Ok, got to lay out all the evidence for you I see, no big deal, amds website faq is a little weird.
SOURCE:http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_756_3734^3876,00.html#10228
Ok
Quote 1.
Q: What do the 1900+, 1800+, 1700+, 1600+, and 1500+ numbers mean?
A: These are model numbers. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz, such as 1900+, 1800+, 1700+, 1600+ and 1500+ versions. Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors, as well as communicate the architectural superiority over existing AMD Athlon processors. The AMD Athlon XP processor 1900+ will outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 1.9GHz on a broad array of end-user applications.
This is the main reason everyone is confused, and the pr rating p4 myth is continued. This statement says 2 things, one it says that the pr ratings are to show comparitive performance between axp cpus "AND THEIR SUPERIORITY TO EXISTING AMD CHIPS"(read tbird).
The second part is marketing, that the axp 1900+ would be faster than a p4 1.9ghz in a variety of real world apps(which is true). This second part could be confused as saying that a 1900+ was based on the p4 1.9ghz however they are mearly comparing the 1900+ to the p4 which looks the same.(AMD Is not stupid, they know that pr ratings look like comparisions to the p4, and their motive I am not debating, what I am debating is their OFFICIAL stance, which as I have said above, is all that matters.) and in the next quote you see why this last sentence in fact, does not mean the pr ratings are compared to p4 speeds.
QUOTE2.
Q: How much faster is an AMD Athlon XP processor 1900+ vs. a 1.9GHz Pentium 4 processor?
A: Based on the suite of benchmarks that AMD is using to show relative performance, the AMD Athlon XP processor 1900+ delivers up to a 25-percent performance advantage versus the Intel Pentium 4 processor operating at 1.9 GHz on a broad array of real-world applications.
Now, you see a direct question to their comparision, and amd lays it out plainly, now I ask you, if the pr ratings were based on p4 specs then wouldnt the axp 1900+ be labeled as a pr2375 (1900+25%)? This quote ALONE proves that the pr ratings are NOT based on performance comparisions to the p4.
SOURCE 2
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22145.html
(I know its the register but hey, I like many sources.)
For all its claims that the new model numbers signify the Athlon XP's performance relative to the old Thunderbird Athlons - purely for legal reasons; it doesn't want the Federal Trade Commission and Intel on its back -
Now, the whole article basically is saying what everyone, and even I say, that AMD's pr ratings are OFFICIALLY in relation to the tbird, but its quite obvious why they created them.(to look better versus the p4) however, as I have said, it is a different thing, what the pr ratings ARE, versus what we think they ARE FOR.
To sum it up, the pr ratings ARE IN FACT, based on tbird speeds, this is shown by both amds claims and the fact they are VERY understated(by as much as 25% according to amd).
But furthermore, they are probably there for the sole purpose of catching ignorant mhz only pc buyers and selling more chips, which I dont mind, because its not like amd is stealing or their 1800+ is actually slower than a p4@1.8ghz.
Regardless, the supposed meaning of the pr ratings is one thing, but the REAL/OFFICIAL meaning is a wholy different thing, and to say that AMD's pr ratings are based on the p4 is not correct.
Did I miss anything?
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
All advice here is free.</font color=blue> 
)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram