Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD FIX'n TO MISLEAD THE MASSES?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 29, 2001 3:06:52 PM

according to THG, AMD is going to set out to mislead good 'ole John Q Public, interesting.

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"

More about : amd fix mislead masses

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2001 3:20:37 PM

Yes according to him! But they havnt done it yet not like some well known others struggling to keep a grip... Well a lot of pc builders do it all the time anyway like a system i bought some time back: salesman>"its a genuine P3", me>"yep give me one.$$$$", then find out it was a celeron when it died.

Hell who doesnt do it?

This is why I build my own, and tell my friends not to be sold on the BIG Ghz number alone.
But I like to flame too now and then for good reason...


Medication helps :smile:
August 29, 2001 3:20:52 PM

It's not really misleading the masses. They are already mislead by intel. But that has got to be one of the stupidest ideas they have ever had. I mean I like AMD but that would just be setting up the domino's. I hope they don't do it.

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 29, 2001 3:37:18 PM

I always thought those ratings were lame... I hope it doesn't happen.

But hey, AMD has to do something to re-mislead the masses when some other giant misleads them the first time around (cough, Intel, cough)

"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
August 29, 2001 4:38:25 PM

Interesting.

If Intel went to PR ratings, they would have to lower the values for the P4!

I have never liked the PR system, and hope AMD doesn't stoop to using it.

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
August 29, 2001 4:41:51 PM

Umm.. no they wouldn't isn't the pr the pentium rating?

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2001 4:45:11 PM

The problem is Joe Bloggs is as thick as [-peep-] and so AMD had to come up with a thick as [-peep-] solution to get round this. And lets face Intel engineering their processor for high numbers of mhz that are in fact worth jack is just as bad.

The old PR system wasn't too bad it was just stigmitized by the fact that the old PR rating made people think their cpu was as fast as a certain processor when it was in fact no where near. If it had of been at least as fast in ALL benchmarks, then it wouldn't have been so bad. It also meant that with processors with err shall we say less well rounded abilities (can anyone say Cyrix?) could hide the fact that whilst their cpu's could perform as well in SOME applications in others well....you might as well just keep using that old 486...

Anyway at the end of the day as long as a AMD 1600 model really does perform as fast as a 1.6 p4 then what difference does it make? Afterall the PR on the front is just as misleading as the mhz on the back.

Although maybe a less misleading way of naming the processors would be a good idea, but the best situation for the consumer would be to have an industry approved standard that all cpu's used and that reffered to it's actual benchmark results.

Your nice new PC might be faster then my 286, but my 286 makes a better door stop :smile:
August 29, 2001 4:55:06 PM

Instead of the stupid PR rating, why not a rating based on how many calculations it can do per second? How many gigaflops or something similiar?

What's with this msg board refreshing the sceen in the middle of typing anyway? I've resorted to typing my messege in notepad, then pasting it into msg window. Is there a setting I can change. This website has been loading really slow lately.

:tongue: The new signature still sucks! :tongue:
August 29, 2001 4:58:27 PM

They just need a nationwide infomercial telling them which is faster. John q public doesn't know sh!t. You have to put it in very simple terms.

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2001 5:38:08 PM

YOU WATCH INFORMERCIALS???

YOU SICK SADIST!!!

But AMd could do with advertising on tv more and explaining their case for themselves instead of relying on us to do it for them!

Your nice new PC might be faster then my 286, but my 286 makes a better door stop :smile:
August 29, 2001 5:41:14 PM

I don't but John Q dufus does so maybe that's the best way to go about it.

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
August 29, 2001 5:43:24 PM

On another note I think a PR1600 is pretty modest. It should be more like a PR1800

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2001 5:44:27 PM

Nah his stupid but his not suicidal...

Your nice new PC might be faster then my 286, but my 286 makes a better door stop :smile:
August 29, 2001 5:46:48 PM

I swear they are like those bug light things. You just get caught in the trance and the zap!!!

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
August 29, 2001 11:20:45 PM

I rather agree that a PR rating is bad, however if they do at least a 1400 pr1600 is realistic. The Cyrix chips should have been like 133mhz pr75. In any case there has to be something better, I just dont know it though....
August 29, 2001 11:39:10 PM

amazing how intel is doing that right now! 2ghz running like a 1.8athlon (according to AMD) but we all see the benchmarkings a 1.6 would be equal to intels 2ghz chip in most apps that the general public uses.

So whos misleading who first? AMD is trying to set a standard so the public is not misinformed like they are now from intel!

you must work for intel or you are the president for intel because why the [-peep-] to you love intel so much? i bet your masterbate to intel. "oh intel oh intel omg intel" ...

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2001 11:50:53 PM

Yes, you are finally correct again. Wasn't it just a couple months ago that you were last correct?
AMD will earn themselves an incredible amount of bad press doing this, and will once again sink themselves to the level of con artist (or Cyrix, same thing). This will cause them to go from having no reputation to having a bad reputation in a hurry!

I'm so tired of cookies I'd settle for spam!
August 30, 2001 12:27:14 AM

ya those pr ratings were dumb... but there has to be some kind of standard to measure actual performance and not by mhz anymore... .. i think thats what AMD is suggesting and i think it needs to be done. otherwise joe shmoe will release a processor at 30ghz but will run slower then a pentium 3 800 ya know? and people will run to the stores and buy that cos they think it's super fast. someone will do it eventually...

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
August 30, 2001 2:55:28 AM

Hey, any reputation is a good reputation. There is no such thing as a bad reputation. [-peep-], i mean publicity.
August 30, 2001 3:05:22 AM

megaflops, like mhz or MIPS, is only a slice of the cake.

dont forget to take into account the FSB, cache sizes & memory architecture involved too.

there is no ONE mystical number that tells people how good their processor is. (course uninformed people think its Mhz)

intels got it easy as their gian PR machine can pump out the "mhz is better"

P.S. isnt it lame how amdmeltybrain hasnt posted again. sad. one post troll

I'll respect your comments & opinions, even if i disagree with them, Provided you display maturity.
August 30, 2001 3:24:32 AM

Hrm, ya know.. maybe there SHOULD be a magical statistical number that should sum up performance in one easy to read rating. The industry needs to develop some accepted standards for testing processor performance and give every released processor a performance rating based on these tests. Or instead of just one magical rating number, perhaps several to cover graphics/business/server performance etc, so that buyers with specific needs could make comparisons. I bet AMD would love that, while Intel would fight it with every penny at its disposal.

"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2001 4:16:37 AM

A priest and a rabi walk into a computer store..wait, that's not how it goes, ok, let's try agian....
A typical consumer walks into a computer store, a fancy one with all high priced units, $50 for a software modem, you've seen those places.
Anyway, the guy says he wants to see what the guy has in a 1500MHz unit, they guy shows him some $2500 P4 system that should only cost about $1500. The guy says "well the place down the street wants only $1000 for a 1600MHz system. And the salesman say's "yeh, what a scam, their selling 1400MHz systems as 1600MHz, you can't trust a business like that". So the guy goes back to the other store and ask him if it's true. Either the AMD salesman lies, and the guy finds out later, or he tells the truth. Either way it looks bad for both the store and AMD. Rest assured the word spreads. No typical buyer will belive that the 1600 is a legit number for a 1400MHz system.

I'm so tired of cookies I'd settle for spam!
August 30, 2001 4:21:37 AM

PR Rating Sux... end of story.

Nice Nvidia and ATi users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
August 30, 2001 4:53:26 AM

I hate to see PRing brought back into the CPU picture because since there are no standards for PRing it simply invites every spin doctor in the PC industry to see how far they can push numbers to make their cpu APPEAR to be better than it really is and that just adds to the confusion of an already convoluted industry. It's already hard enough to find out what the REAL truth is about hardware thanks to dominators like MS and Intel who make their billions from milking their purposely uninformed public and squashing anyone who dares to try and make a dollar in "THEIR" domain.
I like making my own decisions but decisions based on the truth not on propoganda, no matter who it's from. I hope AMD is smart enough to find another way of dealing with the clock speed difference without re-opening that PRing can of worms.
The informed reader understands that the Athlon's performance is comparable to P4 at higher clock speeds but that is provable TRUTH not just enhanced lopsided benchmarks twisted by some marketing guru trying to keep me blind to reality and that's exactly what will flood the market if PR comes back. AMD surely can't think that Intel wouldn't devise new ways to deceive the public if they are given the PR weapon to exploit. AMD should leave that "pandoras box" closed.

Doing it right the first time!
August 30, 2001 6:21:32 AM

Well isnt the PR rating compared to a Intel Pentium 1 Processor. Well i would PR Sux but stupid Folk who still buy PC's dell, gateway, compaq instead of building them will never figure out.

Nice Nvidia and ATi users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
August 30, 2001 7:50:40 AM

What does PR stand for?
August 30, 2001 8:03:18 AM

you'r not wrong. amd will lose out if they do this. think of it like this. two cars, both have a 2L engine, one is a Ford escort(U.K), the other is a BMW. i know which one is likley to perform better. amd should continiue to build a good reputation. if you all think PR ratings are missleading check out some quoted PPM's for printers all using different coverages and res's.

Although it has a lot of good ideas, beer doesn't know anything about computers!!!
August 30, 2001 8:16:20 AM

congrats on the fixture bit...now on to the post:

the pr rating isn't the solution. the solution is to create an industry standard set of benchmarks and then combine them into some arbitrary unit. the problem with this is that while amd would proffit greatly from this, intel's clock speed advantage is so huge right now that it makes them appear as if amd isn't even worth consideration so they would never agree to any suggested standard. Even if they pretended to agree to the idea, it couldn't be implimented for a rather long time i'd imagine.

"no vesige of a begining, no prospect of an end, when we all disenigrate, it'll all happpen again."
August 30, 2001 9:10:54 AM

Quote:
What does PR stand for?

<b><font color=red>P</b></font color=red>ublic <b><font color=red>R</b></font color=red>elations.

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.
!