What if AMD had no PR rating?

[YoungChowFun]

Hello there. I am doing some sort of a 'poll' right now for a paper I have to write. It's a topic related to AMD and Intel. If AMD had no PR rating, how would they then fair against arch-rival Intel? If AMD competed with raw mhz or ghz (i.e. being a simple 1.73ghz instead of a 2100+,) how would this fair against their success? All comments, opinions, thoughts, and information (as well as anything else) is welcomed.

Thanks in advance,
YCF

 

[Duvie]

I think they would be a little worse off....They needed to do this or actually spend some money advertising and getting the word out on the mhz myth. Since they didn't want to invest in that they needed this to give the impression they are neck and neck with Intel...For the most part it as been successful, but now IMO it is starting to get to whacked. MOst have always thought it is directed toward a P4 and I don't think AMD as even tried to correct any on that and let their PR dept play it like that. Whether or not it is a Tbird comparison the fact is it starting not to work anymore against the P4 and that will confuse consumers more and could lead to negative feedback...

AMD needs to pull head out of arse and correct the PR rating cause the TBird is just a little to far back in the day to be competing against. Notce how in cpu intesive programs these Bartons with their whacked pr don't even beat the previous xp version. Notice how the opteron and even the athlon64 in their previews in some apps were equal to the performance of a same speed xp (true mhz not pr). that sad thing it was a long ways ahead in pr rating which no amount of tweaking and optiization realistically will make up....

I think the hammer may push the pr rating considerably off even more....

Maybe the intel should start using a pr rating with the prescott and p4c's considering they use HT, 800mhz fsb , and in the prescott case 1mb of l2 cache and more l1 cache. If there was a similar speed 533fsb chip it would be a few hundred mhz off in equal performance...

Prescott 3.2ghz becomes a 3500+p4xp.....How about that!!!!

INtel has upgraded the p4 to the northwoods .13proces, 533fsb, 512kb of l2 cache, HT, then 800fsb, soon to be HT2, soon to be 1mb of l2 cache, and soon to be .09process.....Maybe a p4 prescott should be compared to a willamette p4 original...It would be something like closer to 4000+...

However there arte just programs that are plain and simple just raw mhz and don't take advantage of the memory bandwidth, the extra cache, and the HT....At least Intel doesn't get caught in that quandry...

 

[aircooled]

The PR rating is much better for their marketing.

 

[human2k]

Originally posted by: Duvie
I think they would be a little worse off....They needed to do this or actually spend some money advertising and getting the word out on the mhz myth. Since they didn't want to invest in that they needed this to give the impression they are neck and neck with Intel...For the most part it as been successful, but now IMO it is starting to get to whacked. MOst have always thought it is directed toward a P4 and I don't think AMD as even tried to correct any on that and let their PR dept play it like that. Whether or not it is a Tbird comparison the fact is it starting not to work anymore against the P4 and that will confuse consumers more and could lead to negative feedback...

AMD needs to pull head out of arse and correct the PR rating cause the TBird is just a little to far back in the day to be competing against. Notce how in cpu intesive programs these Bartons with their whacked pr don't even beat the previous xp version. Notice how the opteron and even the athlon64 in their previews in some apps were equal to the performance of a same speed xp (true mhz not pr). that sad thing it was a long ways ahead in pr rating which no amount of tweaking and optiization realistically will make up....

I think the hammer may push the pr rating considerably off even more....

Maybe the intel should start using a pr rating with the prescott and p4c's considering they use HT, 800mhz fsb , and in the prescott case 1mb of l2 cache and more l1 cache. If there was a similar speed 533fsb chip it would be a few hundred mhz off in equal performance...

Prescott 3.2ghz becomes a 3500+p4xp.....How about that!!!!

INtel has upgraded the p4 to the northwoods .13proces, 533fsb, 512kb of l2 cache, HT, then 800fsb, soon to be HT2, soon to be 1mb of l2 cache, and soon to be .09process.....Maybe a p4 prescott should be compared to a willamette p4 original...It would be something like closer to 4000+...

However there arte just programs that are plain and simple just raw mhz and don't take advantage of the memory bandwidth, the extra cache, and the HT....At least Intel doesn't get caught in that quandry...

Exactly. The average UNEDUCATED buyer would surely pick more MHZ over performance anyday. The PR rating gives them something compare on.

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Maybe intel should start using a PR rating....

i was just thinkin the same thing ~ LMAO!

 

[AnAndAustin]

So long as the 'rating' is very close to true perf then it's a good thing for the consumer (esp Mr Average Joe). Without the speed rating hardly anybody would buy AMD, it certainly saved their asses! Anyway AMD are apparently colaborating on an industry std for over all PC perf (like a mix of PCmark, 3Dmark etc) as the speed rating of the AthlonXP was only intended to be an interim thing in the first place! Wonder how that's going ...

 

[Wingznut]

It's a hard question to answer. The immediate reaction is that it had to help... But then again, they've lost marketshare since they implemented it.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: Duvie
Maybe intel should start using a PR rating....

i was just thinkin the same thing ~ LMAO!

How would Intel create a PR rating like AMD when AMD's P4 rating relates the performance of their processor to a P4?

Would a 2.4 Ghz P4 then become an IXP2100 or something? Or would a 2.4 P4 just be an IXP2400???

 

[touchmyichi]

I was totally for the PR rating at first. When the athlon 1800+ came out it easy demolished the 1.8 ghz p4 (well and the 2.0 ghz p4 willy). Throughout 2002 the PR rating was pretty right on, not nearly as definite as when the athlon xp appeared though. The barton's totally screwed up the PR rating, I think its time AMD rethinks it. I think they should have the PR signifify that the processor will outpreform that processor a lot. For instance a 3000+ should probably be a 2800+. Does anyone here agree with me?

 

[Jeff7181]

I don't agree... you can't just handicap one or the other... while it may have been more impressive for benchmark junkies, the ability for AMD to market an XP3000 next to Intel's P4 3.06 is more valuable to them than benchmark scores.

I do agree that they shouldn't have changed the rating for the Bartons though... the XP2800 Barton core holds it's own against the 2.8 Ghz P4... just imagine if the rating system hadn't changed, and the XP2800 Barton ran at 2.25 Ghz like the T-Bred B core. Would be some "thumpage" going on in the benchmarks.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: Duvie
Maybe intel should start using a PR rating....

i was just thinkin the same thing ~ LMAO!

How would Intel create a PR rating like AMD when AMD's P4 rating relates the performance of their processor to a P4?

Would a 2.4 Ghz P4 then become an IXP2100 or something? Or would a 2.4 P4 just be an IXP2400???

That is the joke, Jeff...AMD states it is related to the performance of the tbird and not the P4...That is from the horses mouth and the AMD fans at this site will soon be in here to beat that down our throats!!!! Commonsense among many including AMD users call BS, but it is waht AMD states. My intel suggestion was more of a reprisal to recent amd pr rating shortcomings in the barton set and what I think the athlon64 and opteron may be at 32bit level. 64bit level I think they will live up or close to rating in most apps thoughh it appears some cpu intensive apps wont be fooled....

 

[Corporate Thug]

they would be worse off towards the average computer user who would see 1.73 Ghz as 1.73 Ghz but computer enthusiasts who look at and compare benchmarks would quickly come to realize that 1.73 Ghz is on the same level as intels 2.0+Ghz cpus

 

[Jeff7181]

How in the hell do they know what a T-bird at 3 Ghz would perform like?

 

[meowmeowmeowmix]

I think the amd rating have gone out of whack starting with the 3000+, the other ones were pretty much decent, I heard with the 3200+, its going to have a 400mhz fsb @2.2 Ghz and its supposed to be competitive with a 3.2GHz p4 having a 800mhz fsb. All I can say is no way in hell is it going to be competitive, maybe it'll be competitive to a 3.0Ghz C p4 processor but not a p4 with another 200mhz. To keep competitiveness with the athlon with a 3.2Ghz p4, amd would need to have a 400mhz fsb @ 2.3 GHz athlon which is totally viable, I believe possible for an athlon at the default 1.65 volts.

 

[glugglug]

Eventually, someone would redefine the clock cycle as "1/10 of a clock cycle", so that they could claim their CPU runs at 20GHz.

 

[nippyjun]

I think from a marketing point of view they had no choice in the PR ratings. Until there is some other way to educate Joe/Josephine Public about true performance they have to use a rating system.

I think that generally they have not been to abusive of the rating system as far as comparative performance.

 

[Elcs]

I would put a bet on that on a survey, less than 60% of people in my local area would have heard of AMD.

Unless the average buyer knows about his product and how it compares with a competitor then they will choose what they are familiar to. This means Intel generally. AMD needs to be seen and heard by the masses and not just the enthusiasts like a large number of us here.

 

[YoungChowFun]

Thanks for all of your responses. If none of you mind, I am going to use this thread as one of my 'sources.' It would seem that there are some very reliable sources in here. As for my thoughts, at first I thought the PR rating was all just a marketing gimmick at first until I purchased my own xp (palimino1500.) I do agree that the whole PR rating is somewhat 'off' with the barton core, It would seem that AMD needs to adjust that. It would seem that the PR rating on the opterons seem to be in good shape (or at least my judgement from Anand's review.) P4 with a PR rating? That would be an interesting topic. Thanks again for all of your inputs.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
How in the hell do they know what a T-bird at 3 Ghz would perform like?

Supposedly they have devised a testing method!!! Personally I have always thought it was BS, but like I said it is what AMD officially states...Dont trust me, ask others???

 

[Naruto]

The PR rating was one half of the step. They need to inform the customers that mhz isn't everything, with benchmark results etc... This would best be done with amd brochures at computer departments of stores, or cardboard displays showing such. And the most important statistic to show consumers, the performance/value ratio.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Naruto
The PR rating was one half of the step. They need to inform the customers that mhz isn't everything, with benchmark results etc... This would best be done with amd brochures at computer departments of stores, or cardboard displays showing such. And the most important statistic to show consumers, the performance/value ratio.

And live demo's at computer stores.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: nippyjun
I think from a marketing point of view they had no choice in the PR ratings. Until there is some other way to educate Joe/Josephine Public about true performance they have to use a rating system.

I think that generally they have not been to abusive of the rating system as far as comparative performance.

Yeah, which would you rather have - an AMD Barton 3000, or an AMD Barton 2.167GHz, (same thing) when there's a P4 3.06 GHz with Hyperthreading technology nearby? Maybe the Barton 3000, especially if it's appreciably cheaper than the P4. Intel's always put a lot more into promotion, and coming up with product names that'll have people buying just so they can say that their PC has "HYPERTHREADING!!!" even if they haven't got the slightest clue what it does. Educating them on work per clock cycle would take too long - educating some on how to turn the PC on and off takes long enough sometimes.

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Naruto
The PR rating was one half of the step. They need to inform the customers that mhz isn't everything, with benchmark results etc... This would best be done with amd brochures at computer departments of stores, or cardboard displays showing such. And the most important statistic to show consumers, the performance/value ratio.

And live demo's at computer stores.

That might be a problem too though; I don't think that Best Buy and that sort of place hires specifically on what candidates know about computers. More like, can you give good customer service? It's like me at Walmart - they put me to work in automotive to stock the shelves there. I know that cars need gas and oil, and maintenance at a garage for anything else. That's about all I know about them; I can't answer people's questions about them - I can just point them to where things are in the department. So back to Best Buy, putting computer illiterate people into the salesforce to demo these things and entertain direct questions from customers...that could be problematic.