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

[paralazarguer]

this should be sufficient enough to disprove the notion that PR numbers are based on equivalent P4s.

Maybe in testing but not common sense. Why do you think the PR rating exists in the first place?

TO COMPARE TO THE P4 for consumers who don't know about IPC vs. clockspeed!

IF AMD and Intel's top processor were clocked the same, the PR system would surely not exist. It's obviously a marketing tool used to inform consumers...to compare to the p4. Just because they used benchmarks comparing to a t-bird as an means to that end doesn't change the ultimate end. Comparing to a p4.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
Most people on THIS site do not care about the PR ratings, they care about the benchmark performance in the reviews. The people who care are system resellers and buyers who don't know jack about performance anyway. IMHO

If the people on this site don't care, then why was there such an uproar when the 3000+ was released? Because the PR was off? Well this whole post is one possible explanation. I'm not saying that the 3000+ is justified, necessarily, because I really haven't looked that far into it. I'm just stating that, for the record, the PR numbers ARE NOT based on P4s. How can we even begin to argue about the validity of the TPI system if we don't even know what that system is based on. The arguments are different for and against the validity of the ratings system depending on how they're created.

 

[paralazarguer]

If the people on this site don't care, then why was there such an uproar when the 3000+ was released? Because the PR was off? Well this whole post is one possible explanation. I'm not saying that the 3000+ is justified, necessarily, because I really haven't looked that far into it. I'm just stating that, for the record, the PR numbers ARE NOT based on P4s. How can we even begin to argue about the validity of the TPI system if we don't even know what that system is based on. The arguments are different for and against the validity of the ratings system depending on how they're created.

But it's not. You're only talking about the testing. The means. I'm talking about the end. The reason that the PR system exists to begin with.

 

[LikeLinus]

I'm not saying saying that their test are based off the p4. I'm saying they were created to make people believe their chips are the same mhz. It's basically a smoke act. Also their rating system is full of crap. It's always changing and never accurate. To make matters worse they are basing it off their own chipset.

Ok answer me this. WHY does AMD need an PR system? It's because they are losing the Mhz war to intel, plain and simple. They had to create something to make themselves look better. The problem lies in the fact that it's ever evolving. So basically it's BS to start with.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: paralazarguer

But it's not. You're only talking about the testing. The means. I'm talking about the end. The reason that the PR system exists to begin with.

You just answered your argument and invalidated your poll. Read the title again. AMD DOES NOT base its PRs on P4s

You're combining the "how" with the "why". Two distinct assertions.

Chiz

 

[paralazarguer]

You just answered your argument and invalidated your poll. Read the title again. AMD DOES NOT base its PRs on P4s

You're combining the "how" with the "why". Two distinct assertions.

No. I'm not invalidating anything. Think of it this way:

AMD: Okay, this processor is about equivelent to a XXX P4. Now we need to come up with a test that can give us a rating without directly comparing to a P4.

YES MAN: I know! We'll bench against a T-bird!

And then in the future when a simple T-bird comparison doesn't give them the rating they're looking for to compare to that P4 they want to speed grade to, they upgrade the videocard or chipset or whatever it takes.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: paralazarguer

You just answered your argument and invalidated your poll. Read the title again. AMD DOES NOT base its PRs on P4s

You're combining the "how" with the "why". Two distinct assertions.

No. I'm not invalidating anything. Think of it this way:

AMD: Okay, this processor is about equivelent to a XXX P4. Now we need to come up with a test that can give us a rating without directly comparing to a P4.

YES MAN: I know! We'll bench against a T-bird!

And then in the future when a simple T-bird comparison doesn't give them the rating they're looking for to compare to that P4 they want to speed grade to, they upgrade the videocard or chipset or whatever it takes.

Again, flawed logic. Benchmarks used with the same testing suite show the CPU scales identically with the original relationship, regardless of what hardware is used in conjunction. The relationship (until recently with the introduction of 333FSB and Barton, which I DO NOT agree with and have stated as such) has held true essentially to a 67mhz to 100 PR ratio. This relationship has also for the most part indicated the difference between an XP and a P4. 67mhz XP = 100mhz P4.

What you're left with is still 2 assertions:

1) AMD bases their PR relative to a P4 (which is false)

2) AMD began using the PR convention as a market reaction to the scaling architecture of the P4 (which is probably true).

Chiz

 

[paralazarguer]

AMD began using the PR convention as a market reaction to the scaling architecture of the P4 (which is probably true).

Yeah, very good. That's what I'm saying. But you also have to ad that the PR ratings ARE based on the P4.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: paralazarguer

AMD began using the PR convention as a market reaction to the scaling architecture of the P4 (which is probably true).

Yeah, very good. That's what I'm saying. But you also have to ad that the PR ratings ARE based on the P4.

I give up

I don't care that much, I'll just keep doing my own PR calculations in my head when I see big numbers behind P4 (mhz * 2/3).

Chiz

 

[BFG10K]

If you remember, clock for clock, the T-Birds were fairly evenly matched to the P4s. That's why the PR system seems to follow the P4 architecture fairly closely.

That is false and was never the case. TBirds always had an IPC advantage over WIllammette P4 processors (1.4 GHz TBird roughly equalled a 1.7 GHz P4 Willamette) and in fact, TBirds usually had a slight IPC advantage over Coppermine P3s as well.

 

[paralazarguer]

88% of Anandtechers agree: AMD's PR rating is based on the P4

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: paralazarguer
88% of Anandtechers agree: AMD's PR rating is based on the P4

Again, its b/c your poll is flawed. Its a loaded question. Any pollster would rip it to shred.

Chiz

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: paralazarguer
88% of Anandtechers agree: AMD's PR rating is based on the P4

Again, its b/c your poll is flawed. Its a loaded question. Any pollster would rip it to shred.

Chiz

The question might be "flawed" but you seem to not realize the results are true. I'm not quite sure why you keep defending this like you work for AMD, but the PR system is seriously flawed and not many people like it.

It's a direct result of the mhz performance lead of Intel. You still wont answer anything IVE asked, but damn well you sure can whine about that poll a lot.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: 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.

I already proved SexyK's logic wrong a few posts ago, so go find it yourself.

As for the fact that the T-Bird is much faster than any P4 to date clock for clock, that too is true. And, if you look at their White Papers, you'll see that by AMD's list of benches, the AXPs are much faster than their P4 counterparts at similar PR/GHz.

Your problem with this thread (which is shared by many) is that you don't like the PR system inherently. Nobody in here is going to tell you that the system wasn't developed, initially, to make their products competitive to Intel to the masses that look at a box and say, "Hey! That number is bigger than that one!" It clearly was. However, that doesn't mean that the actual numbers THEMSELVES don't come from an internal comparison to their older T-Bird 1.4.

You think I'm naive, eh? I think you don't want to look at facts.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: paralazarguer
88% of Anandtechers agree: AMD's PR rating is based on the P4

Again, its b/c your poll is flawed. Its a loaded question. Any pollster would rip it to shred.

Chiz

The question might be "flawed" but you seem to not realize the results are true. I'm not quite sure why you keep defending this like you work for AMD, but the PR system is seriously flawed and not many people like it.

It's a direct result of the mhz performance lead of Intel. You still wont answer anything IVE asked, but damn well you sure can whine about that poll a lot.

I'm done pointing out the flaws in your arguments, its no longer worth the time and the effort. I've acknowledged many times that there would be no need for a PR system if AMD could keep up in the mhz race, but that doesn't invalidate the claim that AMD bases their PR rating on their T-bird. I don't purchase a CPU based on a PR rating, I purchase it based on real-world performance (and stepping ).

I don't feel like I'm defending anything, I just don't like seeing misconception becoming reality.

Chiz

 

[Ilmater]

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

[/quote]
Good post Wingznut, and ditto on the rolling eyes.

I hate to sound like the PC police but seriously, calling something "gay" doesn't exactly lend credibility to your arguments.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: paralazarguer
88% of Anandtechers agree: AMD's PR rating is based on the P4

Again, its b/c your poll is flawed. Its a loaded question. Any pollster would rip it to shred.

Chiz

The question might be "flawed" but you seem to not realize the results are true. I'm not quite sure why you keep defending this like you work for AMD, but the PR system is seriously flawed and not many people like it.

It's a direct result of the mhz performance lead of Intel. You still wont answer anything IVE asked, but damn well you sure can whine about that poll a lot.

I'm done pointing out the flaws in your arguments, its no longer worth the time and the effort. I've acknowledged many times that there would be no need for a PR system if AMD could keep up in the mhz race, but that doesn't invalidate the claim that AMD bases their PR rating on their T-bird. I don't purchase a CPU based on a PR rating, I purchase it based on real-world performance (and stepping ).

I don't feel like I'm defending anything, I just don't like seeing misconception becoming reality.

Chiz

No actually thats the first time youve said that. You've avoided my questions every time. Atleast we know the truth and even YOU know it's marketing BS.

<<I don't purchase a CPU based on a PR rating, I purchase it based on real-world performance>>

Yeah but they know joe blow doesnt know the difference, so it's a fabrication on what it is to generate sales based on name/numbers alone.

You also have many good excuses, but the test are fatally flawed. The fact that the chips don't have a standard testbed and the components around them change everytime is undisputible evidence that the PR system is a joke and has no merit.

It's really no different than Intel saying the P3 speeds up the Internet. I'm sure they have benchmarks and proof, but you wouldn't dare defend them would you? Cause you're not a AMD Fanboy are you? Just curious.

It all boils down to lies...and the fact that the ratings system wasn't created by a 3rd party without interest in either company is whats wrong here. It's not scientific and can be changed by what components are ran with you.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: paralazarguer
88% of Anandtechers agree: AMD's PR rating is based on the P4

Again, its b/c your poll is flawed. Its a loaded question. Any pollster would rip it to shred.

Chiz

The question might be "flawed" but you seem to not realize the results are true. I'm not quite sure why you keep defending this like you work for AMD, but the PR system is seriously flawed and not many people like it.

It's a direct result of the mhz performance lead of Intel. You still wont answer anything IVE asked, but damn well you sure can whine about that poll a lot.

I'm done pointing out the flaws in your arguments, its no longer worth the time and the effort. I've acknowledged many times that there would be no need for a PR system if AMD could keep up in the mhz race, but that doesn't invalidate the claim that AMD bases their PR rating on their T-bird. I don't purchase a CPU based on a PR rating, I purchase it based on real-world performance (and stepping ).

I don't feel like I'm defending anything, I just don't like seeing misconception becoming reality.

Chiz

No actually thats the first time youve said that. You've avoided my questions every time. Atleast we know the truth and even YOU know it's marketing BS.

<<I don't purchase a CPU based on a PR rating, I purchase it based on real-world performance>>

Yeah but they know joe blow doesnt know the difference, so it's a fabrication on what it is to generate sales based on name/numbers alone.

You also have many good excuses, but the test are fatally flawed. The fact that the chips don't have a standard testbed and the components around them change everytime is undisputible evidence that the PR system is a joke and has no merit.

It's really no different than Intel saying the P3 speeds up the Internet. I'm sure they have benchmarks and proof, but you wouldn't dare defend them would you? Cause you're not a AMD Fanboy are you? Just curious.

It all boils down to lies...and the fact that the ratings system wasn't created by a 3rd party without interest in either company is whats wrong here. It's not scientific and can be changed by what components are ran with you.

You must be good with your hands, as it seems you lack the mental capacity to grasp simple relationships. If you want to isolate 1 variable, you run it on an identical platform with the same testing measure, say a benchmark. If you changed that 1 variable, you would get a different result. If you ran the same test with 1 variable and changed all of the global variables, your end result would be different, but the RATIO or % delta between the results would remain the SAME. Don't talk about lies and flaws when you can't even understand such a simple concept.

On second thought, the PR rating might not be such a bad idea after all, it would help quantify real world performance so people like you won't have to think about it.

Chiz

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: specktre
first of all even if the PR ratings are compared to P4's.. who the hell cares because it doesn't matter.

It does matter, though I think that many people in this thread agree with you that it doesn't matter. You, like myself, think that there is some validity to the PR system. If you ever try to argue that point with someone on here who disagrees, they'll say PRs are unfair because the PRs are based on P4s with clock rates roughly equal to whatever PR number AMD assigns. Since this is not true, it changes the argument from, "Are the ratings fair compared to P4 systems?" to "Should the ratings system be changed?"

if AMD weren't a blackballed by dell and gateway because of intel's pressure then AMD would be able to have the R&D power to have there processors out sooner, which would make AMD have the faster processor out first.

Wait a minute. You think that Intel is pressuring Dell and Gateway? You've got that backwards. Dell (Gateway doesn't have as much power) negotiates their prices with Intel, and Dell has the bigger sway. If Dell leaves Intel for AMD, AMD would have huge, sudden validity in many peoples eyes just because Dell is backing it. If Intel decides no longer to sell Dell their products, Dell might lose SOME business, but not that much. It would hurt Intel MANY TIMES greater than it would hurt Dell.

As for your comment about R&D, if that were true, then why did AMD ever beat Intel to the 1GHz mark. Intel has many times the R&D dollars of AMD, and that was an important milestone in the line of CPUs. Do you think Intel really wanted to be beat to that mark? In hindsight, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but I can tell you that Intel wouldn't have minded being the one to break that barrier.

But in an Intel and Microsoft ruled world I don't see AMD getting anywere further thanit is right now in the business world unless dell, gateway, and or HP grows some testicles and uses the athlon 64 and opteron processors in upcoming systems.

Microsoft may have control, but they don't care who rules the CPU market. Either way their OSes get sold.

BTW take away the PR+ ratings and I would still buy and AMD take a look at 2ghz P4 vs 2ghz Axp aka 2400+ the athlon works the P4.

Now it's my time to say who cares? It's all about what gets you what you want. If you want to get the best processor right now, regardless of cost, you go with the P4 3.06 HT. If you want the best overclocker, you'd get either the P4 1.6a or the T-Bred 1700+ rev. B. If you want the absolute best stability, I'm sorry to say, you go with an Intel P4 on an Intel chipset. The nForce 2 has done a lot for AMD in terms of stability and VIA has come a long way, but you can't deny that Intel is consistently pefectly stable. Nobody in the world wants "whichever processor OWNZ at 2GHz." Sure, on cost, most people will go with AMD because, if you're concerned about cost, you aren't looking at the latest and greatest, which is the only point where Intel and AMD have price parity.

 

[dullard]

You're still looking at it the wrong way. You're comparing apples to oranges and dogs to cats. The numbers in the examples are enough for me to illustrate this point. You are calculating the performance differences taking the upgraded components into consideration, not AMD. I don't have their workpapers in front of me, but I'm willing to bet they tested a 2800+ and a few other cpus on the same testbed to ensure their mhz to PR relationship held true. Any competent benchmark would. You could probably do the calculations yourself by looking at the Barton review and calculating the differences in scaling between each CPU. Once you've done that, compare the overrall % differential to the PR differential and I think you'll find the relationship holds true.

I don't understand what you meant by this post. AMD gave links as validation of their chips performance. Each validation used faster and better components in addition to a different CPU. So I said those benchmarks cannot be used since they are not the same platform. Then you post that the benchmarks are an invalid comparison (exactly what I said) and then say I'm wrong. How can you repeat what I say and then tell me I'm wrong? I just don't understand your post.

If AMD validated their performance on the same platforms we could easilly see the performance difference between the CPUs. But that still doesn't tell us how much each benchmark is weighted in their PR scale. Are they all weighted the same? I don't know. No one outside of AMD knows. We wish we knew.

But lets pretend they had the same platform and lets assume all of the benchmarks are weighted evenly. Then we could compare one PR rated chip to another. However that still doesn't tell us the basis that the first PR rated chip had. Yes I can say from these benchmarks that one chip is 10% faster than another - a theoretical 4400+ would be basically 10% faster than a theoretical 4000+ chip. But what does 4000+ mean? None of the AMD validations tell us what the original chip (1800+) was based on.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: chizow
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

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: 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????/

Same story, different post. Again, they're not establishing the PR system with that benchmark, they're saying, "Look how much faster our [already labeled] 3000+ is than the offering from our competitor."

 

[Ilmater]

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.

You see Dullard, you continue to talk about what AMD compares their product to. And I agree with you. What the f*** else would they compare their products to? VIA chips? However, they're not basing their ratings system on this.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: 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.

For once, we agree.

 

[paralazarguer]

Argh. It's pointless to even try to participate in a thread with Ilmater. he thinks that he's the god of computers and can make broad sweeping judgements and no one else can have a differing opinion. He starts entire threads the purpose is to set EVERYONE straight ONCE AND FOR ALL on the ammount of ram that everyone needs or AMD PR system or whatever. There's a word for that...
Anyway, it's not even worth the effort.