• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

I

Ilmater

Diamond Member
I've said it in forums before, and now an AMD marketing guy has confirmed it. Even though it seems that they base their comparisons on current P4 speeds, they still base their PRs on the same thing they did back when the first XPs came out. Read on:

The Inquirer article
 
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.
 
We all know that already, but it just doesn't matter. Obviously the rating is designed to allow people to compare the XP and the P4 on "equal footing". Anyway, I'll use one of my favorite bits of logic to prove the absurdidty of the PR system.

AMD claims that the PR Rating is based on a comparison to a comparably clocked Thunderbird.
The PR Rating ends up being roughly equivalent to the speed of a comparably clocked Northwood.
Therefore, the Thunderbird and the Northwood perform the exact same number of instructions per clock.

Sooooo, if everyone wants to keep saying that the P4 is a lame architechture for having a "low IPC" then please, please forget trying to defend the PR system. You can't have it both ways, it just doesnt make sense.
 
Yah, AMD probably does base its PR on P4 mhz, but its just as easy to decode P4 mhz to AMD mhz:

P4"-" PR = Mhz * 2/3

😛

Chiz
 
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.
Click to expand...

Does anybody here READ!!!! On the contrary, even in his own link !!

 
When AMD started this PR rating it was based on what a T-bird would do. For instance, a 1.47Ghz XP (1700+) would match the performance of a 1.7Ghz T-BIRD.

However, it seems lately that they are more and more based on what they can run against a P4 like others have stated.
 
I would have accepted that argument a while ago (or would have even perpetrated it myself), but:

The Barton 2800+ won't be equivalent to the T-Bred 2800+ (seeing as the T-Bred can beat the 3000+ on several occasions), and so therefore:
No, by now it's a marketing gimmick.
 
True.....it really doesnt apply now at all. Heh, what are they planning to do with the hammers? I heard somewhere the opterons wont use the PR rating. Oh well
 
I wish they would do away with PR Ratings. I never liked them when Cyrix had them either. We know what the processor is capable of. Apple doesn't use a PR Rating either.

Cheers!
 
For the last time, AMD DOES base its PRs on P4s

Originally posted by: Ilmater
I've said it in forums before, and now an AMD marketing guy has confirmed it. Even though it seems that they base their comparisons on current P4 speeds, they still base their PRs on the same thing they did back when the first XPs came out. Read on:

The Inquirer article
Click to expand...
Actually according the AMD page linked in the article it most definately IS based on P4 comparison. And I quote:

"...normalized to P4 3.06Ghz processor with......."

Also I'd like to know how PWC (in this document compared a P4 3.06 vs a 3000+ on Jan01, 2002 as seen on page 4, or at least why they've set the date to 2002 for their tests).

this document @ AMD also shows that the PR rating is based on comparison vs P4(s).

Thorin
 
Originally posted by: dullard
The problem with the PR rating is AMD still uses benchmarks from 2001 to do it with.
Click to expand...
i think they used the most recent versions of all of the benchmarks. 3dmark 2003 wasnt out yet.

 
Officially it's not there to compare the AXP's to P4's.

Officially the P-III's make your surfing faster.

Officially NV30 is the fastest thing out there.

Etc etc.

Now, what's the common denominator?
 
Originally posted by: Ilmater
[...] and now an AMD marketing guy has confirmed it.
Click to expand...
Wow, this surely settles it. Now that the sleaziest person at AMD (clearly an independent figure) confirms it.
/end{sarcasm}
 
Originally posted by: mee987
Originally posted by: dullard
The problem with the PR rating is AMD still uses benchmarks from 2001 to do it with.
Click to expand...
i think they used the most recent versions of all of the benchmarks. 3dmark 2003 wasnt out yet.
Click to expand...
Here are the benchmarks that they use:
  • Business and Content Creation Winstone 2001 and 2002
  • Sysmark Office 2001 and 2002.
  • Aquamark
  • Dronez
  • Evolva
  • Expendable,
  • Half-Life
  • MDK2
  • Q3
  • RTCW
  • Serious Sam 1
  • Serious Sam 2 (demo)
  • UT (not 2k3)
  • Winbench 2000
  • 3dMark2001 (not SE)
The list can be found here.
 
Originally posted by: Ilmater
I've said it in forums before, and now an AMD marketing guy has confirmed it. Even though it seems that they base their comparisons on current P4 speeds, they still base their PRs on the same thing they did back when the first XPs came out. Read on:

The Inquirer article
Click to expand...
I posted this link earlier today in the "Barton" thread.

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. 😉

rolleye.gif


😀

 
Originally posted by: SexyK
We all know that already, but it just doesn't matter. Obviously the rating is designed to allow people to compare the XP and the P4 on "equal footing". Anyway, I'll use one of my favorite bits of logic to prove the absurdidty of the PR system.

AMD claims that the PR Rating is based on a comparison to a comparably clocked Thunderbird.
The PR Rating ends up being roughly equivalent to the speed of a comparably clocked Northwood.
Therefore, the Thunderbird and the Northwood perform the exact same number of instructions per clock.

Sooooo, if everyone wants to keep saying that the P4 is a lame architechture for having a "low IPC" then please, please forget trying to defend the PR system. You can't have it both ways, it just doesnt make sense.
Click to expand...

OF course it does. The claim by AMD is that the current T-bred and Bartons have higher IPC than comparably clocked P4's. They are also saying that the Thunderbird (an older version of the Athlon processor) has a similar IPC to the Northwoods.

So it is both ways because your talking DIFFERENT AMD processors.

 
Originally posted by: RSMemphis
I would have accepted that argument a while ago (or would have even perpetrated it myself), but:

The Barton 2800+ won't be equivalent to the T-Bred 2800+ (seeing as the T-Bred can beat the 3000+ on several occasions), and so therefore:
No, by now it's a marketing gimmick.
Click to expand...


WHERE are you getting this?? The PR Rating is not based on the TBRED, but the ThunderBIRD. different chip.
 
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
 
first of all even if the PR ratings are compared to P4's.. who the hell cares because it doesn't matter.

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.

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.

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.
 
Originally posted by: Wingznut
Originally posted by: mee987
Originally posted by: dullard
The problem with the PR rating is AMD still uses benchmarks from 2001 to do it with.
Click to expand...
i think they used the most recent versions of all of the benchmarks. 3dmark 2003 wasnt out yet.
Click to expand...
Here are the benchmarks that they use:
  • Business and Content Creation Winstone 2001 and 2002
  • Sysmark Office 2001 and 2002.
  • Aquamark
  • Dronez
  • Evolva
  • Expendable,
  • Half-Life
  • MDK2
  • Q3
  • RTCW
  • Serious Sam 1
  • Serious Sam 2 (demo)
  • UT (not 2k3)
  • Winbench 2000
  • 3dMark2001 (not SE)
The list can be found here.
Click to expand...
the link you gave says "3dmark 2001 second edition". what do you think SE stands for?

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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).
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Does anybody here READ!!!! On the contrary, even in his own link !!
Click to expand...
If I were you, I'd start taking my own advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top