CoDerEd, sure, they could do that, however, the main point in establishing the QuantiSpeed rating (which is different than the Performance Rating of the past) is to provide the average individual (who may not be as tech savvy as many of those whom you find online/in forums) with an effective bar of measurement to which they can say, 'this AMD-based computer is directly comparable with that Intel-based computer.' Sure, the actual core frequency IS different, however, why do consumers even look to the core frequency (MHz/GHz speed)? Because its been a 'given' in the past that an increase in core frequency would translate to higher performance because Intel, and AMD CPUs were following a very similar architectural design for their respective CPUs.
The K6-3 really was starting to go off on its own tangent, however, with the Athlon and Pentium III, it became clear that AMD had 'their way' and Intel theirs. Since then, clock frequencies ALONE have not been the best way to judge performance. Instead, another method had to be developed. If I'm not mistaken, AMD and Apple are both pushing for the development of a standard CPU marking system that takes into account not just clock speed, but various other factors as well. In this way, a manufacturer won't be able to tout the biggest number on paper, yet have the performance of a Cyrix 100MHz CPU.
If the new marking standard is accepted, Intel/AMD can clock a CPU at whatever speed they like: the bottom line will still remain, if the CPU can't perform, it won't have a higher marking than a competitor's CPU that has a lower clock speed but performs better overall (perhaps as result of a stronger FPU, or otherwise).
Also, for those people saying that the QuantiSpeed rating (as it pertains to Athlon XP and future AMD CPUs) is not reliable/trustworthy, really, I think that's just being ignorant. AMD does not mark the CPUs on their own. In fact, they contract an outside party unrelated to them (Arthur Andersen LLP) to test the CPUs (most of these results are published at AMD's website) and then AMD 'names' them accordingly.
All in all, I think its fair to say that the QuantiSpeed rating is fine (as it pertains to marketing) as it is generally targeted to the average consumer who may not be well aware that AMD's CPUs, despite having a lower clock frequency can easily perform with Intel's higher clocked CPUs. Also, on a side note, the reason I mentioned earlier that the older PR rating is different than the QuantiSpeed rating is because the PR rating used a very crude method of establishing a final number (rating) as was clearly evidenced by Cyrix's CPU offerings in the past (PR300 clocked at 133MHz or so
)
Finally, I believe (if I have remembered correctly) that AMD requires/requests that all resellers of both pre-built PCs and AMD CPUs clearly print the actual clock frequency of any given AMD Athlon XP CPU (for example, ads for AMD Athlon XP 1800+ WILL say "QuantiSpeed Architecture operates at 1533MHz and performs equivalently to 1800MHz CPUs")
Thanks for reading, have a good one
Facebook
Twitter