Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel's Dothan

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 10, 2004 5:10:09 AM

“””””In a direct comparison between the old Pentium M 1.7 GHz and the new Dothan with 2.0 GHz, the newcomer clearly manages to gain the upper hand. In some of the benchmarks, the mobile CPU produced with 90-nm technology is up to 22% faster. Even if you only consider the difference in clock speed between the two CPUs, Dothan still offers a 5% advantage.””””””

I'm not 100% sure what they are saying a 1.7 giz Dothan is 5% faster then 1.7 giz pentium M???? If that is the case 5% that's decent improvement on a clock for clock comparison.


I did have a problem with this though.

“””””””And again, we applaud Intel's decision to end its marketing strategy of emphasizing gigahertz clock speed specifications as the true measure of processor performance. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the new processor-number style nomenclature will really make it easier for end users to find the right product.””””””

Applaud intel? IMHO intel is changing cause the game is over p4 hit a wall. The MHz myth was intentionally implemented or done by intel. 3 years later this decision based on misleading marketing and ignoring design engineers in favor of marketing to fool or mislead consumers. Why the pat on the back? It's not as if intel changed because of a conscience or something. P4 is finished p3 is what needs to be worked on. Obviously going back to MHz would make intel look bad compared to amd so go with even a more confusing setup based on really (not too much) from a consumers point of view.

A standard set of real benchmarks are what is needed in the cpu industry so consumers are not misled. AMD was pushing for this for the last couple of years but intel will have no part of it. So amd had to drop it.

What I don't understand is why THG is patting Intel on the back.


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

More about : intel dothan

May 10, 2004 6:59:10 AM

>I'm not 100% sure what they are saying a 1.7 giz Dothan is
>5% faster then 1.7 giz pentium M????

Yes, that is their claim. i'll wait for some better reviews before judging, but if this is confirmed, its underwhelming if not unsurprising. Banias already had a large cache, and diminishing returns is what you'd expect from doubling it again. If Dothan is indeed going to be the basis for next generation desktop parts (*), intel better get that clock up significantly, otherwise its desktop future looks bleak. Upping the FSB might help, but considering the huge cache, and the fact the P3 core isnt all that bandwith hungry, I doubt it will result in anywhere as significant speedups as P4A->B->C. Besides, a dual core chip with 2x the fsb/memory bandwith will still only have the same bandwith/core as the current tested Dothan.

(*) anyone else noted the strange form of the die ? You really would'nt want such a rectangular form, unless its already engineered for multicore. Put two of them together, and you get a nice square again (although a rather big one).

>The MHz myth was intentionally implemented or done by intel

No, I disagree here. it has historically become a measure of performance (and a pretty accurate one for a long time as well) even without intel 'intentional efforts'. However, it is obvious intel tried to take advantage of this misconception when they designed the P4. They didnt create the myth, they just abused it :) 

>What I don't understand is why THG is patting Intel on the
>back.

Who cares what THG says about it.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Related resources
May 10, 2004 2:12:55 PM

THG's review is a pathetic one. It is not representative of anything, sorry. As for that x86-secret site: Let's refrase that question, shall we? Is this site <i>more reliable</i> than THG? I visit it from time to time, and found no problem with it at all!

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
May 10, 2004 2:16:02 PM

Actually, I was reading x86-secret's review, and a 1.7Ghz Dothan sometimes manages a 15+% lead in performance over a 1.7Ghz Banias! How does that leave THG's review? In x86-secret's review, the 2Ghz Dothan even manages to rub shoulders with the heavyweights, like an A64 2.0Ghz and 3+Ghz P4s!

Can you imagine two of these working on a single chip? At 2+Ghz frequencies, with a highly improved memory subsystem? (keep in mind Dothan is only using DDR333 single channel right now)

I'm more inclined to think that THG's review was incomplete. I'm just sorry that there seems to be little information on Dothan right now on the web; I was expecting Xbitlabs and Anandtech to post more thorough reviews. :frown:
May 10, 2004 2:23:59 PM

The problem is that mobile processor are harder to compare, They often come only in notebooks that can't be tweak/configured to give fair comparison. If all mobile processors were pin to pin compatible with desktop counterpart, it will be easier to review these CPU.

I'm very impressed by the Dothan performance, I think Intel learned from the competition. IBM and AMD turn sooner than Intel into the "non-MHz" path and this paid off. Now that Intel is catching up, AMD must check is back. If Intel turn Dothan to desktop soon, this might "kill" the AMD64 line.

But I doubt Intel will kick Prescott out, they need to make some money out of this "last high-speed" CPU.

--
Lookin' to fill that <font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> shape hole!
May 10, 2004 4:09:38 PM

Re: No, I disagree here. it has historically become a measure of performance (and a pretty accurate one for a long time as well) even without intel 'intentional efforts'. However, it is obvious intel tried to take advantage of this misconception when they designed the P4. They didnt create the myth, they just abused it :) 

Fair enough, I think we are on the same page more or less. Sure the myth existed before the p4 but it was not nearly as pronounced untill the p4. I don't even remember hearing the phrase MHz myth untill the p4 came into existance. Intel took what most people believed all important MHz's and designed around that rather than performance.


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
May 10, 2004 4:27:44 PM

>ctually, I was reading x86-secret's review, and a 1.7Ghz
>Dothan sometimes manages a 15+% lead in performance over a
>1.7Ghz Banias!

Not in any realworld app. Superpi is completely useless as a benchmark (and hardly realworld), and Kribibench can show very weird results.

>n x86-secret's review, the 2Ghz Dothan even manages to rub
>shoulders with the heavyweights, like an A64 2.0Ghz and
>3+Ghz P4s!

Yeah, it performs roughly on par with equivalent clocked A64's. I'm not sure that is so very impressive though (for a future desktop platform), 2 GHz was the the introduction speed of 130nm A64's, 2 GHz for now is the maximum clock for 90nm Dothans (granted, mobile and low power, but still..)

>Can you imagine two of these working on a single chip? At
>2+Ghz frequencies, with a highly improved memory subsystem?
>(keep in mind Dothan is only using DDR333 single channel
>right now)

Can you imagine two A64's cores working on a single chip? 2+Ghz frequencies, with a highly improved memory subsystem?
(keep in mind A64 is only using DDR400 single channel
right now)

;) 

Besides as already discussed at length, dual core is probably nice, but definately not the 'end all' of performance. I stand by my point, if intel can't ramp Dothan clockspeeds to match K8's speeds on 90nm, it will be trailing, not leading. And it might be harder to catch K8 on clock as you'd think. Sure the 90nm ones overclock to 2.4, but those speeds are available from AMD as stockspeed on 130nm. Let's see what improvements 90nm bring for AMD before being overjoyed :) 

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 10, 2004 4:40:50 PM

> As for that x86-secret site: Let's refrase that question,
>shall we? Is this site more reliable than THG?

You mean that site that refuted the INQ's claims Tejas was canned ?

:) 

Actually, I think x86-secret and THG would run neck and neck when it comes to cluelessnes, poor benchmark selections and irrelevant (not to say downright idiotic at times) "analysis".

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 10, 2004 5:43:26 PM

yeah i have to agree with you there. the benchamrks were very limited, throwing up just a few benches. the only one i found interesting at all was the divx one, which was nice. but i want see the whoel thing, including gaming benchmarks, but i guess we wont be able to ever compare till dothans come to the desktop , since the notebooks are limited in power.
May 10, 2004 8:32:29 PM

It wasn't just them who refuted the INQ's claims that Tejas was canned. Aceshardware did that as well.

In any case, take it easy, P4Man (poor name... heh)... we all need more information on that processor in order to be truly informed about its potential.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
May 10, 2004 10:55:59 PM

>It wasn't just them who refuted the INQ's claims that Tejas
>was canned. Aceshardware did that as well.

Nope, they didnt afak. Aces isn't much of a news/rumour reporting site like the INQ, Xbit or x86-secret anyway; they don't have any inside sources afaik -besides Groo (Charlie) from the INQ posting regulary in the forum, but usually after the INQ article is up :) 

>we all need more information on that processor in order to
>be truly informed about its potential.

Well, potential can only be guestimated no matter how much info we have :)  But I think we have enough to make educated guesses. Dothan seems to perform roughly on par with A64 per clock, question remains how high they can clock it, and how much higher fsb will help. I guess I'm more pessismistic than most on both accounts (and not to tooth my own horn, but I'm rarely very wrong in my guestimates).

Dual core will come from both AMD and intel at roughly the same time, I even expect at least opterons to be out before any dothan based dual core, and they will pretty much perform like a 2 way SMP system, hence, not really that impressive compared to single cpu systems on most current (desktop) software. If, when or how much future games/desktop apps will benefit remains an open question as well, but also there I'm more pessimistic as most: rendering, video/audio encoding and photoshop filter type workloads will gain substantially (they mostly already do from SMP), but games, compiling and many other software are not likely to become all that SMP friendly within the next years -if ever. Parallelizing software just ain't that easy, and the benefits don't always outweigh the disadvantages (overhead).

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
a b à CPUs
May 10, 2004 11:27:40 PM

Yes, Intel coppied AMD's idea, but using different numbers from the Opterons and FX's. Terrible when Intel does it, isn't it?

<font color=blue>If you spilled a box of toothpicks on the floor, could I tell you how many there are?<font color=blue>
<font color=red>No, but what does that matter, I got a free Motherboard!</font color=red>
May 11, 2004 12:43:26 AM

I'm not so sure I see your point. In the server market multiple cpus can be used and naming games are no where near as effective…I-T's should be some what educated. I think it's fair to assume when amd was pushing for a benchmark standard in the industry amd would have been happy to accommodate any server chip issues intel felt important. Intel wanted no part of this and the average consumer would be much better off with it.

I can't say I blame intel when you look at what a standard set of performance measuring benchmarks would expose. Price performance and intels reputation would be at risk. Intel cannot have that as only the consumer would benefit from that.

AMD did not push for a numbering scheme they wanted honest benchmarks to dictate a cpu's value. Intel had every chance to accept it but intel and companies like dell would have no part of it. and amd was forced to drop the proposal. (they fought for at least two years) to no avail.

Crash do you really believe intel is copying amd's high-end numbering system? If so why not use amd numbers to rightly compare. No I personally don't think you believe that. I think you should be intelligent enough to understand the p4 design has collapsed and intel will be relying on the p3 design to move forward. Since this would put intel in a marketing disadvantage have fooled consumers for the last 3 years with MHz. So bring on a set of meaning less numbers for the consumer cause they do not want the average consumer to understand the truth.

At least that’s my take on it.


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 1:01:01 AM

It's the same story either way you look at it. Opteron 1.6GHz was a fast processor, calling it 1.6GHz would have only served to reduce sales because of the name implying it was "slower" than a Xeon. So they introduced a new number that wasn't based on anything, except for comparing the processor to other speeds of the same processor.

Intel's doing the same thing for the same reason. Same logic. AMD did it first, therefor anyone can claim Intel might have gotten the idea from AMD.

It works, or doesn't, the same way. FX51/53/whatever, you assume the 53 is faster than the 51, but what does that compare to with other processors? Nothing, it's not supposed to. It simply implies the 53 is faster than the 51, which it is. No dishonest or anything!

So AMD's FX and Opteron numbers can't be compared to other processors, and now Intel's setting up the same type of scheme. If Intel had used AMD's numbers, they'd have a couple problems: 1.) Everyone would know for SURE they coppied AMD completely, 2.) It would be up to them to maintain honesty, just as it was up to AMD to maintain honesty on the XP rating system.

Nope, AMD's model numbers don't compare to other processor families, and neither will Intel's. Same deal, different numbers.

<font color=blue>If you spilled a box of toothpicks on the floor, could I tell you how many there are?<font color=blue>
<font color=red>No, but what does that matter, I got a free Motherboard!</font color=red>
May 11, 2004 2:04:02 AM

Once again I don't see your point.

Re: It's the same story either way you look at it.

Only cause intel refused to accept a benchmark standard.

Re: Opteron 1.6GHz was a fast processor, calling it 1.6GHz would have only served to reduce sales because of the name implying it was "slower" than a Xeon.

As I said I'm reasonably sure amd would have been happy to use opteron in a real benchmarking scheme. and your not fooling very many in this category cause for the most part they are I-T's who know what questions to ask.

Re: So they introduced a new number that wasn't based on anything, except for comparing the processor to other speeds of the same processor.

Yes a pity really, but why not as multiple cpu's can be used and intel refused a benchmarking strategy. Which is what the industry needs.

Re: Intel's doing the same thing for the same reason.

No here is where you are out to lunch. AMD is doing it in the high end cause intel refused to accept a benchmarking setup. Intel is doing it cause the p4 failed and the MHz myth is over for them. Surley you can see that. Do you really expect people do believe that if prescott was @ 4 giz 90 nm right now intel would be adopting a number scheme? Nope dothan would be moblile with no talk of a desktop version and prescott would be everything and a number scheme out of the question. MHz rules.

Re: Same logic.

No here is where you are out to lunch. AMD is doing it in the high end cause intel refused to accept a benchmarking setup. Intel is doing it cause the p4 failed and the MHz myth is over for them. Surely you can see that. Do you really expect people do believe that if prescott was @ 4 giz 90 nm right now intel would be adopting a number scheme? Nope dothan would be moblile with no talk of a desktop version and prescott would be everything and a number scheme out of the question. MHz rules.

Re: AMD did it first, therefore anyone can claim Intel might have gotten the idea from AMD.

Lets wake up and face reality head on shall we. Intel refused a standard set of benchmarks to dictate a cpu's overall performance level, correct. If intel won't do what's best for the consumer why should AMD use MHz or a rating comparison to the p4 when so many other intel chips are around. MHz means zip and you can't compare when when so many different chips performing differently at different clocks.

Re: It works, or doesn't

It doesn’t work for the consumer but who's fault is that?


Re: the same way. FX51/53/whatever

Yup, but who's fault is that?


Re: you assume the 53 is faster than the 51, but what does that compare to with other processors? Nothing, it's not supposed to.

Yup, but who's fault is that? Do you believe amd wanted a rating formula based on benchmarks similar to the xp-rating formula but the fx cpu's must have a separate numbering system? Or do you think fx should just mention MHz which means zip. No amd had the right idea too bad intel refused to do what was best For the consumer.

Re: It simply implies the 53 is faster than the 51, which it is. No dishonest or anything!

Yes lets hope intels number system is at least that honest. Although I'd bet my left nut intel gives a slower performing CPU a greater number than a faster fx cpu. Or would you disagree with that as well. Intel does not wish to be compared to AMD on any performance level. Why do you think that is???? Toyota's compare them selves to Nissans GM's to Honda's etc etc. Competition is good for the consumer so they understand value.

Re: So AMD's FX and Opteron numbers can't be compared to other processors

No they can't but whose fault is that?


Re: and now Intel's setting up the same type of scheme.

No here is where you are out to lunch. AMD is doing it in the high end cause intel refused to accept a benchmarking setup. Intel is doing it cause the p4 failed and the MHz myth is over for them. Surely you can see that. Do you really expect people do believe that if prescott was @ 4 giz 90 nm right now intel would be adopting a number scheme? Nope dothan would be moblile with no talk of a desktop version and prescott would be everything and a number scheme out of the question. MHz rules.

Re: If Intel had used AMD's numbers, they'd have a couple problems: 1.) Everyone would know for SURE they coppied AMD completely, 2.) It would be up to them to maintain honesty,


Intel did not have to use AMD numbers... AMD was try for at least the last 2 years to set up an industry wide set of benchmarks to prove a CPU's overall value based on standard benchmarks. Why do you think intel refused this?


Re: just as it was up to AMD to maintain honesty on the XP rating system.

And that AMD did... Don't make me go though this again cause you should know by now I will.


Re: Nope, AMD's model numbers don't compare to other processor families, and neither will Intel's. Same deal, different numbers.

They don't but give AMD credit where credit is due. The xp rating formula was the closest we ever got while overly generous to begin with more accurate in the middle and failing in the end it was a valid attempt to compare one on one. Crash just think of how much more accurate te xp rating formula would have been if intel used the same formula.

Intel had every opportunity to adopt a true benchmarking formula like AMD pushed so hard for, but Intel will have no part of it so crash why do you think that is?


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
May 11, 2004 2:04:54 AM

RE: "pushing for a benchmark standard in the industry"

darko, what do you think <A HREF="http://www.tpc.org/information/who/whoweare.asp" target="_new">this</A> is? If people don't agree on those benchmarks (even though <b>all</b> the major players are members), why are they going to agree on another set?
May 11, 2004 2:16:34 AM

What is your point?

How many average consumers view that stuff?

Use those benchmarks whatever but let the consumer know how it preforms so they can compare value. Just like cars HP or MPG, the information could be on some obscure web site but consumer needs to know when buying. Not blaming you but is it really that hard to understand?

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by darko21 on 05/10/04 10:18 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 3:15:07 AM

But AMD didn't adopt a benchmarking program to come up with model numbers, not because Intel wouldn't agree, but because they didn't. They didn't need Intel's permission, agreement, or aknowledgement, they could have done it on their own. They adopted a new naming system because their "slower" processors were providing better performance. Intel did the same thing. Intel's biggest problem right now is that the PIII based CPU's have always provided better performance per clock cycle than their P4 based processors, and that the Pentium-M is an advanced version of the PIII. It gets kind of hard to sell P-M 1.8's when people don't know they're faster than P4-M 2.6's. But then again, it would have been kind of hard for AMD to sell Opterons at 1.6GHz and convince the uninformed IT guys those were faster than the Xeons, reason being that IT guys are lazy in general and won't read unless they have to. I know IT guys, they'd look at the MHz and assume Intel had the lead, so AMD came out with a number that couldn't be misinterpreted as a MHz reference, forcing the IT guys to look deeper.

Yep, AMD couldn't make higher MHz CPU's and neither could Intel. Reason 2 is they both know they can produce faster performing processors at slower clock rates. So both of them developed numbering schemes that were unrelated to MHz. AMD lead the market, Intel followed. Their reasons were the same.

You can dance around that all you want, simply because Intel was promoting MHz long after AMD gave up on it, but the fact remains Intel had to follow AMD's idea because Intel found out LATER than AMD that they couldn't ramp up clock speed any higher, and their clock speed promos were killing P-M sales.

They did the same thing for the same reasons. AMD could have come up with a standard list of benchmarks and a formula for providing a performance number based on some kind of weighted average, but they didn't. Can't blame Intel, that was AMD's choice. And now Intel is doing the same thing, and for the same reasons AMD has done it.

<font color=blue>If you spilled a box of toothpicks on the floor, could I tell you how many there are?<font color=blue>
<font color=red>No, but what does that matter, I got a free Motherboard!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 3:18:49 AM

Quote:
Although I'd bet my left nut intel gives a slower performing CPU a greater number than a faster fx cpu.

Why would they? Why wouldn't they? The numbers have nothing to do with each other, just as FX numbers have nothing to do with Opteron numbers. It's going to be left up to consumers now to read reviews and figure this stuff out for themselves. But since customers are lazy, it will likely result in Intel keeping their loyalist, AMD keeping their's, and people in the middle buying whatever's cheapest.

<font color=blue>If you spilled a box of toothpicks on the floor, could I tell you how many there are?<font color=blue>
<font color=red>No, but what does that matter, I got a free Motherboard!</font color=red>
May 11, 2004 3:33:41 AM

Nope, they didnt afak. Aces isn't much of a news/rumour reporting site like the INQ, Xbit or x86-secret anyway; they don't have any inside sources afaik -besides Groo (Charlie) from the INQ posting regulary in the forum, but usually after the INQ article is up


Yes i give the link and it seen they are right you have write just few hour to fast

i need to change useur name.
May 11, 2004 3:41:48 AM

Re: Why would they?

Cause its misleading and its about ripping off the consumer.

Re: Why wouldn't they?

They will.... See reasons above.

Re: The numbers have nothing to do with each other,

Nope but they could have if intel had agreed to a benchmarking strategy.


Re: just as FX numbers have nothing to do with Opteron numbers.

No they don't.. I thought I had explained this already did you even read the reply I made to you?

Re: It's going to be left up to consumers now to read reviews and figure this stuff out for themselves.

Yup but most consumers can't be bothered to look it up and will not realize they were ripped off.

Re: But since customers are lazy, it will likely result in Intel keeping their loyalist,

You mean like kanavite? What about ripping off the uninformed like my dad or you mom who really don't think like kanavite or care amd intel, but just want the best value for there hard earned dollar?

Re: AMD keeping their's,

Loyalists are retards if I thought I'd get more performance from intel for my dollar I'm there. End of story. Granted if tied I'd through my support with amd but only cause the industry needs competition amd offers just that but do to misleading marketing they are struggling.

Re: and people in the middle buying whatever's cheapest.

Like all the uniformed such as our parents buying dells with a 2.7 giz celeron. That's unacceptable in my book.


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 4:08:15 AM

To begin with, Intel's model numbers are 3 digits long, AMD's FX series is 2 digits long, it's apples to oranges, there are no UNITS. If I told you my monitor was 40 wide, you might say "Wow, a 40" wide monitor?", and I'd say No, 40cm. Without units you have no system for basing anything, 3 digits, 2 digits, there's no room for Intel to be "dishonest" there if the numbers don't mean anything.

Your argument about Intel using higher numbers is like saying "Hey, it's unfair to call your bicycle a Mongoose, because mine's a Diamond Back, I know Mongoose eat snakes, but my bikes better than yours". The numbers simply don't relate to anything, they're names. If a Jaguar 120 went 120MPH, would a Chrysler 300 go 300? LOL.

It's the same story, Intel's now doing what AMD's been doing, for the same reasons.

<font color=blue>If you spilled a box of toothpicks on the floor, could I tell you how many there are?<font color=blue>
<font color=red>No, but what does that matter, I got a free Motherboard!</font color=red>
May 11, 2004 4:48:34 AM

Re: But AMD didn't adopt a benchmarking program to come up with model numbers, not because Intel wouldn't agree, but because they didn't.

Could you clarify just what are you saying here.

Re: They didn't need Intel's permission, agreement, or aknowledgement, they could have done it on their own.

I am asumming they means amd? If that is the case don’t be ridiculous. It’s as if you are trying to confuse the topic or something. So lets break down what you just said.

<font color=red> “But AMD didn't adopt a benchmarking program to come up with model numbers” </font color=red> They certainly did with the xp-rating formula and they have certainly been trying to for the last few years. Did I not already explain this fully to you why are you making me repeat it differently. Why do I make these posts and you donb’t even read it? <font color=red> “not because Intel wouldn't agree, but because they didn't. “ </font color=red> So you are on the board of directors now? You know Intel wanted an honest rating formula but did not care for the one amd proposed. I’d bet my right nut this time that amd would have accepted any independent body to decide on the benchies used. <font color=red> They didn't need Intel's permission, agreement, or aknowledgement, they could have done it on their own. </font color=red> Done what on there own? You mean like the xp-rating fonmula? Did you not read my previous posts? If Intel won’t play what is the point? To many different cpu’s speeds ipc this has been fully explained already. The point is for Intel to confuse mislead.



Re: They adopted a new naming system because their "slower" processors were providing better performance.

Who did AMD? It’s not slower its faster just runs at less MHz. and you are WRONG amd went to a naming scheme cause Intel refused to adopt a proper benchmarking scheme. I thought I had explained this already why do you make me repeat it?


Re: Intel did the same thing. Intel's biggest problem right now is that the PIII based CPU's have always provided better performance per clock cycle than their P4 based processors, and that the Pentium-M is an advanced version of the PIII.

Funny how you twist things around. A couple of months ago Intel had the advanced new generation p4 and amd’s k8 was was 1990’s k7 technology. So funny how you phrase it now. But of course you would never see it that way.

Re: It gets kind of hard to sell P-M 1.8's when people don't know they're faster than P4-M 2.6's.

Yes it would be. And its intels own fault for going there to begin with. I think the bigger problem is how would you compare an dothlon @2.2 giz to an fx58 @ 2.8 giz?


Re: But then again, it would have been kind of hard for AMD to sell Opterons at 1.6GHz and convince the uninformed IT guys those were faster than the Xeons

Leave that to the Sun and HP sales reps to explain why it’s superior. They might even buy you a cheeseburger while they explain it.


Re: reason being that IT guys are lazy in general and won't read unless they have to. I know IT guys, they'd look at the MHz and assume Intel had the lead,

You mean like my grand parents? They gotta be better than that.

Re: so AMD came out with a number that couldn't be misinterpreted as a MHz reference, forcing the IT guys to look deeper.

AMD wanted a benchmark rating for the industry Intel said NO THANKYOU. Did you read any of my posts to you?



Re: Yep, AMD couldn't make higher MHz CPU's and neither could Intel.

Please don’t speak for me. For all we know AMD could have made a 5 giz cpu but preformed like a 500MHZ k6. Intel hit a wall with the high MHz low IPC misleading design. And I say let them eat cake.


Re: Reason 2 is they both know they can produce faster performing processors at slower clock rates.

Wrong again only Intel can do that. Because only Intel implemented a misleading design.


Re: So both of them developed numbering schemes that were unrelated to MHz.

And this was the wrong approach. Only implemented cause Intel refused to be compared with realistic benchmarks for a numbering system.


Re: AMD lead the market, Intel followed. Their reasons were the same.

NO how many times do I have to say this????????????
AMD tried for the last few years to implement an industry wide set of benchmarck to rate performance over all. Intel refused. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS CRASH
???????? It was only after Intel refused that that they let the whole thing go. What’s the alternative MHz trying to figure out how to rate to a Prescott and p4c xenon and dothon biannas whatever.


Re: You can dance around that all you want

Really I am the one dancing here.


Re: simply because Intel was promoting MHz long after AMD gave up on it

Intel went to high MHz low IPC to mislead not to do anyone any favors. AMD did not give up… they were trying to show the uninform true value as intels high MHz low IPC was only meant to mislead.


Re: but the fact remains Intel had to follow AMD's idea because Intel found out LATER than AMD that they couldn't ramp up clock speed any higher, and their clock speed promos were killing P-M sales.

NO how many times do I have to say this????????????
AMD tried for the last few years to implement an industry wide set of benchmark to rate performance over all. Intel refused. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS CRASH
???????? It was only after Intel refused that that they let the whole thing go. Whats the alternative MHz trying to figure out how to rate to a Prescott and p4c xenon and dothon biannas whatever.


Re: They did the same thing for the same reasons.

WRONG amd went to a naming scheme cause Intel refused to adopt a proper benchmarking scheme. I thought I had explained this already why do you make me repeat it?

Re: AMD could have come up with a standard list of benchmarks and a formula for providing a performance number based on some kind of weighted average, but they didn't.

AMD did with the xp and were trying for the last 2 years at least for any future cpu’s but big wigs like dell Intel won’t have it. . WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS CRASH


Can't blame Intel, that was AMD's choice.

Yes you most certainly can. Just what couor is the sky in your world anyway? Intel could have adopted a rating formula based on benchies. As a matter of fact if I had a third nut I bet amd would have let Intel pick all the benchies so long as Intel agreed to adopt it for 10 years or so. But Intel will have no part of it.


Re: And now Intel is doing the same thing, and for the same reasons AMD has done it.

NO how many times do I have to say this????????????
AMD tried for the last few years to implement an industry wide set of benchmark to rate performance over all. Intel refused. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS CRASH
???????? It was only after Intel refused that that they let the whole thing go. Whats the alternative MHz trying to figure out how to rate to a Prescott and p4c xenon and dothon biannas whatever.




If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
May 11, 2004 4:59:01 AM

To begin with, Intel's model numbers are 3 digits long, AMD's FX series is 2 digits long,

Who cares it tells the uniformed consumer nothing unless comparing identical CPU’s.


Re: it's apples to oranges, there are no UNITS.

Yes that is exactly what I have been saying over and over and over. It would have been nice for the consumer if Intel had adopted a set of benchmarks to rate performance. So the consumer was not confused into making a bad choice.

If I told you my monitor was 40 wide, you might say "Wow, a 40" wide monitor?", and I'd say No, 40cm. Without units you have no system for basing anything, 3 digits, 2 digits,

At least try and say something useful I know this stuff can’t be over your head and you said I was dancing.

Re: there's no room for Intel to be "dishonest" there if the numbers don't mean anything.

Oh they will mean something cause the media will ask. But it will never tell a true story on performance.

Re: Your argument about Intel using higher numbers is like saying "Hey, it's unfair to call your bicycle a Mongoose, because mine's a Diamond Back, I know Mongoose eat snakes, but my bikes better than yours". The numbers simply don't relate to anything, they're names. If a Jaguar 120 went 120MPH, would a Chrysler 300 go 300? LOL.

At least try and say something useful I know this stuff can’t be over your head and you said I was dancing.


Re: It's the same story, Intel's now doing what AMD's been doing, for the same reasons.

NO how many times do I have to say this????????????
AMD tried for the last few years to implement an industry wide set of benchmark to rate performance over all. Intel refused. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS CRASH
???????? It was only after Intel refused that that they let the whole thing go. What’s the alternative MHz trying to figure out how to rate to a Prescott and p4c xenon and dothon biannas whatever.


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 5:35:00 AM

LMAO, you can explain until you're blue in the face that the XP Rating system is based on a scientify formula averaging benchmarks, but those explainations are meaningless simply because they aren't true. The XP rating "formula" is based on nothing more than what AMD felt the number should be. You keep talking of the MHz myth, your logic fails. Bartons for example weren't rating using the same "system" as thoroughbreds, AMD added a new "system" when they came up with the bartons and combined those TWO "systems" into what you're calling a formula!

Quote:
They adopted a new naming system because their "slower" processors were providing better performance.-<i>Crashman</i>

Both AMD and Intel. I keep telling you both companies are doing the same thing.
Quote:
and you are WRONG amd went to a naming scheme cause Intel refused to adopt a proper benchmarking scheme. I thought I had explained this already why do you make me repeat it?

I thought I had explained this to you already, AMD didn't need Intel's permission to come up with their own model numbers, such as FX51, they didn't need Intel's colaboration to come up with a new performance based system, such as mFlops or IPS or whatever they would choose. Intel agreeing is irrelavent, AMD did come up with their own labeling system.

Quote:
Funny how you twist things around. A couple of months ago Intel had the advanced new generation p4 and amd’s k8 was was 1990’s k7 technology. So funny how you phrase it now. But of course you would never see it that way.

No, you twist things around. You can go all the way back to the 2001 archives and see what I've told people, I always told them the PIII offered more clock-for-clock performance than the P4. The P-M has it's roots in the Pentium Pro, the A64 has it's roots in the Athlon, both use core logic from those old processors. I never claimed P4 superiority, you simply implied I did because you're dishonest with your implications and you think you can win arguments that way.

Quote:
You mean like my grand parents? They gotta be better than that.

Funny how the guys in charge over here are basically clueless about these things, one says Sun's processors are always more powerfull than anything PC based, and doesn't differentiate, the other says "Sun, PC, and Mac, it's a matter of preference" and he doesn't differentiate either. Both rely on Sun exclusively for their servers and really don't care about what's inside as long as Sun say's it's fast. They support PC and Mac platforms and upgrade every 3 or 4 years when the money is given to them. They know that whatever they buy will be powerfull enough and rely on GATEWAY to provide them the best deal on X-quantity of systems.

Quote:
AMD tried for the last few years to implement an industry wide set of benchmarck to rate performance over all. Intel refused. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS CRASH

Because Intel knew that Customers were aquanted only with MHz and did the best they could to provide more MHz regardless of performance.
Quote:
Please don’t speak for me. For all we know AMD could have made a 5 giz cpu but preformed like a 500MHZ k6.

No, that would have required them to invest a lot of money in designing a new, suckier core. Intel has that kind of developement money, AMD doesn't. Remember when investors sued AMD for spending too much money on Athlon development?

Quote:
Re: Reason 2 is they both know they can produce faster performing processors at slower clock rates.

Wrong again only Intel can do that. Because only Intel implemented a misleading design.

AMD XP3200+:2.2GHz, A64 3200+:2.0GHz. Looks like I'm almost always right, and that misleading designs have nothing to do with my statment. In fact, the A64 3200+ is not only clocked slower than the XP3200+, but it also performs better in 32-bit mode than the XP3200+!

Oh, and once again, just to burn this into your memory, AMD could have come up with any standard benchmark system they wanted, they didn't need Intel's collaboration. Intel's refusal doesn't matter, AMD picked their own model.

<font color=blue>If you spilled a box of toothpicks on the floor, could I tell you how many there are?<font color=blue>
<font color=red>No, but what does that matter, I got a free Motherboard!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 6:11:10 AM

Whatever happens, I'll just be glad when I can cool a processor with 2x the power of my overclocked 2.6C without the need of additional cooling!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
May 11, 2004 7:07:34 AM

Re: LMAO, you can explain until you're blue in the face that the XP Rating system is based on a scientify formula averaging benchmarks

Keep swallowing the prozac. Even that is far supeior to a pick a number from a hat system. Remember intel refusesed a benchmark system.

Re: but those explainations are meaningless simply because they aren't true.

what-ever! based on somthing like 14 benchmarks in 3 different fields of personal computing but ok prozac boy meaningless.

Re: The XP rating "formula" is based on nothing more than what AMD felt the number should be.

Yup they picked the benchies but but why not intel sure did not want to play that game.

Re: You keep talking of the MHz myth, your logic fails.

MHz is a myth!!!!! so pop another prozac and keep on laughing.

Re: Bartons for example weren't rating using the same "system" as thoroughbreds, AMD added a new "system" when they came up with the bartons and combined those TWO "systems" into what you're calling a formula!

This is getting wierd. I have fully explained this to you in previous threads. You could not win your bash amd arguments then why re bring it up now? looks like you have a serious problem with amd fudging numbers calling them liars ther is no end to it. It's twisted and personal with you.

Re: Both AMD and Intel. I keep telling you both companies are doing the same thing.

and as I am saying for the what? 100th time.... Its only because intel refused to adopt an industry wide initative benchmarking cpu's. For the 100th time why do you think that is crash or do you just pick the easy questions to answer and mislead. Maybe you should work for intel?

Re: I thought I had explained this to you already

Good one that prozac must be kicking in good. Just how do you come up with these one liners?

Re: AMD didn't need Intel's permission to come up with their own model numbers, such as FX51, they didn't need Intel's colaboration to come up with a new performance based system, such as mFlops or IPS or whatever they would choose. Intel agreeing is irrelavent, AMD did come up with their own labeling system.

Pop another pill no one has ever said amd needed intels permission to come up with a model number. Please feel free to re-read the last few posts. But there is no point in a model or benchmark system unless everyone is on the same page. AMD pushed an industy wide initiative but intel refused. Why do you think that is crash?

Re: No, you twist things around. You can go all the way back to the 2001 archives and see what I've told people, I always told them the PIII offered more clock-for-clock performance than the P4. The P-M has it's roots in the Pentium Pro, the A64 has it's roots in the Athlon, both use core logic from those old processors. I never claimed P4 superiority, you simply implied I did because you're dishonest with your implications and you think you can win arguments that way.

I don't twist things around it's what you said only a couple of months ago. No one is arguing what you just said above. but how does that compare to (((((Intel has the advanced new generation p4 and amd’s k8 was was 1990’s k7 technology)))))??

Re: you simply implied I did because you're dishonest with your implications

I'm dishonest? Did I not rip you a new one over you calling me a liar? Based on ABSOLUTLY nothing. and now crash once again can't stand the heat so I'm dishonest? Based on what you spinless coward?

Re: Funny how the guys in charge over here are basically clueless about these things, one says Sun's processors are always more powerfull than anything PC based, and doesn't differentiate, the other says "Sun, PC, and Mac, it's a matter of preference" and he doesn't differentiate either. Both rely on Sun exclusively for their servers and really don't care about what's inside as long as Sun say's it's fast. They support PC and Mac platforms and upgrade every 3 or 4 years when the money is given to them. They know that whatever they buy will be powerfull enough and rely on GATEWAY to provide them the best deal on X-quantity of systems.

Thats why we need an industry wide set of benchmarks to show what is what. Too bad intel refused this. Why do you think that is crash?

Re: Because Intel knew that Customers were aquanted only with MHz and did the best they could to provide more MHz regardless of performance.

So you are calling me dishonest and intel only thinking of the consumer with the high MHz low IPC rip off cpu's like the celeron.

Re: No, that would have required them to invest a lot of money in designing a new, suckier core. Intel has that kind of developement money, AMD doesn't. Remember when investors sued AMD for spending too much money on Athlon development?

Yes lots of money to do nothing but mislead. Thank god amd don't have that kind of money to burn. Oh well as much money as intel put into this misleading design it has now back fired and I say they made their bed so lye in it.


Re: AMD XP3200+:2.2GHz, A64 3200+:2.0GHz. Looks like I'm almost always right, and that misleading designs have nothing to do with my statment. In fact, the A64 3200+ is not only clocked slower than the XP3200+, but it also performs better in 32-bit mode than the XP3200+!

I know you know the answer to that. Sad that you are so weak as to bring that up again. Pathetic really! I am not going to repost it but I'll show a link where the answer you can't grasp has been fully explained to YOU!. Just because the average reader don't understand this, I know full well I have explained it all to you. Would you like me to show one the links where this was explained to you crash?

Re: Oh, and once again, just to burn this into your memory, AMD could have come up with any standard benchmark system they wanted, they didn't need Intel's collaboration. Intel's refusal doesn't matter, AMD picked their own model.

Its only because intel refused to adopt an industry wide initative benchmarking cpu's. For the 100th time why do you think that is crash? or do you just pick the easy questions to answer and mislead. Maybe you should work for intel?


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
May 11, 2004 7:39:21 AM

> The XP rating "formula" is based on nothing more than what
>AMD felt the number should be. You keep talking of the MHz
>myth, your logic fails. Bartons for example weren't rating
>using the same "system" as thoroughbreds, AMD added a new
>"system" when they came up with the bartons and combined
>those TWO "systems" into what you're calling a formula!

This is not quite true either. you make it sound as if AMD pulls the numbers out of their arse, which they don't. At least for the Athlon XP line, they used a consistent benchmarking set which can be found <A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/SellAMDProducts/0,,..." target="_new">here</A>. its the exact same set of benchmarks they used to rate their first 1500+ XP cpu's in 2001. Using those benchmarks, the PR rating is representative of the performance of all those different XP cores, wether it is Palomino, Tbred, Barton,..

This approach does not let you conclude a 3200+ is exactly 2x as fast as a 1600+; nor that a 3000+ is faster than a 3 GHz P4, nor that a 2800+ is twice as fast as 1400 tbird, but it does tell you a 2800+ is faster <b>on those apps</b> than a 2700+, which is faster than a 2600+ regardless of architectural difference (fsb speed, cache, clockspeed,..).

Now you can bitch and moan that the selection of benchmarks is not representative, outdated but it has been consistent which is more important IMHO, You could argue that the numbers are chosen to be comparable to P4 speeds, while they are clearly not always, and you'd get the eternal discussion; but what you can't claim is these numbers are meaningless, because they are not: they are completely accurate in comparing relative performance of all different kinds of XP processors running those selected benchmarks. And as such, I think they did a good job of helping customers.

>Both AMD and Intel. I keep telling you both companies are
>doing the same thing

Have to agree here. Only that I think AMD's system is easier to grasp, and doesnt have nearly as many numbers as Intel. intels product numbering scheme really makes my head hurt.Without looking it up, do you know how a 733 compares to a 735 or what chip it is in the first place ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 8:59:06 AM

You're going to love this one then. You're lying about what I said. That's right, the same old complaint. I don't even have to go into your giberish about 18+ benchmarks or whatever, I said "The XP rating "formula" is based on nothing more than what AMD felt the number should be. You keep talking of the MHz myth, your logic fails."

In other words I said the XP rating system is based on a myth if it's based on the P4, and now you're arguing that the XP rating isn't a myth but P4 MHz is. So it sounds to me like it's a MYTH when you want it to be, but NOT A MYTH when AMD tries to approximate those numbers. And you imply that I'm giving that myth validity, proving your dishonesty once and for all. Let's go through this long, lame post and see what kind of false hope you can drag from that sewer you call a pool of knowledge:

Quote:
based on somthing like 14 benchmarks in 3 different fields of personal computing

Prove it.

Quote:
Yup they picked the benchies but but why not intel sure did not want to play that game.

What benchmarks is AMD using?

Quote:
MHz is a myth!!!!! so pop another prozac and keep on laughing.

I never said otherwise, though you implied I did. MHz actually is real, performance based purely on MHz is a myth, but you claim I'm saying the opposite because you like to creat falsehoods by distorting what others say. A "white lie" perhaps? Not comming from your black heart!

Quote:
You could not win your bash amd arguments then why re bring it up now? looks like you have a serious problem with amd fudging numbers calling them liars ther is no end to it. It's twisted and personal with you.

No, your dishonesty is personal with me, AMD's claim that the XP rating system is based on the performance per clock speed of the Thunderbird doesn't bother me, even if it is a lie.

Quote:
Maybe you should work for intel?

Only if they offer me a job before AMD does.

Quote:
Just how do you come up with these one liners?

When you say something truely stupid I use your own words against you. I thought you were smart enough to figure that out.

Quote:
no one has ever said amd needed intels permission to come up with a model number.

Gee, my mistake? I thought you said AMD couldn't come up with a performance rating scheme not based on MHz, simply because Intel wouldn't agree to it. I'll have to REREAD what you said!
Quote:
and you are WRONG amd went to a naming scheme cause Intel refused to adopt a proper benchmarking scheme

Hey, you did say that!

Quote:
how does that compare to (((((Intel has the advanced new generation p4 and amd’s k8 was was 1990’s k7 technology)))))??

Not my exact words, the P4 isn't that advanced and the PIII has always performed better, clock for clock. But yes, the P4 was completely new, the P-M is based on the PIII, and the A64 is based on the original Athlon. And for that matter, the P3 was based on the Pentium Pro. Why would any of that hurt your feelings?

Quote:
so I'm dishonest? Based on what you spinless coward?

If I was afraid of you, I wouldn't be here, LOL. If you want a bases for what I've said, read the rest of the post!

Quote:
So you are calling me dishonest and intel only thinking of the consumer with the high MHz low IPC rip off cpu's like the celeron.

I never said Intel was honest, you're putting words in my mouth...hey, isn't that a form of lying? Hehehehe, I know you love me now!

Quote:
Sad that you are so weak as to bring that up again. Pathetic really!

Wait, I said they both know they can produce faster performing processors at slower clock rates, and you said "Wrong again only Intel can do that". I proved you wrong, both companies can do that.

Quote:
I'll show a link where the answer you can't grasp has been fully explained to YOU!

Here's your <A HREF="http://www.newegg.com" target="_new">link</A> Sure enough, the XP3200+ is clocked higher than the better performing A64 3200+, just like I said it was! But wait, YOU'RE the one that said "Only Intel can do that"!

So once again it boils down to: Both companies are producing products that perform much better than MHz would imply, so both companies went to alternative naming schemes. AMD lead the way with their Opteron, and Intel did the same thing, using different aribitrary numbers.

Glad to do business with you, anything else you'd like to turn around, misquote, or put out of context?

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 9:09:52 AM

[/quote]>Both AMD and Intel. I keep telling you both companies are
>doing the same thing

Have to agree here. Only that I think AMD's system is easier to grasp, and doesnt have nearly as many numbers as Intel.[/quote]

That's what the whole entire argument is about. Everything else you're reading are his ways of trying to throw read herrings...distracting anyone from the original arguement, because he knows he can't win. Even if he wins on a couple other points, he can't win there. So he thinks as long as he puts up some arguments that he can match or win, he'll be able to hide the fact he's loosing the original argument.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 9:13:49 AM

BTW, I'm seeing in the XP3200+ audit that the other hardware is much newer than the XP1500+. Have they retested the XP1500+ to get new benchmarks on the same new hardware? It would almost appear as though a big part of the increase is due to newer parts being used!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
May 11, 2004 12:19:55 PM

Of course, Intel copied AMD. They are now in the same position, they have to promote lower speed processor. They can't market MHz anymore, MHz are becoming only 1 element in the equation.

The problem I see for the future is that the AMD system is based on MHz comparison and this is now becoming irrevelant. AMD will have to change their "+" model numbers for something more neutral.

What I like from Intel is the 3xx/5xx/7xx declinations, it's not that bad. On the other hand AMD identification (Duron/Athlon XP/Athlon 64/Athlon FX) are good too, but the different Athlon flavor can be a bit confusing for the average Joe.

--
Lookin' to fill that <font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> shape hole!
May 11, 2004 1:41:32 PM

Ooo ooo ooo, a fight!

***grabs popcorn and sits down***

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
May 11, 2004 2:09:40 PM

Quote:
So AMD's FX and Opteron numbers can't be compared to other processors, and now Intel's setting up the same type of scheme. If Intel had used AMD's numbers, they'd have a couple problems: 1.) Everyone would know for SURE they coppied AMD completely, 2.) It would be up to them to maintain honesty, just as it was up to AMD to maintain honesty on the XP rating system.

Nope, AMD's model numbers don't compare to other processor families, and neither will Intel's. Same deal, different numbers

Amen!

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
May 11, 2004 3:27:21 PM

Really, does it matter to the real world (i.e. consumers- not hardcores who sit and post here all day. ;) ) what number system a CPU manu uses?! If Joe Nongeek goes into Best Buy or <yourfavonlinecompstore>.com to buy a system; do you think he cares what the CPU number is? NO He is going to find out what the price is for what best GHz/$ ratio he can get. If those are 'made up' numbers by AMD or Intel, so be it, he'll buy it anyway. But most likely he won't care, because he got a 'free' $90 "quality" printer with the deal.

Remember- there is life outside of OC. I've now been living OC clean for ~4 years and am happy to say I can now walk through a computer store without having to debate the sales folks. ;)  LOL

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Asymal on 05/11/04 11:28 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 11, 2004 3:59:49 PM

Quote:
Its only because intel refused to adopt an industry wide initative benchmarking cpu's. For the 100th time why do you think that is

Funny - I thought I pointed out earlier that Intel (and a lot of other industry leaders) <b>had</b> adopted "an industry wide initative (sic) benchmarking cpu's". Are those benchmarks relevant to the SOHO user? Maybe not. No game benchies there. But they <b>are</b> industry wide benchmarks. Your argument (in the general sense) has been irrefutably proven false, sorry. But it will be amusing watching you repeat yourself another 100 times trying to show otherwise.

Regarding "why do you think that is" - I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, that benchmarking initiative you keep harping about was bound to be slanted toward the strength of one architecture over the other? And which architecture do you think that would be, hmmm? I wonder... Reality check for you - how many multimedia benchies do you see in the XP rating scheme P4MAN so graciously provided a link to above?

Tell you what dark, instead of repeating yourself ad nauseum, why not propose some way of doing this "industry wide benchmarking"? The fact is no one will ever come up with a benchmark standard that everyone (or even most) will agree represents the be all and end all of processor performance. And nothing you or I say here is going to change that.

PS - Meph, here's a coke. Could you please pass the popcorn?
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 6:06:36 PM

Hey, but if AMD sticks with XP+ numbers, perhaps people, confused with Intel's model numbers, will move to AMD? W00T, that would do nice things for the market, except that AMD might not be prepared for a spike in sales!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
May 11, 2004 6:32:34 PM

Uuum.... Wasn't SPEC supposed to be one such iniative of standardizing performance according to a series of benchmarks? Remember, SPEC has the viewperf suite, with Pro-E, 3DSmax and so on modules... Plus, FP suites and INT suites as well... This went well, didn't it? (this is called sarcasm, OK?)

Just to point out that it is harder than it looks to make an adequate set of benchmarks with which everyone would be OK with...

<i>(Here's the popcorn, sonoran... thanks for the coke... maybe we should get some potato chips?)</i>

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
May 11, 2004 7:31:43 PM

HA HA HA!!! That would be funny. But AMD need a reference, today they have Intel MHz, so they can use "+" model numbers. When Intel will drop MHz... They will not have anymore Mhz comparison...

If Intel move to Dothan, AMD will make Athlon 64 2200+ that would be faster than Athlon 64 3000+. This doesn't make sense. I really think AMD will drop "+" numbering and move to something like the Opteron models numbers. Probably not this year, but this will happen.

--
Lookin' to fill that <font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> shape hole!
May 11, 2004 7:37:44 PM

Yes, but this simply has to happen, so there's nothing new about it.

***chewing popcorn***

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
May 11, 2004 7:39:44 PM

Today is not my day... I always get weird replys to my posts... In fact, I know my post was somewhat worthless...

Someday, do you feel the need to write?

--
Lookin' to fill that <font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> shape hole!
May 11, 2004 7:47:31 PM

Quote:
You're going to love this one then. You're lying about what I said. That's right, the same old complaint. I don't even have to go into your giberish about 18+ benchmarks or whatever, I said "The XP rating "formula" is based on nothing more than what AMD felt the number should be. You keep talking of the MHz myth, your logic fails."


I got the proof now you got eat you ridiculous claims that I am a liar. You tried hard calling me a liar last time we argued. All you can do is give a link to newegg? What is that? I'm a liar and you give us a link to newegg!!

Quote:
In other words I said the XP rating system is based on a myth if it's based on the P4,


It was not based on the p4 it was based on benchmarks to try and compare to the p4. The problem is the benchies remained the same and the p4 was a moving target greatly improving with added cache higher FSB. I have fully explained this to you in the past.

Quote:
and now you're arguing that the XP rating isn't a myth


It's not a myth it's scientific benchmarks. Why do you have so much trouble grasping that?

Quote:
but P4 MHz is.


Once the p4 came about MHz went out the window it did not compare to previous cpu's or competitors only relevant to p4's. MHz was never completely accurate but was usually a good indicator of performance. Thus the p4 turned it into a myth.

Quote:
So it sounds to me like it's a MYTH when you want it to be,

I did not coin the phrase MHz myth. I only remember it once the p4 was introduced. Why do you think that is crash?

Quote:
but NOT A MYTH when AMD tries to approximate those numbers.

Call it a myth if you want but its relevant and accurate and was the closest we ever got to comparing older cpu's Just think for a sec how accurate it would if amd used that formula and intel did as well. Kinda hard when intel refused amd's industry wide initiative. Why do you think that is crash?

Quote:
And you imply that I'm giving that myth validity,


I am implying you are a biased intel fanboy


Quote:
proving your dishonesty once and for all.

Not this lame crap again. Lost month YOU called me a liar based on ABSOLUTLY nothing I made you eat those words. Now crash can't win another argument and his huge ego is bruised so I am dishonest.


Quote:
Let's go through this long, lame post and see what kind of false hope you can drag from that sewer you call a pool of knowledge:

Yes we will do that. I am ready so let’s begin.


<font color=red> In reply to:</font color=red>


Based on something like 14 benchmarks in 3 different fields of personal computing





Quote:
Prove it.

Ok crash I have shown YOU this before but others might be unaware so I'll repost for the others as I know YOU have already been shown and you have the nerve to call me dishonest!
<A HREF="http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20011009/athlonxp-12...." target="_new"> AMD's old Model Policy for the xp </A> based on 14 benchmarks that represent 34 applications of the three fields 'visual computing', 'gaming' and 'office productivity

<A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Downloadab..." target="_new"> AMD's web site on old policy or old formula for the XP</A>


AMD's new (now the old model xprating) model rating is based on 14 benchmarks that represent 34 applications of the three fields 'visual computing', 'gaming' and 'office productivity'. AMD was trying to be as fair as possible, with the effect that the current model numbering of AthlonXP processors is a bit overly humble, as you can see from our benchmarks. Once Intel releases Pentium 4 processors based on Northwood however, the model numbers may become more realistic.


There will be a lot of criticism of AMD now. Yes, it is true that the model numbering might confuse customers right now, since it is indeed difficult to know if Athlon 1400 is now slower or faster than AthlonXP 1500+. However, these are transitional times. AMD's new model number system deserves better than being compared with the old and confusing P-Rating. AMD hasn't got an alternative right now and so I respect the new system and accept it, even though I might not like it too much. I suggest that we all give it a chance.


<font color=red> In reply to:</font color=red>


Yup they picked the benchies but why not intel sure did not want to play that game.


Quote:
What benchmarks is AMD using?


For the xprating the exact benchies are in the amd link above a64 rating see below.

Lets keep going shall we.


<font color=red> In reply to:</font color=red>

MHz is a myth!!!!! so pop another prozac and keep on laughing.




Quote:
I never said otherwise, though you implied I did. MHz actually is real, performance based purely on MHz is a myth, but you claim I'm saying the opposite because you like to creat falsehoods by distorting what others say. A "white lie" perhaps? Not comming from your black heart!


No not a lie white black or anything else. Maybe a misunderstanding after all you said "You keep talking of the MHz myth, your logic fails." That’s how I interpreted it. If you want to cliaify fine but calling me a liar is retarded you religious freak. And why do you think I have a black heart. Because I expose you as an uneducated intel fanboy? amd hater.


<font color=red> In reply to:</font color=red>


You could not win your bash amd arguments then why re bring it up now? looks like you have a serious problem with amd fudging numbers calling them liars there is no end to it. It's twisted and personal with you.



Quote:
No, your dishonesty is personal with me, AMD's claim that the XP rating system is based on the performance per clock speed of the Thunderbird doesn't bother me, even if it is a lie.


Wrong I am not dishonest. amd never lied so wrong again and I know I have fully explained this to you with all the facts not stupid links to newegg. Do you remember how you originally said AMD lied because the xp formula was was based off a tbird but an xp1600+ was not twice as fast as say a tbird 800 or p3 800? (Which it is not) Then later I explained the truth to you and you said you were tricked or forced into saying AMD lied (or something like that) Now you say they lied again!! Cause you know it will take 20 post to get you to admit they did not lie. Who's the liar now crash?


<font color=red> In reply to:</font color=red>


Maybe you should work for intel?



Quote:
Only if they offer me a job before AMD does.


I think that's as likely as THG hiring you as an editor. Big ego's and I am never wrong don't look to good on a resume.



Just how do you come up with these one liners?



Quote:
When you say something truely stupid I use your own words against you. I thought you were smart enough to figure that out.


I think it's pretty clear you are biased and wrong about amd. How does this make me look stupid maybe for arguing with an idiot. But your shameless bias brings out the worst in me.


<font color=red> In reply to:</font color=red>

no one has ever said amd needed intels permission to come up with a model number.





Quote:
Gee, my mistake? I thought you said AMD couldn't come up with a performance rating scheme not based on MHz, simply because Intel wouldn't agree to it. I'll have to REREAD what you said!

Mistake or misunderstanding? Are you not going to call yourself a liar? AMD did come up with a rating scheme look at xp and a64 then the industry wide initiative to use a universal scheme based on true relative performance. So with intel refusing to use something like that and more or less going with number picking from a hat. The game is over numbers MHz letters how can one compare amd to intel without reading a review site like this. Intel was given the chance to go with a universal rating system and the refused. so amd picks meaningless numbers MHz is meaningless and since intel will not play why not what does it matter. Intel refuse the industry wide initiative so uniformed people will remain confused.


<font color=red> In reply to:</font color=red>

and you are WRONG amd went to a naming scheme cause Intel refused to adopt a proper benchmarking scheme


Quote:
Hey, you did say that!


Yes and it's true another misunderstanding by you. Or are you calling yourself a liar again? See above intel refused the industry wide initiative.


<font color=red> In reply to:</font color=red>


how does that compare to (((((Intel has the advanced new generation p4 and amd’s k8 was was 1990’s k7 technology)))))??



Quote:
Not my exact words, the P4 isn't that advanced and the PIII has always performed better, clock for clock. But yes, the P4 was completely new, the P-M is based on the PIII, and the A64 is based on the original Athlon. And for that matter, the P3 was based on the Pentium Pro.

I'd have to look it up to be exact but its close enough to what you said. I doubt you will be saying that too much in the future now that intels pushing the p3 design.


Quote:
Why would any of that hurt your feelings?

You could never hurt my feeling irritate yes. I'm merely used it to show your bias.


<font color=red> In reply to: </font color=red>


so I'm dishonest? Based on what you spinless coward?



Quote:
If I was afraid of you, I wouldn't be here, LOL. If you want a bases for what I've said, read the rest of the post!


Well that post never explained me as dishonest. So I guess we will have to keep on reading shall we continue?



<font color=red> In reply to:</font color=red>

So you are calling me dishonest and intel only thinking of the consumer with the high MHz low IPC rip off cpu's like the celeron.



Quote:
I never said Intel was honest, you're putting words in my mouth...hey, isn't that a form of lying? Hehehehe, I know you love me now!

Intel does not lye AFAIK. Mislead yes. (Misleading is a form of dishonesty if done intentionally) i'm not saying amd is a saint and You call me dishonest cause you misunderstand something. Keep it coming crash cause I will though it all back in your face.


<font color=red> In reply to:</font color=red>


Sad that you are so weak as to bring that up again. Pathetic really!



Quote:
Wait, I said they both know they can produce faster performing processors at slower clock rates, and you said "Wrong again only Intel can do that". I proved you wrong, both companies can do that.


That statement I said (((((Sad that you are so weak as to bring that up again. Pathetic really!))) was in response to this that you said!! <font color=red> ((((AMD XP3200+:2.2GHz, A64 3200+:2.0GHz. Looks like I'm almost always right, and that misleading designs have nothing to do with my statment. In fact, the A64 3200+ is not only clocked slower than the XP3200+, but it also performs better in 32-bit mode than the XP3200+!))) </font color=red>

I will prove once again you don't know what you are talking about. It was explained in perevious posts and I will supply the link to back it up. See below.


<font color=red> In reply to:</font color=red>


I'll show a link where the answer you can't grasp has been fully explained to YOU!



Quote:
Here's your link Sure enough, the XP3200+ is clocked higher than the better performing A64 3200+, just like I said it was! But wait, YOU'RE the one that said "Only Intel can do that"!

Yeah great information there a link to newegg oooohhhwweeee yes we all know the a64 performs slightly better that xp on a clock per clock entrey level stuff here. What you don't grasp is why this is not misleading <font color=red> ((((AMD XP3200+:2.2GHz, A64 3200+:2.0GHz. Looks like I'm almost always right, and that misleading designs have nothing to do with my statement. In fact, the A64 3200+ is not only clocked slower than the XP3200+, but it also performs better in 32-bit mode than the XP3200+!))) </font color=red> You see crash with the introduction of a new generation cpu amd created a new formula for a64 to be better inline with the improved p4 design. Which fully explains why an a64 3200+ beats a xp3200+ remember crash MHz don't mean to much unless comparing identical cpu's.

<A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/..." target="_new"> AMD's new Model Policy for the a64 </A> based on Office productivity 4 Digital media 5 Gaming 15 including thing like 3dmark 03 and aquamark3 these benchies did not even exist when xp formula was made.


Anything else?


Edited for Quote tags :tongue:
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by darko21 on 05/11/04 04:59 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 11, 2004 8:15:13 PM

Quote:
Funny - I thought I pointed out earlier that Intel (and a lot of other industry leaders) had adopted "an industry wide initative (sic) benchmarking cpu's". Are those benchmarks relevant to the SOHO user? Maybe not. No game benchies there. But they are industry wide benchmarks. Your argument (in the general sense) has been irrefutably proven false, sorry. But it will be amusing watching you repeat yourself another 100 times trying to show otherwise.

Regarding "why do you think that is" - I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, that benchmarking initiative you keep harping about was bound to be slanted toward the strength of one architecture over the other? And which architecture do you think that would be, hmmm? I wonder... Reality check for you - how many multimedia benchies do you see in the XP rating scheme P4MAN so graciously provided a link to above?

Tell you what dark, instead of repeating yourself ad nauseum, why not propose some way of doing this "industry wide benchmarking"? The fact is no one will ever come up with a benchmark standard that everyone (or even most) will agree represents the be all and end all of processor performance. And nothing you or I say here is going to change that.


I don't think you are even on the same page. No one has denied your web link does not exist or that it supplies usful information on industry wide relative performance. but the idea is to market cpu's with some kind of usefull information not have it on some obscure web site. I think amd's latest formula includes 5 multimedia benchies (see link above) Yes amd picked those benchies and for the most part favor amd but that is because intel will have no part of it. I'm sure an industry wide initiative for marketing cpu's on relative performance could have been setup by an independant meadiator to pick fair benchies for an over all performance rating. No one would expect intel to adopt amd's rating formula.

Unfortunatly intel would have no part of it. So we are stuck were we are. meaningless numbers, shame really.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
May 11, 2004 8:20:27 PM

hey share some of that popcorn with the rest of us lol

i really cant ready any of it lol, but seeing so much space taken up on this, when the simple answer is number systems will never help users compare products, not as long as the numberings are form two differnt companies that use differnt hardware and differnt soruces to number things.

And I relaly do think its worse for average consumers, becuase it was easy to say what they wanted, just by looking at mhz or amds mhz related number, now its a shot in the dark. now higher is better..well not really since they cant ask for the 700s since thats for mobile processor , thats just crazy, the 500s are for desktops. I hope intel straightens thier numbering out, even im confused by the logic behind them lol.

i dont think there cna ever be a fair benchmark becuase it will always be apples to oranges, never a level playing field, there are way too many variables.

how about amd and intel just name like intel p4 good, intel p4 better, p4 best...etc. Same wiht amd, amd ahtlon 64 good, better, best.. lol ok back to the show ^^
May 11, 2004 8:51:54 PM

Quote:
Someday, do you feel the need to write?

Within this flamey thread? Yes, Absolutely. Anyway, sorry about the very short post there, it's just that this thread has gotten so out of proportion that I can't even write anything serious in it! :lol: 

So we just let others be consumed in the flames of the moment. :evil: 

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 10:19:11 PM

Yep, you don't need more than a link to Newegg to see that AMD is producing better performing processors at slower clock speeds. You said only Intel was doing that. And you implied that I offered validity to the MHz myth, when I was actually stating the facts: You refer to the XP rating system as valid, yet you say that MHz doesn't mean anything. Therefor the XP rating system, based on MHz, doesn't mean anything by your own logic. And since you claim XP's are valid but MHz's aren't, your logic fails. I don't know how to explain this to you any any simpler terms, but to imply that I meant the MHz system is adequate would be dishonest on your part.

You see, I'm grasping all your BS. You can't have it both ways. For the XP rating system to be valid, the MHz myth has to be valid. Since you and I both agree that basing performance purely on MHz is invalid, the XP rating system isn't perfect, and your logic is flawed.

Quote:
I am implying you are a biased intel fanboy

Yes, you're biased, I'm not, so you spread your hate. Like a KKK member calling M.L. King a racist, it's worse than the pot calling the kettle black, it's like a cast iron pot calling a new stanless steal kettle black.

Now back to the original "your logic fails" statement, you have to actually read the entire paragraph to put the comment in context, but I knew you'd select whatever portions out of anything I said to suit your needs and imply a different meaning, because that's what dishonest people do. As hard as you try, you can't prevent your obvious bias from blinding your judgement.

Quote:
Big ego's and I am never wrong

You aren't? Ever? BTW, I'm just playing your game on this one, taking it out of context. Just thought I'd give you some of your own medicine, again.

Quote:
you said you were tricked or forced into saying AMD lied

Nope, I never said that about AMD, I've always stated that AMD's statement was untrue. Aparently it bothers you a lot more than it bothers me.

Quote:
I'm merely used it to show your bias.

No, you're mearly showing your own.

Quote:
Mistake or misunderstanding? Are you not going to call yourself a liar?

No, I'm going to have to call you a liar because once again you took what I said out of context. I followed that statement with this one from you
Quote:
and you are WRONG amd went to a naming scheme cause Intel refused to adopt a proper benchmarking scheme

Conclusion was that I was not mistaken, you really did say it.

Quote:
You call me dishonest cause you misunderstand something. Keep it coming crash cause I will though it all back in your face.

No, you keep saying that I've said things I didn't, and purposely putting what I've said out of context, in order to suit your weak argument. And what is your argument? Do you even remember? Your argument is that Intel isn't doing the same thing as AMD, or for the same reasons, on their model names. Everything else you said is a vain attempt to distract everyone from your claims.

Quote:
yes we all know the a64 performs slightly better that xp on a clock per clock entrey level stuff here. What you don't grasp is why this is not misleading

I never said it was misleading. In fact I said the A64 3200+ actually performs better than the XP3200+. Bonus. You would imply that I was saying otherwise because it's in your nature to be deceptive. In fact, you knew I had a firm grasp of it. I never claimed it was misleading for AMD to offer a better performing processor with the same performance "rating" at a slower clock speed. The buyer benifits from the added performance, so that the lower clock rate isn't important. I've been saying this all along, but it's your intent to imply otherwise because you can't "win" an honest argument based on your weak idea that Intel isn't doing now the sort of thing that AMD has already done.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 10:23:39 PM

AMD could continue with XP ratings all the way up to the sky, if they just stick with the system they're using on the A64. As long as the A64 is around, they could continue using that system to rate new speeds at higher and higher XP's. And when they eventually replace the A64, they could come up with a new system for the next processor, based on the A64's performance. And they could continue to do this for infinity, eventually having an XP8000+ if they liked. After all, it is their rating system. I would be really funny if 5 years from now AMD had an XP8000+, Intel had an X78 or whatever, and people were buying the 8000+ because they new it was faster than the 6000+, faster than the 4000+, faster than the 3200+ we have now, but they couldn't understand Intel's naming system!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2004 10:38:19 PM

Not a problem for me, I'm wearing my Nomex suit!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
!