POLL: Opetron naming scheme? Good? also...the scheme in relation to average consumer

[TheCorm]

I have just been reading the Opteron coverage at Anandtech, the Desktop performence section (well done Anandtech, another good review) and was just wondering what people think of the new new naming scheme? I didn't like the PR ratings at first but they grew on me....but I think that leaving behind ratings completely might be a good move, what do you think?

Then I was thinking about it from the perspective of the mainstream consumer, they may be even more confused, theres a potential problem there...the benchmarks show that in may tests the new Opteron 244 outperforms or performs well against even the 3.0ghz P4...but only runs at 1.8ghz....You can see the salesman saying that a P4 is better because it's 3.0ghz, over 1ghz "faster"..and I expect the Athlon 64 will follow suit??

Comments?

Jamie

 

[Harabecw]

I think the naming scheme should be left behind.
What if future CPU's perform better clock-for-clock? there goes the rating

 

[Quackmaster]

Originally posted by: Harabecw
I think the naming scheme should be left behind. What if future CPU's perform better clock-for-clock? there goes the rating

why would that be? If they perform better, they'll just up the rating. The situation we have now is kinda lame tho. AMD is quite good (and it could be argued "underrating") with their PR ratings now for the 2800+ on down. But the XP3000+ and 3200+ is a iffy, and SHOULD be lowered. Of course AMD won't do that since they are losing money on their lower end chips, but the have put their toes over the line.

Given that we know for the next 3+ years Intel is just gonna continue to ramp up the clock speed and bandwidth/bitwidths everywhere (RAM, fsb, PCI express) while AMD is gonna focus on IPC and multiprocessor cores, I think AMD has to stick with a PR rating scheme. Otherwise they'll look meek by comparison in the public mindset of "GHz is everything".

 

[TheCorm]

Is there a site/link that someone knows of where the ghz / performence tie is put to rest in lamen terms, somewhere where we can send all these people who think that ghz ALWAYS means faster....some cases it does....but not all!

 

[oldfart]

Originally posted by: Quackmaster

Originally posted by: Harabecw
I think the naming scheme should be left behind. What if future CPU's perform better clock-for-clock? there goes the rating

why would that be? If they perform better, they'll just up the rating. The situation we have now is kinda lame tho. AMD is quite good (and it could be argued "underrating") with their PR ratings now for the 2800+ on down. But the XP3000+ and 3200+ is a iffy, and SHOULD be lowered. Of course AMD won't do that since they are losing money on their lower end chips, but the have put their toes over the line.

Given that we know for the next 3+ years Intel is just gonna continue to ramp up the clock speed and bandwidth/bitwidths everywhere (RAM, fsb, PCI express) while AMD is gonna focus on IPC and multiprocessor cores, I think AMD has to stick with a PR rating scheme. Otherwise they'll look meek by comparison in the public mindset of "GHz is everything".

The problem is, you cant redo the rating. Once you brand a chip "3200+" you cant go back. If you compare to an Intel P4 for instance, the P4 3.0 800 FSB is faster than the 3.06 533 FSB was. The Prescott will be again be much faster than what is out now.

I think a number like 244 which has no resemblance to a P4 MHz number is a much better way to go.

 

[Jeff7]

Maybe they could start saying "Ours performs X times more operations per second than Intel's processors." Actually put the numbers out there - both the GHz, but then counter the lower rating with numbers, not just slogans like "ours works smarter" or something vague. Give them something like "The Opteron did THIS much work in one second on 1.8 billion cycles, while the P4 took over 3 billion to do the same thing!" But I'm no advertiser...which means I could probably still get a job in advertising at AMD.

 

[Quackmaster]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Maybe they could start saying "Ours performs X times more operations per second than Intel's processors." Actually put the numbers out there - both the GHz, but then counter the lower rating with numbers, not just slogans like "ours works smarter" or something vague. Give them something like "The Opteron did THIS much work in one second on 1.8 billion cycles, while the P4 took over 3 billion to do the same thing!" But I'm no advertiser...which means I could probably still get a job in advertising at AMD.

I think both you and Oldfart have valid points, but lets not forget that the vast majority of these chips aren't gonna be sold to someone who has even heard of Sisoft Sandra, 3dMark, or any other benchmark programs. We geeks may know what IPC, fsb bitwidth and the like mean, but (to quote Joe and Ed @ overclockers.com) to Joe Sixpack it means diddly squat. THAT guy doesn't even know where his AGP slot is, how the heck is he supposed to differentiate CPUs, not to mention that we're moving to entirely different platform architectures.

No, I think AMDs marketing dept will have to continue to find ways to measure themselves against Intel. Model numbers aren't gonna work until they can get people on the street to perceive them as being nearly equal to Intel. That starts with the retailers, OEMs, etc on down the line. AMD has laid GREAT groundwork these last 3 years with the Athlon. They have a good portion of John and Jane Q Public believing they are a viable alternative to Intel. Problem is most of those are "geeks" who will build their own computers, or could if they wanted to. Problem is they have still been losing money because sub $100 CPUs don't put profit margins in the black. Remember, Athlon64 is NOT going to continue the cheap cpu trend we've seen the last few years.

Gateway and the other OEMs are onboard with AMD now thanks to the success of Athlon. If they can execute properly the Athlon 64 and Opteron (which is looking great in terms of demand) over these next two years, maybe they'll finally start making Intel really try to be competitive pricewise. Otherwise they might go the way of Cyrix and then we the consumers will be stuck under a full Intel monopoly instead of just a partial one.

As a sidenote, the prophecies of 3 years ago are begining to come true, Sony's new PSX with it's large hdd, keyboard option, and media distribution capability for music and movies over the internet makes it an strong alternative to computers for the non-techies. Soon Microsoft's follow up to X-box (and Sony's PS3) will be doing the same thing but better than any crummy Apple Itunes music site. How will that affect AMD, 'cuz Intel ain't going anywhere.