For the last time, AMD DOES NOT base its PRs on P4s

[specktre]

oh...and the reason AMD uses those software benchmarks because most of the newer benchmarks are written specifically on intel's architecture. such as lightwave, and maya.


Bottom line.... Intel Is Gay


Oh and all of you Intel Fanboys, are the Naive ones, because if it wasn't for AMD the P4 would be oh i'd say around $2000 if not more. and i doubt we would even be at 3000mhz if it weren't for a little competition in the market.

 

[dullard]

You're reading it wrong. While the comparisons they draw later compare the AXP to the P4 3.06, that is NOT - I repeat, NOT - the basis for their model number. He clearly states in the Inquirer article that the basis for model numbers (a performance rating) hasn't changed since they started the rating system.

Read all the AMD links (current ones and ones starting back when the PR rating emerged - Oct 2001 was the official first use). You will see a clear picture emerge. In one line on one page they mention that the PR system is a good comparison to the T-bird. But they have dozens of comparisons of the PR rating to the P4 - including graphs, tables, text, etc. It has always been this way. So which do you believe: dozens or one measily line?

Here is the first time AMD used ratings. "The P-rating is a new performance measurement... using the industry standard Winstone 96 benchmark. If an AMD-K5 processor has a rating of "PR100" that means that the processor would offer you performance equal to or greater than a Pentium at that P-rating. For Example, if you have a AMD-K5-PR133, it would give you the performance level of a Pentium 133MHz processor. However, the "PR" rating is not an indication of clock frequency." Clearly AMD's rating started as a comparison to the Pentiums. Note: I realize the new P-rating is used in a different era on different chips.

 

[LikeLinus]

and now an AMD marketing guy has confirmed it.

God has spoken!!! And he said....let there be AMD ME!!!!

Yeah I believe the "AMD Marketing guy"

Please

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
and now an AMD marketing guy has confirmed it.

God has spoken!!! And he said....let there be AMD ME!!!!

Yeah I believe the "AMD Marketing guy"

Please

Well, there's also a little piece of paper with a very expensive signature on it from:

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Chiz

 

[paralazarguer]

Yeah, anyone who believes that the PR system is based on Thunderbird performance is a naive moron or the world's biggest fanboy.
SexyK is correct. If AMD's BS marketing claim designed to make it seem like they're not comparing themselves to Intel were to believed, it would mean that the Thunderbird Athlon has the same performance, clock for clock, as a northwood Pentium 4. This is BS. We know that even a thunderbird is much faster than any P4 to date clock for clock.

Aside from the obvious evidence, there's the truth that AMD has never needed a PR system to usher in the increased IPC over its older processors. It only came to be when Intel started rocketing ahead in clock speed and dropping their IPC. It's obvious why it came to be.

naive
naive
naive
fanboy
Take your pick.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
and now an AMD marketing guy has confirmed it.

God has spoken!!! And he said....let there be AMD ME!!!!

Yeah I believe the "AMD Marketing guy"

Please

Well, there's also a little piece of paper with a very expensive signature on it from:

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Chiz

I use and like AMD. But you'd have to be a damn fool to believe that.

Sorry no letter from Pricewaterhouse is going to make me believe any different. It's a ratings scale that AMD created themselves. They can make the numbers up however they want to.

Apparently you haven't been keeping up with how the Barton 3000+ is performing like a 2800+ and even the 2600+ in some cases.
Hate the Inquirer, but this is linked directly off the same article

Yeah the PR rating really works.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: mee987
the link you gave says "3dmark 2001 second edition". what do you think SE stands for?

Ok, I stand corrected. It says that in the .pdf, but not on that page. Nonetheless, the point that they don't use current benchmarks is still valid.

Originally posted by: specktre
oh...and the reason AMD uses those software benchmarks because most of the newer benchmarks are written specifically on intel's architecture. such as lightwave, and maya.

I'm not sure why people find it odd that software developers optimize their products towards the cpu that holds almost 90% of the desktop sales. I suppose you think end users continue with Photoshop 5.5 and not 7.0?

Originally posted by: specktre
Oh and all of you Intel Fanboys, are the Naive ones, because if it wasn't for AMD the P4 would be oh i'd say around $2000 if not more. and i doubt we would even be at 3000mhz if it weren't for a little competition in the market.

Actually, the market conditions have more to do with the low prices than competition. This is not to say that competition has no impact... Just not as much as the weak tech economy.

Go back a couple of years for an excellent example. Competition was never more heated than the race to 1ghz. Do you happen to remember how much the Athlon 1ghz went for when it was released? $1299 in quantities of 1000.

Originally posted by: specktre
Bottom line.... Intel Is Gay

 

[paralazarguer]

So, how come a 1.4ghz thunderbird is faster than a mobile athlon xp 1400+(1266Mhz)??????

 

[LikeLinus]

Does it matter? The AMD Marketing Guy said its not true.

 

[paralazarguer]

Why doesn't the original poster of this thread start a pole to see how many people are naive enough to believe AMD's rediculous claim that it's based on T-bird performance. Should be funny to see how many people believe any thing that a company tells you for PR. Yes, the Athlon XP 3000+ really is "the fastest desktop processor in the world." Except of course for that other REAL fastest desktop processor...you know, that one that outperforms the 3000+

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: Markfw900
On the contrary, according to the text and the link in the article (http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_1274_3734^3750,00.html) it DOES compare to the P4.

no no no no no no no no

You're reading it wrong. While the comparisons they draw later compare the AXP to the P4 3.06, that is NOT - I repeat, NOT - the basis for their model number. He clearly states in the Inquirer article that the basis for model numbers (a performance rating) hasn't changed since they started the rating system.

Originally stated by: Richard Baker, in a letter to The Inquirer
The basis on which they are calculated is the same as it has always been, neither the applications nor their relative weightings have been changed since the original 1.4 Ghz Athlon.

CLEARLY, this states that they weight the performance on the same base benches (the 1.4GHz Athlon) and the same bechmark programs (listed in the supporting link).

And compare those benchmark results (from AMD and verified by PWC) with those of a P4 to come up with the PR rating. As shown in all the supporting linkage above.

Thorin

 

[mee987]

Originally posted by: paralazarguer
So, how come a 1.4ghz thunderbird is faster than a mobile athlon xp 1400+??????

lets not bring moble cpu's into this debate... both amd and intel mobile cpu's are never as fast as their desktop counterparts.

 

[Gibson12345]

I love my new AMD Barton 4600+. How did I manage the 4600+ PR rating, you ask? I just compared it to a Cyrix. No big deal.

...

 

[paralazarguer]

lets not bring moble cpu's into this debate... both amd and intel mobile cpu's are never as fast as their desktop counterparts.

Except that the mobile athlons are as fast as their desktop processors...geezus...my god...I mean, really. I was trying to illustrate that The athlon XP couldn't possibly be based on t-bird speed since a t-bird is faster than a similarly rated athlon xp. Some people. Wow

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
I use and like AMD. But you'd have to be a damn fool to believe that.

Sorry no letter from Pricewaterhouse is going to make me believe any different. It's a ratings scale that AMD created themselves. They can make the numbers up however they want to.

Apparently you haven't been keeping up with how the Barton 3000+ is performing like a 2800+ and even the 2600+ in some cases.
Hate the Inquirer, but this is linked directly off the same article

Yeah the PR rating really works.

No, I have been keeping up with the Bartons, and have posted plenty on it. I'll be the first to admit that the 3000+ is a misnomer, but it may very well hold true in the same standard benchmarking suites that were used to to test the 1.4 T-bird. After all, thats ALL the PR release says, and is also the reason why many of you are criticizing the testing methods with "old" benchmarks.

Just because the current reviews don't reflect the same results does NOT mean that PwC/AMD's test results are inaccurate or fabricated or meant to compare it to the P4, it simply means that the test itself is flawed or dated. If you look at the Barton's performance increase over a T-bred, you'll see that the 5-10% performance increases are found in the EXACT same applications as those listed in the testing methodology whitepapers: older games and office applications.

AMD's PR rating was DEAD-ON when it was first introduced, a 1600+ @ 1.4ghz did see a 200mhz performance boost over a same clocked 1.4 T-bird, and has been consistently the same compared to subsequent XPs based on IDENTICAL architecture (just die-shrinks). It just so happened that AMD's results mirrored the performance of a P4 clocked at the XP PR rating, and with no other T-birds to properly adjust to, the "P4 - PR" relationship was born.

As for questioning a certification/opinion from PwC, that's a pretty ignorant statement; obviously someone places faith in what they do considering the only product they produce is a piece of paper with a signature on it. Its good for tens-of-billions of dollars in revenue a year, but the bottom-line is its worth a helluva lot more than the soiled TP that gets thrown around here.

Chiz

 

[mee987]

Originally posted by: paralazarguer

lets not bring moble cpu's into this debate... both amd and intel mobile cpu's are never as fast as their desktop counterparts.

Except that the mobile athlons are as fast as their desktop processors...geezus...my god...I mean, really. I was trying to illustrate that The athlon XP couldn't possibly be based on t-bird speed since a t-bird is faster than a similarly rated athlon xp. Some people. Wow

that doesnt make it impossible. i agree that they are basing it on p4 speed, but your "illustration" sucked. look at anand's review of the 2ghz p4m... it sucks compared to the desktop 2ghz p4, does that mean that they cant call it 2ghz?

 

[dullard]

Well, there's also a little piece of paper with a very expensive signature on it from:

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Chiz

No where in that paper does it say where the PR rating came from. It says the fps they got, but not how to convert those into a PR score. That is the one piece of information that AMD has never stated to the public. Are all the tests weighted equally, or are some given more weight? There are tons of similar questions that we don't know the answers to.

If it doesn't say how to get the PR number, then why on earth do they use that paper to verify the PR number? And it certainly cannot be used to know what chip the PR number is currently being based on.

 

[paralazarguer]

In the link provided to this place:
AMD's SITE
It shows the P4 with hyperthreading with 100%, the p4 without hyperthreading at 106% and the athlon XP at 117%.

Doesn't the P4 at 100% mean that it was the baseline used to compare the athlon to????/

 

[dullard]

Doesn't the P4 at 100% mean that it was the baseline used to compare the athlon to????/

That is one of the dozens of graphs, tables, and paragraphs that I mentioned before of AMD basing it on the P4. Yet people still think AMD doesn't compare it to the P4.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: dullard

Doesn't the P4 at 100% mean that it was the baseline used to compare the athlon to????/

That is one of the dozens of graphs, tables, and paragraphs that I mentioned before of AMD basing it on the P4. Yet people still think AMD doesn't compare it to the P4.

No. Because PwC was paid to create a paper stating that the PR system is A-OK and right. They were brought in as consultants, paid a good deal of money, and we have to believe it....cause it has to be true?

 

[dullard]

No. Because PwC was paid to create a paper stating that the PR system is A-OK and right. They were brought in as consultants, paid a good deal of money, and we have to believe it....cause it has to be true?

But the PwC paper doesn't even mention the PR system. Thus it has nothing to do with the PR system. However I am glad to see that AMD switched from Arthur Anderson (the same company that said Enron's numbers were correct).

Edit: I think you were being sarcastic. Was I correct?

 

[paralazarguer]

And all that signature shows is that
"the management of...aserts that the following results were generated with the AMD Athlon XP 300_ processor using the benchmark teste below."
They don't say it's the reason for the PR rating and they don't bench either a P4 or a thunderbird. They just verified that the benchmarks were done 3 times and to their standards. That's it.

 

[paralazarguer]

[No. Because PwC was paid to create a paper stating that the PR system is A-OK and right. They were brought in as consultants, paid a good deal of money, and we have to believe it....cause it has to be true?[/quote]

No. Actally they were paid to ensure that the benchmarks in that paper were done clinically and correctly. They didn't compare it to any other processor at all and never once referred to any PR system. It's just a benchmark to give users an indication of the processor's speed compared to NOTHING. Just numbers. But I guess you can read whatever you want into it...if you're a fanboy.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: dullard

Well, there's also a little piece of paper with a very expensive signature on it from:

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Chiz

No where in that paper does it say where the PR rating came from. It says the fps they got, but not how to convert those into a PR score. That is the one piece of information that AMD has never stated to the public. Are all the tests weighted equally, or are some given more weight? There are tons of similar questions that we don't know the answers to.

If it doesn't say how to get the PR number, then why on earth do they use that paper to verify the PR number? And it certainly cannot be used to know what chip the PR number is currently being based on.

Its obviously in comparison to previous XP's based on the same testing suite. If you'd like to take the time to compile a comparison, I'm sure you'd find your answer. I could care less, I spent 3 years at PwC doing due diligence and transaction services in their M&A and Valuation group, so I'm not gonna bother unless you're willing to pay me at my billable rate. I'm sure all the data you're looking for is in a workpaper file in the San Jose office if you really wanna find out. All you have to do though is look at Barton's performance over a 2700+ or 2800+ T-bred in the same tests published in PwC's Opinion Letter on the 3000+, and you'll see where the increased PR comes from.

Chiz

 

[LikeLinus]

I was being sarcastic. PwC has problems of it's own.

Current companies under investigation because of their business practices, and their auditor at the time was PwC

Kmart
Says the SEC is investigating its accounting and other practices. The company investigated whether it improperly accounted for vendor allowances, and since changed its practice.

Lucent Technologies
Adjusted fiscal 2000 revenues by $679 million, spurring SEC investigation. Agency also investigating whether vendor-financing played an improper role in its sales.


MicroStrategy
Settled without admitting wrongdoing an SEC suit accusing it of backdating sales contracts to meet quarterly financial estimates, among other improper revenue-recognition practices

Tyco International
Whether it improperly created 'cookie jar' reserves that were supposed to cover merger costs but instead were drawn on to boost profits; and whether it improperly 'spring-loaded' earnings from acquisitions by accelerating their pre-merger outlays

Sounds like their doing a great job