Who's naming scheme is the stupidist

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: McMadman
I voted the third options just.. because. 🙂

Both of the labeling schemes are pretty awful. First we had the mhz ratings which were somewhat useful back in their days, but nowadays most improvements will be had with core changes to the processor or fsb speed rather than just making the part faster. Celerons don't help matters here either, considering we've seen how the classic celerons performed even at their "2.6ghz" rating.

AMD has their "pr" scheme which a lot of people will see something like "3500+" and think it'd compare to an intel 3.5ghz, which will lead to confusion among the uninformed. Their overlapping model numbers really don't help matters either. (333fsb athlon xp 3000+, or 400fsb athlon xp 3000+)

I'm sure as time goes on we'll see even more ridiculous naming schemes from both companies, as well as video cards (GeForce FX and AMD's FX-53 gee.. trying to imply that they're supposed to work well together?)

Just proves the fact that you can't buy anything based on a name, you really want to do some research on the product(s) in question and see how they compare against similar products in a specific price range. Yeah, right.. like the average consumer will research anything computer wise.

Um the 3500+ amd64 does compare to a 3.5ghz p4. and same with 3800+ and such.. The xps and semprons are off, the 64s pr rating is right on the money.

 

[MadMan2k]

Couldn't they rate them by MIPS/MFLOPS?

Like, a blood pressure number, one number over the other... 1234/5678 - Even round it to one decimal place 1.2/5.6?

That would measure how much work the chips did for a given period of time, wouldn't it?

 

[MetalMusicMan]

As much as I love AMD over intel, their naming is retarded.

 

[n7]

I'd say Intel...but the fact that AMD has so many overlapping CPUs now, i really don't like either.

My vote is for both.

 

[imported_theEman]

At least AMD's sorta makes sense. For example, 3000+ has the performance of a 3.0GHz processor running some applications. Intel's naming system just totally confuses me. What's with like 540 and stuff? It doesn't correspond to ANYTHING! I'm an AMD guy anyways, so I don't have to worry about Intel's stuff that much 😉.

 

[w0ss]

The real question is what will AMD do now that intel is using the numbers game as well. Maybe AMD will go back to Mhz as an AMD 2400 Mhz must be better than an INTEL 540 right 😉

 

[flexy]

INTEL 540

540 *what* ???? Monkey turds ?

It obviously cannot be mhz...

And thats pretty sad i have to ask this since i am not necessarely totally PC illiterate....therefore...INTEL wins the prize for stupidest naming...

btw. going back to plain mhz rating is indeed stupid...see A64 3400/3500.....with plain mhz you dont take into consideration things like L2 cache etc.....

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: bcoupland

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I can see it now.

And thus the new AMD cpu gets a score of 925 anands, quite a step up from the previous one of 796 anands hehe.

Hehe, I like, can't wait for the 1000 Anands barrier to be broken! 😀

Official Press Release: April 30th, 2023: Advanced Micro Devices (tm), a publicly traded company on the NYSE, NASDAQ, has just recently announced a new naming scheme. Processor speed (Anands, or Andz. for short) will now be represented by a model number. For example, the new Athlon69++ running @ 6 billion MegaAndz, will now be know as 75,000,000,00+. Says one analyst, It has been shown that AMD is significantly faster clock for clock than the Intel Penteleronium22 (tm).

Lesson: It's a vicious cycle. live with it.


😀

Vicious for them, not so for us. 😉

 

[TechJunkie95242]

Originally posted by: jediknight
I'd say AMD's naming scheme is worse.. considering that we have now, what 3 3000+ processors?
At least with Intel, it's pretty clear: 300 < 500 < 700 series. It's not so clear with AMD's scheme:
we know a 3000+A64 > 3000+ Sempron or 3000+ XP, but what about a 2800+ A64 vs a 3000+ Sempron or XP?

That said, more obfuscation by hardware manufacturers = more reason to read Anandtech, so it's all good :->

Ahh don't forget the AMD has 4 3000+ processors😉:

semp 3000+, a64 3000+, 3000xp+@333 fsb, and 3000xp+@400 fsb...


🙂

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242

Originally posted by: jediknight
I'd say AMD's naming scheme is worse.. considering that we have now, what 3 3000+ processors?
At least with Intel, it's pretty clear: 300 < 500 < 700 series. It's not so clear with AMD's scheme:
we know a 3000+A64 > 3000+ Sempron or 3000+ XP, but what about a 2800+ A64 vs a 3000+ Sempron or XP?

That said, more obfuscation by hardware manufacturers = more reason to read Anandtech, so it's all good :->

Ahh don't forget the AMD has 4 3000+ processors😉:

semp 3000+, a64 3000+, 3000xp+@333 fsb, and 3000xp+@400 fsb...


🙂

To the uninitiated, Id guess the A64 would look the fastest because it does 64-bit too. Didnt the N64 do 64-bit? 😛 Im just waiting for someone to say that.

But the way I see it is a 3000+ should perform pretty much the same as another 3000+ because they are... well both the same. Couldnt be much further from the truth.... 3000+ sempron Vs. 3000+ A64... like comparing a 2.6ghz celeron to a 2.6ghz P4C.

To be honest, I think its time for a consensus between AMD and Intel. We know the differences because we are prepared to read benchmarks and 'keep up with the times'. The average customer will be bamboozled by these new numbers, allowing the average sales idiot to spout out a load of made up on the spot facts just so he can sell the most expensive system. I predict some PR problems if people are mislead on as to what they are buying and how it compares.

 

[dguy6789]

The new intel cpus PR is similar to the opterons. opterons use 150 250 ect, intels you 540 560 ect. Although these 2 are NOT related whatsoever.

The numbers are to get ppl off the mhz line, as there next gen cpu will be alot closer to the pentium m then the 4.

They want ppl to think that intel pentium 560 is faster then 550 which is faster then 540 ect.....

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242

Originally posted by: jediknight
I'd say AMD's naming scheme is worse.. considering that we have now, what 3 3000+ processors?
At least with Intel, it's pretty clear: 300 < 500 < 700 series. It's not so clear with AMD's scheme:
we know a 3000+A64 > 3000+ Sempron or 3000+ XP, but what about a 2800+ A64 vs a 3000+ Sempron or XP?

That said, more obfuscation by hardware manufacturers = more reason to read Anandtech, so it's all good :->

Ahh don't forget the AMD has 4 3000+ processors😉:

semp 3000+, a64 3000+, 3000xp+@333 fsb, and 3000xp+@400 fsb...


🙂

And Newcastle vs Clawhammer (?) cores (1MB vs 512k L2 cache) - do they have them for 3000+?
Oh, and the 754 vs 939 3000+'s.
That could make about 6 3000+'s, maybe 7 if you take into account 754 vs 939 Semprons (do they have them?).
But I'd rather have an Intel 300! (What is a 300? Celery 2.4GHz or something, I have no idea).