• 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.

Official Press Release: AMD Introduces Four Microprocessors (PR ratings a reality)

Amused

Amused

Elite Member
Since this forum gets more traffic than the GH forum, I'll post a link to the article there:

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27&threadid=590276">Official Press Release: AMD Introduces Four Microprocessors
</a>
 
Rats, that's annoying. I remember back when Cyrix decided to "performance rate" their chips.
I still have my Cyrix 166PR (133 mhz)

-Russ
 
I'm pretty sure these have been available via pricewatch for a few weeks now. Maybe they were just preorder and now the official release is being sent? Anyway, it's a necessity because of morons who can't buy a CPU based on performance but on a MHz number. Smart folks will know what the CPU Speed is based on the PR Rating/Model #, so, it really isn't a big deal to me.
 
It's just gonna confuse the lesser beings even more. 😉

I can see the sales guy talking to Mr and Mrs Bloggs: "Yes, this computer has an AMD Athlon XP 1800+ which has an actual clock of 1.53GHz but it performs better than a Pentium 4 2.0GHz." I feel sorry for them now!
 


<< This has been debated ad nauseum. This is merely marketing AMD is using to keep things competitive in the CPU market. Intel knew AMD would win the MHz-War against it's P3 line, so when they developed the P4, they made it highly clockable with a lower clock/performance ratio. Why did Intel do this? Because they know, just like AMD knows, that an overwhelming majority of computer buyers base their decisions almostly soley on price and clock speed.

AMD reintroduced the PR ratings for these ignorant consumers, to save them from their own stupidity. They were not intended for, and thus will not affect, informed buyers like you and I (and most people into computer hardware, etc.) who know what the actual clock speed of the CPU is.

AMD is doing this for their own survival. I personally want AMD to survive in the market as a major player, because if they don't, competition will fade, and price/performance ratios will drop. So I give them props for their marketing scheme.
>>



What the smart guy said in the other forum 🙂
 
Adul, I can see the lovely performance advantage the Athlon XP has over a P4. The PCB next to me will definately have such a processor attached to it one day. But I just hope AMD has really thought this rating thing through for their sake.
 
I read it (from Tomshardware if I remember correctly), that the Perfrormance Rating is just a temporary solution. AMD is working on setting up a separate third party that would determine CPU's performance in a fair way. That way we could stop looking at the clock-rate, which, in all honesty, don't tell a thing about the CPU's performance! Yes, the mhz can be used to determince which CPU is faster within the same CPU-family (1.4 Ghz Athlon is faster than 1.33Ghz Athlon), but it can NOT be used when comparing CPU's from different families (such as Athlon vs. P4. 1.4Ghz Athlon wipes the floor with 1.5Ghz P4).
 
<<I read it (from Tomshardware if I remember correctly), that the Perfrormance Rating is just a temporary solution. AMD is working on setting up a separate third party that would determine CPU's performance in a fair way. That way we could stop looking at the clock-rate, which, in all honesty, don't tell a thing about the CPU's performance! Yes, the mhz can be used to determince which CPU is faster within the same CPU-family (1.4 Ghz Athlon is faster than 1.33Ghz Athlon), but it can NOT be used when comparing CPU's from different families (such as Athlon vs. P4. 1.4Ghz Athlon wipes the floor with 1.5Ghz P4).>>


Cool. I was thinking about something like that when writing my last post but I didn't think it was flyable as Intel seems to run the show on these things. Maybe not. Here's hoping.
 


<<
Cool. I was thinking about something like that when writing my last post but I didn't think it was flyable as Intel seems to run the show on these things. Maybe not. Here's hoping.
 >>



Well, it could be that Intel will oppose the plan, since it would eliminate one of Intels biggest marketing-advantage (higher mhz).
 
There's plenty of independent rating systems like SPEC already. Why they feel the need to make another one is beyond me.
 


<< There's plenty of independent rating systems like SPEC already. Why they feel the need to make another one is beyond me. >>


Consumers and performance race vs. Pentium 4.

So many consumers out there buy new systems with no clue whatsoever what they are getting.
 
<<There's plenty of independent rating systems like SPEC already. Why they feel the need to make another one is beyond me.>>

Well you're dense then. I think the whole idea would be to actually name the CPU's by the rating they achieve, thus eliminating the way the average consumer is misled. Isn't this obvious to you? 😕
 
And they are very conservative with the rating.

The 1800+ could've even be claimed to be 2000+. It's not quite like Cyrix's absurd claims.
 
So name the CPU by the rating it achieve in SPEC. What's the big deal?

Next some dude's gonna rebadge a 386 and call it a P10-10000 or something.
 


<<
Next some dude's gonna rebadge a 386 and call it a P10-10000 or something.
 >>



If you read the review, you will see that AMD is being VERY conservative with their performance rating! 1800+ model is about as fast as 2000Mhz P4. It's not like AMD is deceiving consumers in to buying CPU's that are slower than they bargained for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top