Suppose AMD made a processor that got all the same scores except Unreal Tournament got 108 fps instead of 105.89 that the 3000+ got. That new chip must be faster. But does that mean it gets a PR of 3001? 3010? 3100? Or what? We don't know. I fully trust their scores are accurate. But how do we get those into a PR?
First off, your logic is terribly flawed. Here's what you stated in general terms (X=MHz):
AHHHH!!! Are you even READING the link? That's the whole point of this thread. What I'm trying desperately to say is that what you just claimed is not the case. Good Lord!
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Sounds like their doing a great job
Once again, nowhere in those articles does it say that the PR system is BASED on the speed of a relative P4. On the contrary, the AMD they use for comparison already HAS a PR assigned to it. Those charts are simply to say, "Here's how our processor - which happens to be labeled the 3000+ - ranks compare to our biggest competitor." In every other industry I can think of with more than one product, they base model numbers (or rating numbers) on how a certain product performs relative to the other products in that company's lineup. Why is this so hard to believe?! However, that same company will put its products up against competing products from OTHER companies to show its relative place in the market. That's all AMD is doing.
Heh. While you make a valid point (man I hate marketers), his point about what AMD bases their PRs on is backed up by data and an external audit by PWC.
Again, I agree with you about marketers, but your statement is just conjecture. I have facts to back up my claim, where are yours?Originally posted by: apoppin
It is AMD's reply and clearly marketing FUD!.
The PR rating IS (positively and absolutely) tied to the P-4 (period)
If you believe otherwise you are an AMD fanboy or naive.
Originally posted by: chizow
Intel doesn't make this claim that 2.4 laptop will perform equal to a desktop. It's well known they dont.
Also I'm not sure how much of the "laptop's" limitations there are on a CPU intensive test that only test what a CPU Can do, not the components that surround it.
Also one other question. Exactly HOW are they testing the performance of the Barton compaired to the older Tbirds?? They are testing these newer chips with newer motherboards that could affect performance (as you suggest that a laptop's counterparts would do). Then how is it truly a fair comparison if they are testing newer technology on a new slocket motherboard that performs better? This would only be if the test were performed on the CPU only, which wouldnt be affected on the chipset and other things. See the catch 22 here? Cant have it both ways. Either the laptop counterparts are the same performance, or the parts around them are affect test. Then you have to look further into WHAT they are testing with and how this test was originally created.
I could really care less, I guess i'm just not gullible enough to fall for this whole "PR is real, no really, it's true". Nothing you can make me say to follow like a sheep to AMD. Anyone with half a brain can tell their PR was created to match themselves to the mhz number of Intel so they don't lose ground or sales to Intel because of the P4's ability to pump up to a higher mhz.
The funny thing is...AMD started this whole thing by releasing the Athlon 1GHZ 3 whole days before Intel and then coming out with commercials saying they had the "fastest" chip on the planet and they were the first to 1GHZ. So Intel changed their strategy and buried AMD mhz for mhz. Now AMD all the sudden started saying "oh mhz doesn't matter, only true performance does"
While it's true, They picked a fight they couldnt win (probably didnt expect to lose so fast) and got burned. They stuck their tail between their legs and started the PR system.
While i love AMD and i love all three chips i own by them...I'm not fooled by their intentions to make money and to make themselves look better to "Joe Public" who doesnt know jack about computers.
They can keep their PwC paper, I know what the truth is
I've made my claim as clearly as possible, but some refuse to believe it.
Later, they normalize the results of the benchmarks of different processors to the performance of a 1.4GHz T-Bird. As you can see, the models that are roughly 3% faster than their predecessors are also 100 points above them. As you can also see, this set of benchmarking programs was updated for the 2200+, which is why the comparison isn't using outdated benchmarks.
Facebook
Twitter