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

[thorin]

:Q Yawn

You don't think we get it and we don't think you get it, so lets agree to disagree and let it drop since it's AMDs Marketing "Thing" and a few people arguing about it here definately aren't accomplishing anything. Except perhaps burning a few calories while banging our heads against monitors repeating over and over to ourselves "OMG he (they) just don't get it" and wasting a bunch of time.

Thorin

 

[paralazarguer]

Yeah, sure man. We don't see it your way and don't agree and we must be idiots...right....

You don't seem to really understand me. You think all I'm saying is that MAD designed the PR to meet the P4. That's only part of what I'm saying though. I think that AMD targets its PR ratings to a comparable P4. I think that they then set up a test bed which will match a T-birds speed for that rating. I think that the benches are set up long after the PR has been decided so they don't look like they are following Intel. Get it?

 

[paralazarguer]

BTW (buttons) *beep* push *beep* push...
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

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.

Now, I work at a large company, and nobody hates telemarketers more than I do. They'll make claims that sound ridiculous, but they DO NOT flat out lie. They can't. That could cost the company a lot of money. All I've been trying to say is that AMD bases its XP model numbers on a baseline determined by a 1.4GHz Athlon. This guy is saying that I'm exactly right. Do you honestly think he's lying? Because of the wording of his statement, there is absolutely no room for reading between the lines. You're either saying he's a liar or he's not. I'm saying he's not, and I'm giving you reasons to back up my arguments.

Lets look at that quote closely. Here are some facts that can be found in all of AMD's validation links.
Fact #1: AMD brought the PR rating back officially on its 1500+ to 1800+ XP chips released Oct 2001. Appendix B, page 13, for audit of 1500+ to 1800+ chips.
Fact #2: eTesting Labs Content Creation Winstone 2002 and Business Winstone 2002 were not available on Oct 2001 so of course they didn't benchmark it.
Fact #3: eTesting Labs Content Creation Winstone 2002 was available and was used later on in AMD's chip benchmark audits, and for the 3000+ only the Business Winstone 2002 was used.

Wait a minute. Weren't the applications supposed to be the same? Ok lets dive deeper.

Fact #4: The first audit contained Auqamark (1024x768x32). This doesn't appear in the later benchmarks.
Fact #5: The later benchmarks contain Serius Sam: Second Encounter, Return to Castle Wolfenstein 3D, (and as said above, 2002 versions of the Winstones). None of these were in the first audit of the first chips.

Wow that is a lot of changes for something that supposedly has never changed.

There is one last change that I think AMD is correct in doing. They added a patch to the Microsoft® Windows® Media Encoder 7 codec so that their XP chips aren't improperly recognized. This wasn't initially done. I think AMD had the right to add this patch, but it means the testing has changed over time. By the way, why won't AMD make this patch publicly available themselves?

So there are several reasons why their audits haven't stayed the same. What about the rest of that quote about the relative weightings remaining the same? Well we cannot prove that or deny it either (since AMD has not told us what the weightings were). When they added the 2002 Winstones did they reduce the weighting of the 2001 Winstones? I don't know. But since he was not telling the truth with the first part of the quote, it brings the second part into question as well. Why won't AMD tell us the weightings? If the weightings on the changed benchmarks I listed above are zero, then adding/subtracting the benchmarks doesn't play a role in the PR number and thus AMD could be telling the truth (but then why even include them in the audit?). Otherwise they lie.

Then there is the whole changed motherboard/video card/memory size/drivers/OS with each new chip. So actually the benchmarks they give to show us the performance is a CPU+platform benchmark. Sadly this doesn't make it clear if the platform change helped the model number or if the CPU change helped the model number with each new chip. But see my above posts for more information. It seems that the CPU PR number increases match quite closely to the mean of the CPU+platform speed increase.


I will now put my OPINION instead of facts in this paragraph only. In my opinion, real benchmarks don't have nice round numbers like 2600+, 2800+, and 3000+. Thus in my opinion AMD rounded the benchmark data to make the numbers look nicer. In my opinion this rounding adds error, meaning the PR scale isn't perfectly based on any chip (T-bird or P4). They could have rounded up, or they could have rounded down, but in my opinion, it is rounded in the direction that most closely matches the P4 it is competing with. For this reason, the rounding direction makes it partially based on P4 performance. If they didn't round, it would be clearly not P4 based in my opinion.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: paralazarguer
You don't seem to really understand me. You think all I'm saying is that AMD designed the PR to meet the P4. That's only part of what I'm saying though. I think that AMD targets its PR ratings to a comparable P4. I think that they then set up a test bed which will match a T-birds speed for that rating. I think that the benches are set up long after the PR has been decided so they don't look like they are following Intel. Get it?

Now THAT'S a valid point, but you haven't said that up until now.

As for Dullard, you also bring up some great points. I'm busy at work right now, but I'm going to look into these things and I'll be posting again as soon as I know something more.

BTW, I don't know if it was Dullard or not, but they do change the hardware. However, they also are putting the old 1.4GHz Athlon into the newer hardware in order to keep the hardware part consistant.

 

[ElFenix]

pr rating, atm machine, nic card, no need to be redundant.

besides, amd doesn't have pr anymore, they have a model number

 

[poppasp1ce]

i work part time in retail selling computers. a while back we had some amd pop material (brochures) that said in black in white that the pr rating was a direct comparison to and equivalent p4 with the same mhz. i'll see if i can find it next time im at work and ill put up a scan of it.

 

[Bovinicus]

Wow that is a lot of changes for something that supposedly has never changed.

Of course the benchmarks are going to change. If they didn't change, then the rating system would be worthless. Why can't AMD go back and test these same benchmarks on a 1.4GHz TBird system...

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: oldfart
Did anyone look at the AMD Web page Wingz linked to? This is a text cut-n-paste, so the format is messed up, but you get the idea.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMD has adopted a new nomenclature using model numbers. Competitive products are shown in the table below.

AMD Core Frequency AMD Processor & Model Number Competitive Processor & Speed
1.60 GHz AMD Athlon? XP 1900+ Intel Pentium® 4 1.9 GHz
1.53 GHz AMD Athlon XP 1800+ Intel Pentium 4 1.8 GHz
1.47 GHz AMD Athlon XP 1700+ Intel Pentium 4 1.7 GHz
1.40 GHz AMD Athlon XP 1600+ Intel Pentium 4 1.6 GHz
1.33 GHz AMD Athlon XP 1500+ Intel Pentium 4 1.5 GHz
AMD recommends that specifications for microprocessors be written to provide for open and competitive offerings from manufacturers. The table below shows several examples of how processor specifications can be written.

Processor Specification
Example 1 AMD Athlon XP processor 1500+ (min) or Intel Pentium 4 processor 1.5Ghz (min)
Example 2 AMD processor model 1500+ (min) or Intel processor 1.5GHz (min)
Example 3 PC processor model 1500+ (min) or 1.5Ghz (min)
Example 4 AMD or Intel processor having equivalent performance

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone find it an incredible coincidence that AMD's PR numbers line up EXACTLY with Intel's P4 CPU MHz speed? But of course, the PR rating has nothing to do with a P4 speed.

AND AS WINGS HAS STATED....THAT ABOUT SUMS IT UP.....


Ok ppl since this lame arse thread has gone on too long....The fact is Ilmater is stating a fact as presented by AMD...enough said??? If he believes it or believes the notion that this isn't PR smoke screen to go with there clearly flawed and everchanging method of rating these things then he is too stupid to debate this with. Ilmater give it up....Like it was mentioned above do you want a f^cking cookie for your abiity to cut and paste. Just because they say it doensn't mean it is the truth. It leaves amd plausible denial if Intel or someone else should claim some sort of false advertising. If they incorrectly relate it to a tbird will they sue themselves??? It is clear as day their intent is to offer a comparison for joe blow consumer, period....

Do you believe everythng that is written??? almost every respected site and even some amd fanbased sites clearly see this...Why don't you???

You start some of the dumbest threads in my opinion....go ahead and dump my rating if you wish!!!!

 

[Texun]

Regardless of what has been said, woud there have been a PR rating if not for the Pentium? Personally, I don't care. Going with AMD is a no-brainer for DIY builders, IMO.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Duvie
AND AS WINGS HAS STATED....THAT ABOUT SUMS IT UP.....


Ok ppl since this lame arse thread has gone on too long....The fact is Ilmater is stating a fact as presented by AMD...enough said??? If he believes it or believes the notion that this isn't PR smoke screen to go with there clearly flawed and everchanging method of rating these things then he is too stupid to debate this with. Ilmater give it up....Like it was mentioned above do you want a f^cking cookie for your abiity to cut and paste. Just because they say it doensn't mean it is the truth. It leaves amd plausible denial if Intel or someone else should claim some sort of false advertising. If they incorrectly relate it to a tbird will they sue themselves??? It is clear as day their intent is to offer a comparison for joe blow consumer, period....

Do you believe everythng that is written??? almost every respected site and even some amd fanbased sites clearly see this...Why don't you???

You start some of the dumbest threads in my opinion....go ahead and dump my rating if you wish!!!!

I whole-heartedly appologize for not being a conspiracy theorist like yourself. I've been called naive and now stupid for believing what a company tells me. Apparently, you believe that even without any proof to the contrary, companies are lying. I, on the other hand, do not believe someone is lying unless I have proof of it. Over the past 4 months or so, people on these forums have been more and more frequently been saying that AMD's PRs are based off of P4s, rather than the 1.4GHz T-Bird which AMD originally said that it based the PRs on. These weren't based on any facts. The common response was, "Everyone knows that while the PRs used to be based on the relative performance of a like-clocked T-Bird, it was now based on P4s." However, everyone didn't know that, and I, for one, brought this up more than once. Recently, in one thread, I challenged someone that made that comment to prove what they were saying before they spread more lies. Of course, there was no answer. At no time had I ever seen any answers this question, just more conjecture based on opinions.

Last week, the Inquirer received a letter from an AMD executive stating clearly that AMD (at least officially) was still basing their PRs on a 1.4GHz Athlon. Now, like I said before, without any evidence to the contrary, I believed him. I looked at his links and didn't find any immediate reasons to discredit what he said. So, I posted this thread hoping to establish, once and for all, that AMD still based their PRs on the same thing they've always based their PRs on. It seems now that I - and the Inquirer for that matter - might have been lied to about this. There are some questions as to the validity of some of the things AMD (both its VP of North European Marketing and its white papers) has said; not only the things that have been brought up by dullard, but also some other things that I found afterwards. I'm in the process of looking into them. I'll let everyone know how it goes.

Just because they say it doensn't mean it is the truth.

The difference between us is that I won't assume they're lying without having some proof. He stated [what he claimed was] a fact. He offered a link to information that, on first glance, seemed to back up what he said. Regardless of whether or not I find untruths in his statement, at least when I started this thread, I had something to back up my opinion. So what if "every respected site and even some amd fanbased sites" think that AMD bases its PRs on P4s. I've read numerous reviews that state this, but again it's the same old, "everybody knows" b.s.. You know what? Everybody doesn't know. As far as I've seen, it's just a wives' tale that somehow managed to prop itself up as truth. None of them have backed up their claims with any facts, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

So next time you try pitifully to talk trash about me, why don't you try to back up your opinions with some facts. Who's the idiot again?

 

[oldfart]

Well, this PR rating table from AMD's Web site is proof enough for me. They match up EXACTLY tit for tat, the XP PR rating and the P4 MHz frequency.

AMD has adopted a new nomenclature using model numbers. Competitive products are shown in the table below.

AMD Core Frequency AMD Processor & Model Number Competitive Processor & Speed
1.60 GHz AMD Athlon? XP 1900+ Intel Pentium® 4 1.9 GHz
1.53 GHz AMD Athlon XP 1800+ Intel Pentium 4 1.8 GHz
1.47 GHz AMD Athlon XP 1700+ Intel Pentium 4 1.7 GHz
1.40 GHz AMD Athlon XP 1600+ Intel Pentium 4 1.6 GHz
1.33 GHz AMD Athlon XP 1500+ Intel Pentium 4 1.5 GHz
AMD recommends that specifications for microprocessors be written to provide for open and competitive offerings from manufacturers. The table below shows several examples of how processor specifications can be written.

Processor Specification
Example 1 AMD Athlon XP processor 1500+ (min) or Intel Pentium 4 processor 1.5Ghz (min)
Example 2 AMD processor model 1500+ (min) or Intel processor 1.5GHz (min)
Example 3 PC processor model 1500+ (min) or 1.5Ghz (min)
Example 4 AMD or Intel processor having equivalent performance

You just ignore this information? You would have to be pretty thick to do so.

 

[thorin]

OMG I can't believe you guys haven't let this thread die yet. It's like the fvcking Energizer Bunny

And you still haven't accomplished anything further then agreeing to disagree and burn off a few more calories while hitting your head against the monitor chanting "he (they) still doesn't get it".

Thorin

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: oldfart
Well, this PR rating table from AMD's Web site is proof enough for me. They match up EXACTLY tit for tat, the XP PR rating and the P4 MHz frequency.

AMD has adopted a new nomenclature using model numbers. Competitive products are shown in the table below.

AMD Core Frequency AMD Processor & Model Number Competitive Processor & Speed
1.60 GHz AMD Athlon? XP 1900+ Intel Pentium® 4 1.9 GHz
1.53 GHz AMD Athlon XP 1800+ Intel Pentium 4 1.8 GHz
1.47 GHz AMD Athlon XP 1700+ Intel Pentium 4 1.7 GHz
1.40 GHz AMD Athlon XP 1600+ Intel Pentium 4 1.6 GHz
1.33 GHz AMD Athlon XP 1500+ Intel Pentium 4 1.5 GHz
AMD recommends that specifications for microprocessors be written to provide for open and competitive offerings from manufacturers. The table below shows several examples of how processor specifications can be written.

Processor Specification
Example 1 AMD Athlon XP processor 1500+ (min) or Intel Pentium 4 processor 1.5Ghz (min)
Example 2 AMD processor model 1500+ (min) or Intel processor 1.5GHz (min)
Example 3 PC processor model 1500+ (min) or 1.5Ghz (min)
Example 4 AMD or Intel processor having equivalent performance

You just ignore this information? You would have to be pretty thick to do so.

I've read this list more than once, but all it really proves is that AMD markets its processors versus P4s with clock speeds ~ PRs. That's it. If AMD has data to prove they do base their model numbers on 3% performance increases over a 1.4GHz T-Bird, then maybe its true.

However, in response to this AND thorin's comment, this data has been proven to be questionable at best. We'll see where it leads us. I'm checking on things, so yes, this thread IS getting somewhere. However, it will take some time. Hopefully I'll know more in a few days.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

I'm checking on things, so yes, this thread IS getting somewhere. However, it will take some time. Hopefully I'll know more in a few days.

No, it's not . . .

. . . (unless you see "the light" and agree with us)
[and please . . . take your time ]

 

[Bovinicus]

AMD derives their rating from the performance of an Athlon XP relative to a TBird. This is evident because the XP 1500+ performance between the levels of a 1.7-2GHz P4, or even better. However, it did perform only about 10% better than the 1.4GHz TBird. So, while the purpose of the ratings is to compete with the P4, the actual numbers are definitely derived from the TBird 1.4GHz. That is why the level of performance of the XP PR rating relative to the P4 has not been consistent at all. When it first started, the ratings were ultra conservative. Now, they are much closer to the truth, if not a tad exaggerated.

AMD probably chose to base it off the 1.4 TBird so that they could claim high ratings in the even that the P4 architecture really started to exel with high clockspeeds (And it has been). So, it is not being naive to think they base it off the TBird. In fact, it is being cynical.

 

[Wingznut]

Sorry Bov, but there is no explaining the varience of performance increase (12% to 22% and then back to 20%) with no architectural improvements. If there were truly some sort of concrete basis that the PR was derived from, then the relative performance increase wouldn't vary.

 

[dejacky]

i don't know about u guys, but isn't this ANCIENT news?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
If you say it is correct, Ilmater... Then explain the discrepancy of the numbers I illustrated above.

The PR rating is illogical and arbitrary marketing.

Do I blame them for doing it? Not really... What other choice did they have? But that doesn't make it a fact.

The above statement combined with the skewed numbers is a perfect incapsulation of the PR rating, AMD did it perforce when confronted with an inability to ramp up speeds to match Intel's. The consumer whom AMD themselves helped "educate" about clock speeds via their coup of beating Intel to the much coveted 1ghz barrier and their ensuing jubilation helped further cement clock speed as perhaps the most important criteria on which the general public basis their computer purchasing decision. Confronted with the unsavory prospect of attempting to market a slower clocked chip to a public that now equates mhz with speed they saw the utter futility in it and implimented the PR system. The only part of the statement I do not agree with, is that it is completely logical IMO from a marketing standpoint to use the PR given the circumstances.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: dejacky
i don't know about u guys, but isn't this ANCIENT news?

It is, and it isn't, with AMD now marketing the new Barton as a 3000+ and Intel's fastest current offering being the same approx. speed and the inconsistancy of AMD's caculations for the PR of their CPUs it re-enforces the assertions many have been making for some time now that it's just a marketing tactic that seeks to create a sense of parity with their competitor's processors and not the contrary as the thread title proclaims. I suppose it's an issue that'll be with us as long as AMD continues to use a PR scheme that some how/some way always seems to mirror the performance of Intel's offerings.

 

[Bovinicus]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
Sorry Bov, but there is no explaining the varience of performance increase (12% to 22% and then back to 20%) with no architectural improvements. If there were truly some sort of concrete basis that the PR was derived from, then the relative performance increase wouldn't vary.

Yes, there is an easy explanation for it. Every 100 they add to the PR does not equate EXACTLY into a 66MHz boost in performance. If they wanted to get the performance rating exactly, then it would have to be some uneven number like 1562+. However, they won't do this because it would be questioned heavily. I explained this already. The numbers started out conservative. However, the incriments in which the PR rating increased were not conservative. So, eventually the PR rating surpassed the appropriate level, and they had to adjust it to compensate. Also, there is no explaining why a 1500+ performs on the level of a 1.7-2GHz P4 consistently. If the numbers were actually based off benchmarks on P4 systems, then why would AMD make the rating 1500+ instead of 1700+? They are not stupid, and would definitely take the opportunity to give themselves a higher PR if they could.

 

[Wingznut]

I still don't see how it makes sense.

Presuming that the PR uses a Tbird as a baseline, when is the "rating" truly accurate?... When the relative difference is 12% @ 1333mhz, or the 22% difference @ 1800mhz? Or just somewhere in between?

Why did they start out "conservative" if it's an actual formula with basis? Just because they wanted to choose even numbers???

 

[Bovinicus]

Why did they start out "conservative" if it's an actual formula with basis? Just because they wanted to choose even numbers???

Yes. It would be very hard to come up with a rating system that scales perfectly with clockspeed.

 

[Wingznut]

Well, not really. If the Palomino performs about 10% better than a Tbird (as you stated above, and which was stated by AMD and alot of reviewers at the time), then just add 10% to the actual clockspeed.

But, they started out at 12% and scaled up to 22%. "Rating" the cpu at more than double that relative performance is just wrong and completely arbitrary. Heck, choosing numbers just so that they'd be even, is very arbitrary in itself.

Of course, now they are at 38% (even though the added FSB and cache don't nearly account for a 28% performance improvement)... Seriously, it's become just plain silly.

 

[Bovinicus]

It sounds like the PR rating doesn't really have much of a meaning anymore. It started as one thing, changed to another, and now means nothing... AMD has succeeded in confusing everyone. Hehe.