Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should AMD re-label their CPUs

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 8, 2010 3:57:34 AM

Let's say AMD has a 2.6 GHz cpu that downclocks to 1.6 GHz, and Intel has a 1.6 GHz cpu that upclocks to 2.6 GHz. AMD calls theirs a 2.6 GHz cpu, Intel calls theirs a 1.6 GHz cpu. Since Intel's cpus are faster, the end result is people seeing an Intel 1.6 GHz cpu outperforming an AMD 2.6 GHz cpu. That makes things look really bad, even the straight up 2.6 vs 2.6 numbers look bad for AMD, but this makes it look worse.

So my question to you is, should AMD re-label the numbers on their CPUs and call this a 1.6 like Intel does or should they stay as is since higher numbers look better for Joe Sixpack? Rational thoughts welcome.

More about : amd label cpus

a c 88 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 8, 2010 4:47:53 AM

upclocks? downclocks?? Are you talking about their turboboost and turbo core features? I dont see a problem, they are labeling them according to their stock operating frequency. GHZ is never an indicator of performance between different model CPU's. Ok, the general population doesnt know that, just like they dont know the difference between an i5 and i3. Bottom line is if the people selling them cant tell the customer the difference, then they you should buy elsewhere. Maybe AMD can give you some of their new stickers that peel off easily so you can re-label your own.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 8, 2010 5:04:17 AM

^+1 clock speed means nothing if you're comparing different architectures. Remember that most Pentium 4s, even with high 3 GHz+ clock speeds couldn't keep with certain Athlon 64s clocked around 2 GHz most of the time.

What do you mean AMD CPUs downclock anyway? Cool 'n' Quiet downclocks it to 800 MHz when it's not in use, but otherwise it will stay at whatever speed it is intended to run at. You have forgotten that AMD also has Turbo CORE which upclocks the CPU speeds on the Phenom II X6 CPUs. And technically speaking, certain AMD CPUs are faster clock for clock still. It really depends on which CPUs you compare.

Besides, it's up to the consumer to do the research and check which CPU is faster to be honest.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 105 à CPUs
September 8, 2010 5:27:40 AM

AMD should take a lesson from nvidia on how to label things properly for consumers to understand!!...now is the GTX 460 faster or slower then the GTX 465 :heink: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 8, 2010 6:00:26 AM

^ A bit like the i7 970 and 975 in multi-threaded applications.
m
0
l
September 8, 2010 8:28:11 AM

I am aware AMD has started using turbo. Upclock and downclock is just my personal terminology for turbo, coolnquiet, and speedstep.

Just so you know, I don't really care about the answer to my original question, I just wanted people to think about this for a second, especially the people who aren't aware cpu speeds now go up and down, aka the annoying "OMG this 1.6 GHz benches just like a 2.6GHz" guy.
m
0
l
a c 88 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 8, 2010 8:58:44 AM

Yeah, all this turbo core crap is confusing for the average joe, but the average joe won't notice when turbo core is active or not anyway. In the end, as others have said, its up to the customer to ask the questions and do the research. And if you ever see this guy -> ""OMG this 1.6 GHz benches just like a 2.6GHz" guy." punch him in the face.

You know what would be good, if computers still had the "TURBO" button they had in the 386/486 days (pointless in the day as who would turn turbo off?). You could overclock with the push of a button. Or even make a little LCD overclock control panel that does it on the fly.. with presets!... I know its irrelevant to the discussion, but someone should do that!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2010 9:59:34 AM

rpg123 said:
Just so you know, I don't really care about the answer to my original question, I just wanted people to think about this for a second, especially the people who aren't aware cpu speeds now go up and down, aka the annoying "OMG this 1.6 GHz benches just like a 2.6GHz" guy.


thats very bad reason to do the same. coz then intel needs to rename their CPUs too.

there is a base clock: the clock written on the packaging of the processor.
when cpu is idle, both amd and intel processor down clocks
when cpu is under load, both amd (x6 version) and intel overclocks. and mind you, it comes at a price of turning off a few core.

so, are u suggesting that CPU should be marketed stating its "outside standard" parameter?
trust me mate, then there will be more no0b whining why his cpu has more cores (i dont see any company doing that), and why his cpu is working at lower (stock rates).

also y do you only state amd should do it. i just done get it
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 8, 2010 10:28:43 AM

Ok, I'm really unclear as to what the OP is trying to say. First, neither AMD nor Intel uses frequency in the model numbers anymore. Athlon II 630. i7 920. Its all model numbers, no frequency is mentioned. Second, I can't think of a single instance where one's chips would throttle down, while the others chip would "throttle up". (doing the same task of course.) What task are you thinking of where AMDs CPU would throttle down to 1.6GHz, and Intels turbo's up to 2.6?
m
0
l
a c 105 à CPUs
September 8, 2010 10:43:17 AM

4745454b said:
What task are you thinking of where AMDs CPU would throttle down to 1.6GHz, and Intels turbo's up to 2.6?


i think he is confused with laptop CPUs that increase and decrease in speed based on the power source (plugged in or battery)
m
0
l
September 8, 2010 1:28:27 PM

Fancy that eh , a company trying to 'sell' it's products on what might be ..... :non: 
what is the world coming to
personally I cant see the original point , because if I buy a cpu , it is clearly marked what the core or 'clock' speed is , both intel and AMD ,do this and if anything I find Intel's marking scheme more confusing
m
0
l
September 8, 2010 5:18:47 PM

Just trying to raise a bit of awareness of how cpus work nowadays. I've seen many people comparing chip A at 2.0GHz to chip B at 2.0GHz, but where chip A really has a max of 2.0GHz, but chip B has a max of 2.6GHz. It's really comparing a 2.0 to a 2.6 then.
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 8, 2010 10:01:45 PM

Just thought I would remind everyone that when turbo for either brand ups the clockspeed, the clockspeed of the unused cores clock down. In the high end models, there would be too much heat if all cores clocked up. So labeling a CPU as 2.6 when it is only 2.6 during single or low threaded applications would be lying.
m
0
l
!