP2600+ instead.
Good point and I dunno, I'm sure you don't know maybe it rounds one way or the other. maybe at point 5 maybe just up maybe just down. Maybe they just round down explaining the plus. as in 1600+
Re: And the Barton core being 300 points argument is based around the fact that a t-bred at 1.8Ghz is rated as XP2200+, but a Barton at 1.83Ghz is 2500+. an Extra 256K of cache and some extra FSB do help, but the XP2500+ is simply not 13.6% Faster than the XP2200+, which if the rating is founded on FACT it should be.
This is explained extensivly in the previous posts why should I have to rewrite it just for you? I'm saying I believe the xp formula to be based on benchmarks and the xp rating formula benchmark benifits more from extra cache then the bechies you are considering. Please re read and tell what you disagree with. And by the way there are certain bechmarks out where the xp2500 barton smokes an xp 2200 t-bred, 2400 t-bred and guess what in this particular benchmark it even beats a xp2600 t-bred . I could show a benchie
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=4" target="_new"> Business Winstone 2004 </A>
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=10" target="_new"> C & C Generals: Zero Hour Performance </A>
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. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by darko21 on 04/05/04 08:33 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
They did base the formula of the original athlon or it would be not misleading but an out an out lie. Of figging course it was designed to compare to the intel p4. Read the last few posts. It was NOT strange that was the purpose of the xp rating formula you just said it yourself.
Re: Intel release 3.2Ghz, and then AMD release 3200+ - They did not base it on anything, they merely released a Barton Core as fast as they could reliably make it in numbers, and labelled it the same as the current best performing intel chip. It's a marketing thing with only a very tenuous relationship to performance.
That was stupid! Intel did not base it on anything amd used the xp rating formula the formula does not change but the p4 improved dramatically with extra cache 800 fsb. Read the last 30 posts it explains it rather well. I am not going to repeat all that so read it yourself.
Re: How come their 'Rating formula' never seems to produce XP numbers which round to anything other than whole '100' numbers? Since it's "not based on Mhz" at all (according to them) isn't it strange there's never been a XP2750+ or similar? Unless it's to try to get people looking at a 2600Mhz P4 to consider an XP2600+ instead.
Good point and I dunno, I'm sure you don't know maybe it rounds one way or the other. maybe at point 5 maybe just up maybe just down. Maybe they just round down explaining the plus. as in 1600+
Re: And the Barton core being 300 points argument is based around the fact that a t-bred at 1.8Ghz is rated as XP2200+, but a Barton at 1.83Ghz is 2500+. an Extra 256K of cache and some extra FSB do help, but the XP2500+ is simply not 13.6% Faster than the XP2200+, which if the rating is founded on FACT it should be.
This is explained extensivly in the previous posts why should I have to rewrite it just for you? I'm saying I believe the xp formula to be based on benchmarks and the xp rating formula benchmark benifits more from extra cache then the bechies you are considering. Please re read and tell what you disagree with. And by the way there are certain bechmarks out where the xp2500 barton smokes an xp 2200 t-bred, 2400 t-bred and guess what in this particular benchmark it even beats a xp2600 t-bred . I could show a benchie
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=4" target="_new"> Business Winstone 2004 </A>
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=10" target="_new"> C & C Generals: Zero Hour Performance </A>
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. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by darko21 on 04/05/04 08:33 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Re: Corporations 'stretch the truth' all the time in the name of profitability. AMD is certainly no exception, though I realize you would like to believe otherwise. AMD's position as the underdog doesn't make it more 'saintly' than Intel.
Yes this is true amd is no saint I am sure they would mislead. all large companies seem to mislead and simply call it marketing. But crash saying AMD lied is wrong. AMD simply said its xp rating formula was based off the athlon. Not scaled to the athlon.
Re: Yes, AMD's official stance has always been that the rating system was based off the original Thunderbird core. However, when being forced to compete with Intel's higher-clocked processors, AMD had to come up with some sort of performance rating relative to the P4. When stacked up against a 2.4GHz CPU, 2400+ looks a lot more appealing than 1.8GHz. Yes, we all know that clock speed isn't everything, but we aren't the majority of people purchasing computers now are we?
I think I can agree with the above statment. Can you agree the below statment is more likley than AMD actually lying?
To clairify for you I am saying the xprating formula was
created with a tbird. and when they ran the formula on it it gave a athlon 900 a score rating of xp1000 (give or take)but they never used it untill the sse1 ondie cache 1333 athlon making it an xp1500.
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. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by darko21 on 04/05/04 07:59 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Yes this is true amd is no saint I am sure they would mislead. all large companies seem to mislead and simply call it marketing. But crash saying AMD lied is wrong. AMD simply said its xp rating formula was based off the athlon. Not scaled to the athlon.
Re: Yes, AMD's official stance has always been that the rating system was based off the original Thunderbird core. However, when being forced to compete with Intel's higher-clocked processors, AMD had to come up with some sort of performance rating relative to the P4. When stacked up against a 2.4GHz CPU, 2400+ looks a lot more appealing than 1.8GHz. Yes, we all know that clock speed isn't everything, but we aren't the majority of people purchasing computers now are we?
I think I can agree with the above statment. Can you agree the below statment is more likley than AMD actually lying?
To clairify for you I am saying the xprating formula was
created with a tbird. and when they ran the formula on it it gave a athlon 900 a score rating of xp1000 (give or take)but they never used it untill the sse1 ondie cache 1333 athlon making it an xp1500.
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. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by darko21 on 04/05/04 07:59 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,594
- 91
- 66,190
I also said Intel lied when they said the Celeron makes your internet faster. Let's hear you defend that one!
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
Re: I also said Intel lied when they said the Celeron makes your internet faster. Let's hear you defend that one!
I cannot defend it its completly misleading but someone trying to prove it a out and out lie would have a tough time cause it's misleading marketing. Look at how I originaly replided to that below.
No greed seems to consume. I'm sure intel has a way to argue it's true. and when they explain it, it probably is. it would depend what chip you were comparing it to. Probably some kind of compression decompression thing that was not used on older cpu's. So yeah lots of misleading things out there for sure.
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.
I cannot defend it its completly misleading but someone trying to prove it a out and out lie would have a tough time cause it's misleading marketing. Look at how I originaly replided to that below.
No greed seems to consume. I'm sure intel has a way to argue it's true. and when they explain it, it probably is. it would depend what chip you were comparing it to. Probably some kind of compression decompression thing that was not used on older cpu's. So yeah lots of misleading things out there for sure.
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.
phial
Splendid
- Oct 29, 2002
- 6,757
- 0
- 25,780
because thats how much of a debate it is these days 
it affects everything we do with personal computers, and affects what we get for products (and the prices of these products) in teh future.. its very important, especially sinse personal computing isnt a leisure activity anymore its part of our daily lives/communications/work
-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
it affects everything we do with personal computers, and affects what we get for products (and the prices of these products) in teh future.. its very important, especially sinse personal computing isnt a leisure activity anymore its part of our daily lives/communications/work
-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
It's more like Crashman Vs. Darko21 than AMD Vs. Intel.
Darko:
When they <i>first</i> released an Athlon XP, they said the model number was a direct correlation to thunderbird performance. AMD said that an Athlon XP1600+ would give the same performance as a Thunderbird Athlon running at 1600Mhz, if one existed. they have since changed their tune and now say it's based on some other formula, whose <i>exact</i> nature they keep quiet. They list a bunch of benchmarks, but don't say anything about precisely what the calculation they then perform to get the model number actually is. Why don't they tell us?
I can't help but think it's something like this:
([Sum of Benchmark scores] / [Sum of benchmark scores] ) * [desired model number]
---
Epox 8RDA+ rev1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @205x11 (~2.26Ghz), 1.575Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 420/744
Darko:
When they <i>first</i> released an Athlon XP, they said the model number was a direct correlation to thunderbird performance. AMD said that an Athlon XP1600+ would give the same performance as a Thunderbird Athlon running at 1600Mhz, if one existed. they have since changed their tune and now say it's based on some other formula, whose <i>exact</i> nature they keep quiet. They list a bunch of benchmarks, but don't say anything about precisely what the calculation they then perform to get the model number actually is. Why don't they tell us?
I can't help but think it's something like this:
([Sum of Benchmark scores] / [Sum of benchmark scores] ) * [desired model number]
---
Epox 8RDA+ rev1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @205x11 (~2.26Ghz), 1.575Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 420/744
Re: When they first released an Athlon XP, they said the model number was a direct correlation to thunderbird performance. AMD said that an Athlon XP1600+ would give the same performance as a Thunderbird Athlon running at 1600Mhz, if one existed.
Ok if AMD said that it would be an out and out lie.
But I don't remember that. I only remember it as it was based of an athlon core. I think you should back that up with a link. I honestly can't see amd making such a blatent lie, because amd knew the xprating formula would be scrutenized by the press.
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.
Ok if AMD said that it would be an out and out lie.
But I don't remember that. I only remember it as it was based of an athlon core. I think you should back that up with a link. I honestly can't see amd making such a blatent lie, because amd knew the xprating formula would be scrutenized by the press.
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.
Re: When they first released an Athlon XP, they said the model number was a direct correlation to thunderbird performance. AMD said that an Athlon XP1600+ would give the same performance as a Thunderbird Athlon running at 1600Mhz, if one existed. they have since changed their tune and now say it's based on some other formula, whose exact nature they keep quiet. They list a bunch of benchmarks, but don't say anything about precisely what the calculation they then perform to get the model number actually is. Why don't they tell us?
Ok Chipdeath I found the link and it would appear you are lying not amd..
<A HREF="http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20011009/athlonxp-12.html#amds_new_model_policy" target="_new"> AMD's New Model Policy </A>
AMD's new 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.
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. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by darko21 on 04/06/04 01:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Ok Chipdeath I found the link and it would appear you are lying not amd..
<A HREF="http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20011009/athlonxp-12.html#amds_new_model_policy" target="_new"> AMD's New Model Policy </A>
AMD's new 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.
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. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by darko21 on 04/06/04 01:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Microsoft updates Windows 11 24H2 requirements, CPU must support SSE4.2 or the OS will not boot- Started by Admin
- Replies: 14
-
-
-
Question New Build GPU help- ASRock Steel Legend OC Radeon RX 7900 GRE - Keeps turning off
- Started by bp240
- Replies: 5
-
Question How can I make my AMD GPU scale *all* resolutions to 1080p, even resolutions that are "supported" by my TV?
- Started by Sol33t303
- Replies: 7
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram