Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will Conroe and Woodcrest Destroy the Age old "P-Rating

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 14, 2006 11:02:49 AM

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/cpu/arch/perfPR-c.html
And on my dads old "all-in-one A+ Certification Exam Guide. Third Edition page 112"

It said that The P-Rating was set so that Cyrix and AMD could be compared fairly to Pentium Class CPUs. Because all equally clocked CPUs were slaughtering them on Overall performance because of Advanced Architectures. And the Question is, Will These new More 'AMD' Like Architecture will AMD and Intel Now be compared at the same level of performance, that is Compare them Clock to Clock and not translate performance from the "P-Rating" And another question if anybody would like to answer, Is my AMDXP 1700+ rated on "P-Rating" because its original clock is 1463Mhz, but I’ve Over clocked it to (136X12.5=1700Mhz) So i just wanted to know, if AMD still is going to use 'P-rating" or be clock for clock rating with new Intel’s
March 14, 2006 11:45:36 AM

I'm not sure why it matters. But, I think that as long as clock speeds vary and performance doesn't necessarily match clock speeds then you will have such ratings.

I never understood the new rating system Intel used. Was it just an arbitrary number they picked out of the air or was it in comparison to some other competitors processor? Seems to me it was intended more to confuse than to clarify.
March 14, 2006 1:08:22 PM

They are replacing it with a F-rating. It shows the number of idiotic zombie fanboy followers the chip has.

A far better system I think.
March 14, 2006 1:20:00 PM

Yo, I'm trying to ask some Intelligent Questions here, what do you want me to do, Start a Post on
Chuck Norris vs Woodcreast/Conroe. Because i've been reading that Pentium Performed Much slower than AMD and Cyrix at the same Clock speeds, because of Arciatucture Differences and Overall Inconstatcies. SO eyah if you wana Chuck norris Go ahead. Yo since the Moderators want this Fourm to become more serious and not be dissing each other yo Don't start Fanboying this Thread yo. no matter if ur for Intel or AMD or even Cyrix
March 14, 2006 1:44:39 PM

The P-Rating, was used by AMD to show that even though their processors ran at lower frequencies they were equal or superior to an Intel Pentium running at a certain speed.

Example: AMD Athlon XP 2500+ (running at 1883mhz) was advertised as equal to or better than an Intel Pentium 4 2.5ghz. AMD needed the P-rating to show that frequency(mhz,ghz) no longer mattered, Performance matters.

AMD has since strayed away from the P-rating being a direct comparison to Intel and are now using it more as model numbers.

For example, that AMD Athlon X2 4800+. There is no Intel processor running at 4,800 mhz, but the P rating will continue to go up.

P-rating has strayed from its original purpose a long time ago, but I think we'll still see the same model number scheme from AMD at least until its next generation.
March 14, 2006 1:52:45 PM

The pr0n-Rating always has been a joke anyway so why spend so much time discussing about it?
March 14, 2006 1:54:13 PM

Quote:
I never understood the new rating system Intel used. Was it just an arbitrary number they picked out of the air or was it in comparison to some other competitors processor? Seems to me it was intended more to confuse than to clarify.


This is one thing, in my opinion, I think Intel REALLY messed up on. The new 3-digit numbering system confuses even technology professionals such as myself.

When I purchase Intel processors for my workplace (yes, I choose Intel because that is what Dell sells) I have to go to Tom's Hardware CPU charts to find out what Intel chip is better than the other.

When I purchase AMD chips I can use model numbers to get a good idea of what is best for the situation.

If someone can explain Intel's naming scheme to me in a way that makes sense I would appreicate it.
March 14, 2006 1:55:52 PM

Well you started off with an non-intelligent point.

There isn't a single 'P' rating. Sisoft Sandra will give you one, but no manufacturers use it.

The fact is, as long as there are competing architectures which perform differently at the same clockspeeds, there will be some form of rating imposed by one of them. Marketing people simply need something that lets the idiots in PCworld think their chip A is the same or better performing as the competitor's chip 'B'.

>90% of the purchasing market simply don't understand, or don't want to understand, what MFLOPS are, or what PCmark is, or anything like that. They want to see '2800' next to '3000' and "know" that 3000>2800 so that's the better one.

The original 'Race to 1Ghz' Athlon Vs. the PIII, the performance was so close at the same clocks that there was no need for them to do this, since they were (basically) the only two choices. Other manufacturers were using their own 'PR' scales at the time of course.

Of course, the reason we all hate it is because it's virtually impossible to quantify all the strengths and weaknesses of each chip into a single number. e.g. the P4 is better in encoding, but the A64 better for gaming (not strictly true these days, but you know what I mean).

At the end of the day, advertising with clockspeed these days is misleading, and so is a PR number. But the PR number is (arguably) less so, so that's what they use. Of course it then gives them a lot of room to 'interperet' their results, and squeeze a few % more 'PR' than perhaps it should, but for people who care about that - or even have a hope of noticing it - There are plenty of review sites on the 'net... Everyone else couldn't give a toss whether their A64 3200+ is exactly 6.666666% faster than a 3000+ is. They're just happy that DoomIII runs well enough.

So no, we haven't seen the end of PR schemes. And stop saying 'Yo' so much.
March 14, 2006 2:08:51 PM

Oh, and don't worry about the fanboy explosion. It always happens for a short while after an announcement like that one (Conroe Vs A64).

I don't know why. Just ignore the more blatant ones.

It does annoy me, because people genuinely asking for help get rapidly swamped by a pile of idiots, and at the end of the day, I believe that's what these forums are for above everything, IMO.

BTW, I was being sardonic with the first post I made... Not many of those 4000+ posts have been pointless spam, and I give help more than I seek it. Stick around and you'll see it quieten down a bit...
March 14, 2006 2:09:11 PM

Quote:
The pr0n-Rating always has been a joke anyway so why spend so much time discussing about it?


I do not share your opinion. The P-Rating system was a huge help to AMD so they could show that thier processors were equal to or better then their competitors processor at the same price point.
March 14, 2006 2:12:19 PM

You mean "Make people believe some blatant lies and hide the truth"?
Even THG stated that the Rating is TOTALLY out of order...
March 14, 2006 2:20:25 PM

They snatched a little more than they should have, but pretty much only after they released Barton. It was a fairly reasonable system up until then.

Don't forget that a XP2800+ probably was faster than a Northwood A 2.8Ghz P4, roughly the same as a 2.8Ghz Northwood B, and was not as good as a 2.8Ghz Northwood C. How could they have changed the ratings without making it even more confusing? They added too many PR points for the larger cache of Barton, and then had to leave the "error" in there until the end of the Athlon XPs, or the numbers wouldn't relate to each other in any way a consumer could understand.

You could argue that Intel should have used some form of rating to distinguish between those three even back then. the NW C 2.8Ghz (200Mhz FSB) was a crapload faster than the NW A 2.8Ghz (100Mhz FSB). And yes, that particular speed was available on all three revisions.

PR ratings aren't perfect, but never needing them again would be a bad thing, since it would almost certainly mean one company has a monopoly, or at least as near to one as makes no difference.
March 14, 2006 2:21:02 PM

Yea, I wil Stick around to see what Happend with the Release of Conroe/Wood crest processers. and Be actively involved with the Conversations when AM2 also come around the Corner. I do Believe that Conroe won't be as big a Processer as it's hyped up to be. But i guess we'll just have to wait until its Release and AM2 down in the Summer.
March 14, 2006 2:25:51 PM

Hehe. Yup. Anyone who believes that Intel were completely impartial with those benchmarks is an idiot :D 

I'm happy to sit back and watch the fireworks until the real reviews arrive. Even then, I'm only interested on an intellectual level really, although I would still prefer AMD to stay just in front for a little while yet - They're still very much the underdog, and we don't want Intel to steamroller them with a vastly better product lineup before they can even out the market shares a bit more.

The stiffer the competition, the harder you must compete.... And when we're talking about any products, that's only good for us consumers.
a c 99 à CPUs
March 14, 2006 2:42:41 PM

It's not that bad when comparing chips IN a certain line, but it is hard to compare them between lines. Here goes, anyway:

The first number in the 3-digit code is the "class" number. A higher number is supposed to signify a line with better performance.
3xx: Celeron D
5xx: Pentium 4 with 1MB L2
6xx: Pentium 4 with 2MB L2, 64-bit capabilities
8xx: Pentium D 90nm dual-cores
9xx: Pentium D 65nm dual-cores

The second number is to signify clock speed. Bigger is better. Here is the Pentium rating system (Celeries are different.)
x0x: 2.66GHz (Pentium D 805)
x2x: 2.8GHz (P4 52x and 62x, PD 82x and 92x)
x3x: 3.0GHz (P4 53x and 63x, PD 83x and 93x)
x4x: 3.2GHz (P4 54x and 64x, PD 84x and 94x)
x5x: 3.4GHz (P4 55x and 65x, PD 950)
x6x: 3.6GHz (P4 56x and 66x)
x7x: 3.8GHz (P4 57x and 67x)

The last number is to differentiate between different revisions and capabilities of chips in the same family and speed. Here are the Pentium ratings:

5xx family:
xx0: Standard 90nm Prescott 1MB core, 800MHz FSB.
xx1: 64-bit capable.
xx6: 64-bit capabilities, FSB dropped to 533MHz, no HT.

6xx family:
xx0: Standard 90nm Prescott 2MB core, 800MHz FSB, 64-bit capable, EIST.
xx1: New 65nm Cedar Mill core, VT, no EIST currently.

8xx family:
xx0: Standard 90nm Smithfield dual-core, 800MHz FSB, 64-bit capable, 2x1MB L2, EIST on the 830, 840, 840EE.
xx0EE: Adds HT.
xx5: Drops FSB to 533MHz

9xx family:
xx0: Standard 65nm Presler dual-core, 800MHz FSB, 64-bit capable, 2x2MB L2, VT.
xx5EE: Increase FSB to 1066MHz, adds HT.
March 14, 2006 3:05:47 PM

MU_Engineer,

Thank you so much for that explanation. I don't think I'll ever be able to remember it all, but it is at least something I can reference.

I think Intel should have picked a simpler naming scheme, but my AMD Fanboy-ism might affect how closely I pay attention to Intel and thus make it more confusing for me.

Some of AMD's model numbers are a little confusing when you compare Athlon X2 to Athlon 64.
March 14, 2006 3:38:02 PM

Yeah, Thak you for your hard work and Input MU_Engineer, I've already saved that Article and Printed that Techinical part for my Own reference.

And i'm laminating another copy to post up on my wall. Lol all other Others put up Jennifer Lopez on their wall. I put up Computer Info and Stats. yeah i also Printed FX-60 Benchmarks and laminated it and i google at it all the time in my room.
March 14, 2006 3:57:30 PM

MU_Engineer.... Thank you. I'd never really bothered looking into it, but now I can see the method behind the madness! 8)


Quote:
And i'm laminating another copy to post up on my wall
If that's the wall in your office, and you do all this stuff for a living, then fine.

If it's at home, strongly I advise you don't do that. After doing all the hard work and getting them back to yours, you don't want them freaking out and running off at seeing that sort of thing. :tongue:
March 14, 2006 4:09:06 PM

Lol, I'm 16 Eh! I'm just putting this up on my Bulliten Board i Got in a darkcorner of my room. I usually keep COmputer Info there. So it'll be a great Addition. And it deservs to be ther for me to figure out Intel. and Engineer Done such hard work so it realld does need to be laminated and up there.
a c 99 à CPUs
March 14, 2006 5:29:09 PM

Well, I just built a new machine about a week ago and so I was pretty fresh on all of the information as I did my homework before building. I took a lot of the information from the CPU Buyers Guide sticky here in the forum and updated it with some of the stuff I'd written down from looking at chips for my computer. The AMD one was a lot smaller as they have a lot fewer chips than Intel and there's not that much overlap.

I made up a big spreadsheet with different parts and information on it. That makes it pretty easy to compare and see what you need and what's the best buy.
March 14, 2006 7:59:03 PM

How are the new Intels more like AMDs architecture? Especially when AMD uses OMC.
!