• 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.

POLL: Do you believe AMD's story: PR system based on T-bird not P4

P

paralazarguer

Banned
Do you believe that AMD is really basing their performance ratings on an old thunderbird or do you think that it's a marketer's way of showing an unknowing public the difference between high IPC and high clock speeds and thus a comparison to the p4.
 
AMD says what they want. I know its what they said, that its based upon the Thunderbird.

But I am 99% sure the PR formulas are based upon P4 performance.
 
Originally posted by: paralazarguer
Do you believe that AMD is really basing their performance ratings on an old thunderbird or do you think that it's a marketer's way of showing an unknowing public the difference between high IPC and high clock speeds and thus a comparison to the p4.
Click to expand...

Your poll is flawed. That's two distinct assertions:

1) The original PR rating is or isn't based on a T-bird 1.4.

2) The PR rating is a marketing reaction based on AMD's inability to scale their processor in mhz compared to a P4, or they just felt like making a number up.

Chiz
 
I would think that it has to be based on the P4 because if the P4 did not exist then they wouldn't of taken that naming convention now would they?
 
If it is based on T-Bird, they could make up almost whatever they wanted, since the T-Birds only went up to 1.4GHz, and now they're pretty much running on theory. It wouldn't be "true" if it was based on T-Birds because there aren't any that are really comparable, all they'd have is theoretical numbers surely?
 
Originally posted by: Lonyo
If it is based on T-Bird, they could make up almost whatever they wanted, since the T-Birds only went up to 1.4GHz, and now they're pretty much running on theory. It wouldn't be "true" if it was based on T-Birds because there aren't any that are really comparable, all they'd have is theoretical numbers surely?
Click to expand...

No, they'd have the original performance relationship and scale from there (which they've done).

Chiz
 
Who gives a sh!t. If they marketed the real clock speeds of their processors they would be shooting themselves in the foot. The benchmarks are the money makers. It is very elementary to be saying AMD is lying. Who cares if they're lying. Now go run back to your corners little boys and girls. Tee Hee Hee.

So where's the "Who gives a chit" option.
 
well who cares frankly wat its based on
as long as a processor with a relatively big clockspeed disadvantage can keep up with a faster clocked processor thatz all that matters

altho most of the ppl who buy the processor based on the pr rating wouldnt bother to check or care wat that pr system is based on
 
no, because if it really based it on the Athlon 1.4, then why did they scale it higher after the P4's got drastic improvements with the added 533MHz FSB and 256kb level 2 cache
 
Of course it's a marketing scheme and is based on the P4. But on the other hand, I'm sure that AMD could ramp up to 3GHz and beyond as well if they pulled the Intel trick and switched to a 22 stage pipeline.
MHz != performance except within the exact same chip architecture. Athlons and P4s do not use the exact same architecture, so you can't compare performance clock for clock.
Intel escalates the MHz war (because the uneducated massed believe in it) and AMD fights back with the PR ratings. Simple as that.
Overall, I have found that (except for SSE2 optimized benchmarks) AMD's PR rating compares well to the equivalently clocked P4. I have no complaints.
 
I didn't vote. The reason is that neither really supports what I beleive, aka, both are somewhat true. AMD certainly began basing the PR on extrapolated TBird performance, although even then whether an actual TBird would perform at those levels is questionable due to various bottlenecks and whatnot. The early XP's were definitely faster than the early P4 iterations(aka Athlon XP 1700 > (early)P4 1700mhz), so at that time it was clear that AMD was sticking to their claims. However, as Intel improved the P4, the difference between the Athlon PR and the actual mhz of the P4 began to sync with each other. AMD might still be using the TBird theoretical performance, but due to this synching, it's hard to not think that the P4 actual mhz is actually the current standard.

Interestingly enough, I think the Barton is the clearest "evidence" that AMD may have switched to a direct P4 comparison for their PR. The reason is that the Barton 3000+ kinda looks correctly PR'd when compared solely against the P4 3000mhz, but once you add the TBred 2800+ into the mix, it appears that the Barton 3000+ couldn't possibly be based on the same tests that the TBred 2800+ were based on. Unless, of course, AMD uses some type of method not used by most Internet based websites.

So, AMD definitely based ealy Athlon XPs against TBird, but whether they still do I dunno.
 
It is very elementary to be saying AMD is lying. Who cares if they're lying. Now go run back to your corners little boys and girls. Tee Hee Hee.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the PR system sucks. I think it's necessary for AMD and therefore a good idea. The topic of the poll is its roots.
 
Despite what AMD says, it's extremely obvious that the PR rating is done against the P4 in an effort to counter the idea that MHz is the only measure of performance.
 
The reason that the PR rating was created is because of the P4. However, AMD has ALWAYS said that it is based on a score relative to the Athlon 1.4GHz.
 
The reason that the PR rating was created is because of the P4. However, AMD has ALWAYS said that it is based on a score relative to the Athlon 1.4GHz.
Click to expand...

I know that what they've said but the question of the poll is do YOU BELIEVE it?
 
You really need another option, "It's not based on P4 performance, but was designed to align with it"

The thing was "based" on the Tbird, but it's obviously designed to compare to P4's
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top