• 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.

Intel Offering Online Course on AMD's Speed Rating System...seats available :)

NFS4

NFS4

No Lifer
AMD Zone

This is interesting:Q



<< A few people have e-mailed about this, and franky this is about the funniest thing I've seen all day. Even after the whole fiasco with Aberdeen's article about AMD's Performance Ratings on the AthlonXP's, *ntel is continuting to try and spread their version of the 'truth.' *ntel is now offering online classes to members of it's Product Dealer Program. Here's a sample of the e-mail:

We've developed a training class to help you understand the facts behind AMD Athlon* processor naming methodology. Attend the training through our Internet broadcast, where you can choose from several one-hour sessions over the next several weeks. We'll address your questions during the session, via e-mail.

Your class attendance will entitle you to receive a summary document, and eligibility to win one of four Pentium® 4 processor-based systems.

If anyone DOES take this class, please PLEASE take notes and send us a copy. The FUD will be flying thick in that seminar. >>



More cat fighting over AMD's PR rating, Intel, and Aberdeen:

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002mar/bch20020328010946.htm
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002mar/bch20020327010933.htm
 
This whole Aberdeen thing has been a joke. Not only did Aberdeen not contact AMD about any of its information, but it never even revealed that it was paid by Intel to write up their "objective" report. Tsk tsk.

Intel offering an online course on AMD's model rating system seems a little funny to me. I REALLY want to know what is said in this online course.
 
I didn't know AMD's PR rating system was complicated enough to require a course on it. Oh well.
rolleye.gif
 
a little gem from one of the links


<< Intel has enough money to fund an entire civil war, or to fund dozens of reports. >>

 
few more



<< Like I said in the other thread, MHz are good way to measure performance INSIDE ONE CPU-FAMILY! If two CPU's are identical, but one runs at 2 GHz, while other runs at 2.2GHz, you can safely assume that the 2.2GHz CPU is faster. But those comparisons are horribly flawed when comparing two different COU-families! Or how do you explain the fact that Atlon XP is competetive with P4, even when Athlon has about 500MHz less? It's because YOU CAN'T MEASURE PERFORMANCE BY STARING AT THE MHZ-RATING! >>





<< Trying to compare the GeFORCE2 MX against a Kyro 2.

Both have cores running at 175 MHz.

GeFORCE2 MX is strong on T&L calculations in hardware, wins most synthetic benchmarks and it supports DirectX 7 features.

Kyro wins hands down in benchmarks that benefits from HSR (Hidden Surface Removal), runs most games faster than the MX and it compiles some cool features of DirectX 6 that MX doesn't have. It's cheaper than MX.

Thanks to marketing, nvidia sold a lot more GeFORCE2 MX parts than STMicro card makers sold Kyro 2 cards.

But, on the internet, if you ask a bunch of geeks (educated geeks, please, on every possible way of education, even though I'm not exactly one... :| ) about which is the better card, I'm sure ~90% will answer "Kyro 2", and the rest will taunt in a loudly manner... "GeFORCE2 MX!".

Intel and AMD were no different of this on the internet. Different architetures, different approach to each. >>

 


<< They get loads of things wrong in there," said an AMD spokesman, citing the Aberdeen report's assertion that the Athlon XP model numbers are designed to correspond to Pentium 4 clock speeds. "We've always very firmly said that the numbers compare with the previous generation of Athlon, for consistency," the spokesman said. "We've worked hard at explaining it and making it clear." >>



Odd. At the last AMD Tech seminar I attended, they made it clear the PR rating was to compare it to the Intel P4 clock speed.
 
OMG, have you guys downloaded and read the PDF from Aberdeen??? Look at this reference:


<< Nevertheless, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) last year deliberately took a step down a slippery slope of bad science when it named its Athlon XP line of microprocessor models with clock-speed gigahertz ratings equivalent to Intel?s competing Pentium 4 (P4), based on a set of application benchmarks audited by Arthur Andersen and fully described in AMD vs. Intel comparisons at AMD?s Web site. >>


They're trying their best to associate AMD with Arthur Anderson!!!??? That's pretty friggen low if you ask me:Q


<< Odd. At the last AMD Tech seminar I attended, they made it clear the PR rating was to compare it to the Intel P4 clock speed. >>


From Anand's original Xp article:


<< These "Model Numbers" are supposed to correspond to the real world performance of the Athlon XP CPUs when compared to higher clocked competitors. While AMD will argue that the Model Numbers are used to compare the Athlon XP to an equivalently clocked Thunderbird, it's clear that the ratings are used to somehow bridge the clock speed gap between the Athlon and the Pentium 4. >>

 
To me it seems the P4 is the one with the PR speeds. I own both a P4 and a Tbird and let me say, even at 2.4 Gigahetz I was completely underwhelmed by the P4. It was fast that's true, it just wasn't what I expected from 2.4 Gighertz. Oh yeah, the synthetic benchmarks were cool..Yawn! Also, running at the default 1.6 Gigahertz the P4 was about right on par with my 1.2 Gig Tbird. If you had an AMD XP that was clocked at 2.4 it would smoke the P4 at 2.4 (and probably start to smoke in your case from the heat) AMD's PR rating is fairly close to being right on the button when comparing performance in my humble opinion.

To be fair, I'm not a gamer nor do I do a lot of encoding and the apps that I routinely use probably don't take advantage of the extra power of the p4... Yeah that must be it. One things for certain though, the P4 does run a lot cooler that my Tbird.
 
Intel tends to be deceptive in all of their retail training. I went to the last Chips & Tips event they held for retail sales reps and they made this big presentation about how the power of the Pentium 4 would increase your performance on critical desktop apps by about 30%. They went through the presentation very fast and I only just managed to get a glimpse of what they were comparing the pentium 4 to. In very small fine print it read: comparison of 1.5Ghgz P4 with 2Ghz p4.
 


<< . If you had an AMD XP that was clocked at 2.4 it would smoke the P4 at 2.4 (and probably start to smoke in your case from the heat) >>



That's why I got a P4 to do my DVD encoding,I didnt need my room catching fire.😉

They are fast & cool,even ecoding a SVCD it's still running at 40C but by amd standards that's very cool.
 
is this really worth arguing about?

lets all just agree to disagree and buy the processors we want...

easy. 😉

dew.
 


<< That's why I got a P4 to do my DVD encoding,I didnt need my room catching fire >>

My P4 is on my Bench waiting for the transplant🙂



<< is this really worth arguing about? >>

Are we arguing?
 
That's why I got a P4 to do my DVD encoding,I didnt need my room catching fire

LOL, I feel you on that one. I had an XP 1800+ and while it was fast, the heat and noise was really starting to piss me off. I switched over to P4 and couldn't be happier, while my wallet feel's a little thin at the moment, it's nothing you can't recover from. In the end it's worth it, once you've spent a fat load of money on a system that's VERY quiet, fast as hell and more reliable than a pay check, you really dont feel the need to upgrade for quite some time. Who need's anything faster than a 2.0a Northwood?, an avrage joe would be pretty hard pressed to need anything more than that. Let's face the facts, AMD got people used to cheap parts with extreem performance. If you look back, computers used to cost WAYYYYY more than most tricked out P4 systems cost today, and you sure as hell dident get this much performance out of it.

They are fast & cool,even ecoding a SVCD it's still running at 40C but by amd standards that's very cool

Heh heh, try telling that to someone with a delta. "Man your nut's, my AMD run's at a cool 38C at full load, whats that?, how much DB's of noise dose it make?. Oh you know, like 300 or so, pretty avrage......."
 


<< Like I said in the other thread, MHz are good way to measure performance INSIDE ONE CPU-FAMILY! If two CPU's are identical, but one runs at 2 GHz, while other runs at 2.2GHz, you can safely assume that the 2.2GHz CPU is faster. But those comparisons are horribly flawed when comparing two different COU-families! Or how do you explain the fact that Atlon XP is competetive with P4, even when Athlon has about 500MHz less? It's because YOU CAN'T MEASURE PERFORMANCE BY STARING AT THE MHZ-RATING! >>



Whoa, I have been quoted 😀!

EDIT: Must say, a bit eerie feeling seeing someone quote my text from another website.
 


<< is this really worth arguing about?

lets all just agree to disagree and buy the processors we want...

easy. 😉

dew. >>


This thread isn't about arguing which CPU is better...this is ALL about Aberdee and Intel, and them not consulting AMD for the White Paper (or at least that's what the orginal post is portraying).
 
intel seems to be getting scared of amd's technology. i really don't know how they're gonna explain why the p4 will need to run lesser clock cycles than an athlon xp. seems to me that these courses will be a big a$$ load of BS.
 
from hard ocp



<< O.K. this isn't real news...this is just flat out real comedy. My bro Nathan said that after reading our commentary on the "AMD PR Rating" deal, he did some undercover work at Intel and found their "Pentium4 PR Rating", brace yourselves, this is what he found:

Following AMD's marketing change in it's processor labeling, Intel decided to mark P4's with a new PR rating. Just like AMD compares it's Athlon XP processor with the old Athlon processor line, Intel decided to compare the performance of the Pentium 4 with Pentium III chips. Changes are follows:

P4 1500Mhz = "PR 1100-"
P4 1600Mhz = "PR 1166-"
P4 1700Mhz = "PR 1233-"
P4 1800Mhz = "PR 1300-"
P4 1900Mhz = "PR 1466-"
P4 2000Mhz = "PR 1533-"
P4 2200Mhz = "PR 1700-"

The new system should help consumers understand IPC and deep pipelines according to Intel's press release.
 >>

 


<< from hard ocp



<< O.K. this isn't real news...this is just flat out real comedy. My bro Nathan said that after reading our commentary on the "AMD PR Rating" deal, he did some undercover work at Intel and found their "Pentium4 PR Rating", brace yourselves, this is what he found:

Following AMD's marketing change in it's processor labeling, Intel decided to mark P4's with a new PR rating. Just like AMD compares it's Athlon XP processor with the old Athlon processor line, Intel decided to compare the performance of the Pentium 4 with Pentium III chips. Changes are follows:

P4 1500Mhz = "PR 1100-"
P4 1600Mhz = "PR 1166-"
P4 1700Mhz = "PR 1233-"
P4 1800Mhz = "PR 1300-"
P4 1900Mhz = "PR 1466-"
P4 2000Mhz = "PR 1533-"
P4 2200Mhz = "PR 1700-"

The new system should help consumers understand IPC and deep pipelines according to Intel's press release.
 >>

 >>


ROTFLMAO...that's some funny sh!t 🙂 Too bad the PIII doesn't clock so high 🙁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top