Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel "insults INQUIRER readers' intelligence"

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 25, 2002 4:07:49 PM

No flame bait here. Just something extremely laughable. I can't believe the Inquirer and Intel are fighting over temperature vs. MHz vs Performance. Ohh, this is silly:

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/24010221.htm" target="_new">http://www.theinquirer.net/24010221.htm&lt;/A>

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
January 25, 2002 7:00:54 PM

Your right, it is laughable! I'll stop here while I'm ahead and pass the hot potato.
January 25, 2002 7:12:40 PM

The first guy flaming the inq. sounds a lot like AmdMeltdown--or at least like AmdMeltdown would if he were trying to sound smarter than he really is. :wink: Same flawed arguments, same lame catch phrases, and an overuse of the word "whom."

<i>If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?
Related resources
January 25, 2002 7:19:29 PM

Intel is really wrong about this one.
Preformance VS Heat is the ONLY way to compare which CPU is Cooler...

you dont care about Clock speed if its not able to give you the same preformnce you would get out of buying another type of CPU which Runs Cooler...

Moreover - ITS A real PATHETIC atempt by intel trying to avoid the PENALTIES of going the HIGH CLOCK SPEED (and high transistor count) INSTED OF HIGH IPC.

Intel PR department really seem to lack technical knowledge over this one...
January 25, 2002 8:52:50 PM

The guy who wrote this is a retard, how he slips into the win2K problem at the end.

It has nothing to do with Intel, AMD or heat issues. its more of a rant from a lemming without a intrest worthy topic.

Why do people still read that crap? its like prono for AMD users, they get off on it.
January 25, 2002 9:04:26 PM

"its like prono for AMD users,"

What's prono?

Sorry, I had to do it before Fatburger had the chance to.

<b>"The events of my life are quite inconsequential.." - Dr. Evil</b> :lol: 
January 25, 2002 9:05:31 PM

Quote:

The guy who wrote this is a retard, how he slips into the win2K problem at the end.

It has nothing to do with Intel, AMD or heat issues. its more of a rant from a lemming without a intrest worthy topic.

Why do people still read that crap? its like prono for AMD users, they get off on it

Exactly my point Fugger, the guys at Inquirer need to get a life!! However, it's always fun now and again to read some rumours off there. Not that I take any of it seriously, but they can't hurt, if you don't go bashing people with a rumour.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2002 9:05:54 PM

That's just an excuse to justify AMD's PR rating. Fact is that a P4 1.4GHz runs cooler than an XP 1600+ (1.4GHz). AMD would be more honest to simply state the MHz and use the performance difference in their advertizing.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
January 25, 2002 9:07:03 PM

Quote:


Sorry, I had to do it before Fatburger had the chance to.

Ohh, so that's how Fatburger gets 8000 posts in 7 months?

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
January 25, 2002 9:13:26 PM

No, I do it by helping people out. Actually, if you counted the PMs and emails as well, I'd probably have over 10k by now.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
January 25, 2002 9:14:39 PM

You know, I couldn't care less about what they are actually discussing but simply the fact that Intel and the Inquirer are bashing each other is laughable.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2002 9:59:08 PM

I'm just blowing off steam again about AMD's dishonest numbering policy.
It's like this...a 350 Chevy makes more power than a 351W Ford. But you don't see Chevrolet calling it a 400, they instead give you real horsepower numbers.
Or compair a Porche to a Chevy Lumina, same sized engine, the Porche makes about 3 times the power. But they don't lie about engine size either.
I go to buy a vacuum cleaner, it says 12HP. I'm thinking "what a crock of [-peep-], a 12HP electric motor cost about 10 times what this vacuum cost, and weighs about 20KG or more. So I look at the manual and it says "12 High Peformance, gives 12 times the performance of an ordinary vacuum) or something like that.

So then I see another one that says 5.5A, I'm thinking "Wow, I only have a 3.5A motor in my drill"! Read the manual and it says "give the cleaning performance of a 5.5A vacuum but using less power". Find out it's only a ~2 amp motor!
New slogen for AMD: "Bringing you the inflated numbers seen in the Vacuum Cleaner industry for YEARS".


What's the frequency, Kenneth?
January 25, 2002 11:03:04 PM

Well that analogy about engine size and cpu speed in mega/gigaherz is kind of flawed imho. Just as engine size gives an indication but doesn't tell the whole story about it's performance no longer does CPU clock cycles tell the whole story about how "fast" it is on particular applications.

I would think that CPU speed in megahertz or gigahertz would be comparable to the size of a car engine, while the performance of the cpu according to benchmarks would be comparable to the horsepower and torque that an engine produces.

So in your analogy, the Athlon XP would be the Chevy 350 and the P4 chip would be the ford 351. My reasons for that conclusion is that an Athlon XP running at a lower mhz speed can get scores on benchmarks that are competitive with the scores a P4 running a few hundred mhz faster produces.

Car makers have been giving numbers for engine displacement and horspower for quite a while. CPU makers have just given that megahertz of their products as a indicator of perfomance except for a couple of notable instances Cyrix's speed ratings for their chips a few years ago and AMD's PR ratings for their chips today. What I'm saying is that the PR rating could be seen as the horsepower rating for AMD's cpu.
I can see how you call AMD dishonest because there is no similar rating for an Intel chip. Intel just uses the higher ghz rating to make their products seem better to the average consumer. In my modification of your analogy Intel just give the Ghz(displacement) of their CPU's while AMD gives the the PR (horsepower) of their CPU's. AMD dosn't advertise the Ghz of their CPU's but they're easy enough to find out.

Now it's easier to compare horsepower and torque ratings for an indicator of an engine's performance that it is to compare several benchmarks for a CPU and say conclusively that it performs better than another CPU, unless it beats the other CPU in all the benchmarks.

And yes the fastest P4 is faster than the fastest Athlon XP right now, but using a car engine analogy it would be comparable to a 350 cubic inch engine making 375 horsepower and a 400 cubic inch engine making about 400 horsepower.

Before anyone call me an AMD zealot (I do like AMD admittedly) I'm probably going to buy an Intel based machine. I'm in the market for a destop replacement laptop and, well, the best mobile graphics chip isn't offered with an AMD chip. I'll just get one with a CPU from Intel.
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2002 11:21:48 PM

Quote:
Well that analogy about engine size and cpu speed in mega/gigaherz is kind of flawed imho. Just as engine size gives an indication but doesn't tell the whole story about it's performance no longer does CPU clock cycles tell the whole story about how "fast" it is on particular applications.

Which is exactly why it is NOT a flawed comparison! Two engines, same size, one makes more power than the other. Two processors, same speed, one performs more operations per cycle than the other. In both cases your measuring two variables, a certain quantity and work. Just because an engine produces more work doesn't give a company the right to lie about its size.
I like AMD's products, but think their marketing shenanagens will come back to bite them BIG time. Especially when you consider this: under there PR scheme, a processor gets 100 PR's for every 66MHz. At that scale, an XP1000+ would have REALLY been 1000MHz, but an XP2000+ is only 1666MHz. That means when the PR goes up 100%, the performance only goes up 66%! A 4000+ would only be 3000MHz!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
January 25, 2002 11:55:38 PM

Quote:

Especially when you consider this: under there PR scheme, a processor gets 100 PR's for every 66MHz. At that scale, an XP1000+ would have REALLY been 1000MHz, but an XP2000+ is only 1666MHz. That means when the PR goes up 100%, the performance only goes up 66%! A 4000+ would only be 3000MHz!

You're extrapolating. We haven't seen any future products from AMD. We don't know their clock speeds, or processor efficiencies.

<A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_pape..." target="_new">AMD Athlon™ MP Processor
Benchmarking and Model
Numbering Methodology</A>
January 26, 2002 12:19:38 AM

Actually, Hammer will likely have a higher IPC rating than Athlon does by 20-30%.

That's why it will have a PR of around 3400 when it debuts late this year (if AMD can keep to their currently advertised roadmap/schedule, and it will only be around a 2ghz processor.



When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
January 26, 2002 12:27:19 AM

It is a flawed comparison simply by the nature in which cars are sold. Show me one car where the manufacturer doesn't flaunt horsepower figures around, especially on big blocks like your refering to. Now show one computer manufacturer who can tell you how many average IPCs the processor in teh case performs? People buy computers in a <b>completely</b> different way. Intel was the orininator of the dirty speed game when they maliciously designed their "Netburst" architecture. They knew the Athlon was a runaway train picking up speed that the P3 couldnt keep up with. So they figured out a way to make it look their trains were going faster without actually doing more work. People see 2 ghz P4(which probably has sdram) and think "Wow, I could brag to all my co-workers about this bad boy". Then they see the 1.6 ghz Athlon next to it and scoff at its lesser power. The PR ratings weren't intended for people like us. AMD is just trying to stay afloat in the dirty game Intel itself instantiated.

Hard work often pays off in time, but laziness always pays off now.
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2002 1:26:49 AM

I'm trying to compare what they are doing NOW to speeds of past and future for better frame of reference. Obviously they will be changing their numbering system before they hit 3GHz.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2002 1:29:31 AM

These engines are "small blocks" by V8 standards. While most cars DO advertise the engine size on the window sticker, they DO NOT usually list the horsepower on the window sticker itself.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
January 26, 2002 3:15:02 AM

Quote:
That's just an excuse to justify AMD's PR rating. Fact is that a P4 1.4GHz runs cooler than an XP 1600+ (1.4GHz). AMD would be more honest to simply state the MHz and use the performance difference in their advertizing.

But a 1.4ghz athlon performs as fast as a 1.9ghz p4, you should compare performance/heat because as ray has said before, clock speed is only half of the processor equasion.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
January 26, 2002 3:18:37 AM

Quote:
In both cases your measuring two variables, a certain quantity and work. Just because an engine produces more work doesn't give a company the right to lie about its size.


Pr ratings are not intended to be mhz ratings.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
January 26, 2002 3:32:19 AM

Processor Performance = (Work Per Clock Cycle) x (Clock Speed)

I believe the PR rating is an attempt to level the playing field <b>when comparing Athlon processor performance with Intel P4 processors</b>. Doesn't take as many Athlon MHz to gain the same P4 performance increment. Model numbers for Athlon products can't be used to predict relative performance increments/decrements against itself.
January 26, 2002 3:41:38 AM

Quote:
Model numbers for Athlon products can't be extrapolated to predict relative performance increments/decrements against itself.


Actually amd says themselves thats exactly what they are for, and they are a comparision to the tbird.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
January 26, 2002 3:52:06 AM

But a 351-c eats chevy 350's for lunch :) .

AMD is no more ( or less for that matter) guilty of playing the marketing game with us then Intel. Kinda like them 600 watt PMPO speakers you can buy for 10 bucks ( come on gimmee a break). A one gig p4 ( williamete) would perform significantly less then a one gig p3. Does this make Intel guilty as well?

Fact of the matter is, we need a standard to which we can apply a rating and then force to have all CPU manufactorers use for marketing purposes. The government has done this in the past here in the states on other products, its time may be near for the CPU market if the major players cannot agree on a standard to apply.

Do I like AMD's pr rating scheme? No I don't. But I equally dislike Intel's hollow hertz rating as well. Kinda reminds me of a car engine capable of extremly high RPM's but stuck in second gear.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2002 4:06:15 AM

Hey, the Cadilac 500 only made something like 300HP, yet it was still a 500 (then again, it made over 500ft/lbs of torque). Intel is only guilty of making a processor that underperforms. VIA even does that with the CyrixIII.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2002 4:10:15 AM

Quote:
Model numbers for Athlon products can't be used to predict relative performance increments/decrements against itself.

Well, I would certainly hope the PIII 1000EB could perform twice as many operations per second as the PIII 500E. So let's change the rules for AMD so that they can sell a processor at a MHz it isn't instead of selling it as a more efficient processor.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2002 4:11:56 AM

Yes it is. AMD does this so that the uneducated consumer will see XP2000+ and think they are buying a 2000MHz system.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2002 4:14:21 AM

It is very dishonest to rate a 1.4GHz processor against a 1.9GHz processor, or even a 1.6GHz processor, and call it a match. I can't put a V6 radiator before a V8 even if the V6 makes the same power.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
January 26, 2002 4:44:30 AM

Crash, megahertz DOES NOT MATTER!

It is one facet of a processors performance, IPC is the other, rating processors equally by PERFORMANCE, is the only way one can get a good comparison. If the p4@1.4ghz uses less power than an axp at 1.4ghz thats all well and good, EXCEPT, the axp is SIGNIFIGANTLY more powerful than the p4 at those speeds, and that makes the comparision in the matter of powerusage pointless at the same mhz rating. Performance of a processor is the only validly comparable feature, anything else neglects to take account of the processors design etc.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
January 26, 2002 4:45:23 AM

It is not dishonest, they designed a rating system, and they stick to it, and even if they meant it to be used versus the p4, they are very conservative in their assesment, I find no faults with the pr system.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
January 26, 2002 4:46:25 AM

Quote:
Yes it is. AMD does this so that the uneducated consumer will see XP2000+ and think they are buying a 2000MHz system.


And if the system they buy out performs the ONLY real 2000mhz system there is, who gives a rats ass about it?



"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
January 26, 2002 4:49:40 AM

Quote:
It is very dishonest to rate a 1.4GHz processor against a 1.9GHz processor, or even a 1.6GHz processor, and call it a match.

Why is it dishonest? If they perform the same, then what difference does it make how many MHz they have? Why don't we throw the IPC into the rating to make it more fair? It's just as unfair to compare only MHz without taking the IPC into consideration.

<i>There are two theories on arguing with women. Neither one works.</i>
January 26, 2002 4:53:29 AM

Ok, PR rating is relative to the TBird.

Wouldn't doubling the processor frequency of the Athlon XP double its performance? I would think so!

I believe there is a fallacy in the following statement:

Quote:

Especially when you consider this: under there PR scheme, a processor gets 100 PR's for every 66MHz. At that scale, an XP1000+ would have REALLY been 1000MHz, but an XP2000+ is only 1666MHz. That means when the PR goes up 100%, the performance only goes up 66%! A 4000+ would only be 3000MHz!

The PR rating for the Athlon XP has no meaning unless you are comparing the Athlon XP with the TBird.
January 26, 2002 4:57:47 AM

Quote:
The PR rating for the Athlon XP has no meaning unless you are comparing the Athlon XP with the TBird.


Yes, thats exactly right, 1 palomino mhz is worth more than 1 tbird mhz, and the 66 palominomhz may be worth 100 tbird mhz's. I am sure that there is a slight off ness of the pr rating, and I am equallysure that amd will recorrect every few chip releases or so.(ie giving 100mhz for a pr 100 rating to reset the balance).

Remember performance is not just a chip alone, and a chips performance must be in a system to be measured, systems vary which can alter performance even amongst the same chips, having said that, I feel AMD did the best job possible to ensure the pr rating is fair and accurate, and any issues which may creep into them I believe they will repair and iron out.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
January 26, 2002 4:59:48 AM

Quote:
The PR rating for the Athlon XP has no meaning unless you are comparing the Athlon XP with the TBird.

The PR rating is useless for the technically oriented. It is obviously a method to trick unknowledgeable consumers into thinking the XP chips have a higher mhz .

<i>Hi I am from Canada, I don't use amd cause they melt my igloo eh.</i>
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2002 5:04:04 AM

Heat for a processor is a matter of speed and distance. The faster a processor clocks at, the hotter it gets. This has no bearing on the poor performance of the P4, performance is a separate issue.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2002 5:07:20 AM

There is a certain issue you should look into concerning integrity. People who buy Cadilacs aren't looking for porche speed. That's like taking 200lbs off the weight of that Porche and then advertizing it as having more horsepower, then explaining "but with the weight reduction if PERFORMS like it has more horsepower".

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2002 5:12:44 AM

You seem to think it's OK to deceive people simply because they don't know any better. That's OK, what goes around comes around, eventually you'll get screwed buying something you don't know to much about.

"You said it was a Pecan pie".
It is a pecan pie sir.
"But it says on the wrapper that the nuts are half pecans and half peanuts".
That's true sir, but these new biopeanuts taste like Pecans, only with more flavor.
"But I'm alergic to peanuts"!
I'm sorry sir, please talk to your distributor.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
January 26, 2002 5:13:15 AM

Integrity? The pr ratings are accurate, fair and unbiased. AMD does not hide its true mhz and makes a damn fair case as to why pr ratings are neccicary. I see no loss of integrity in their offerings or pr system.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2002 5:14:55 AM

MHz DOES matter if that's what you're using as a frame of reference. If they want to do it differently they could use GigaFlops or something instead of perpetrating a deception against their customers.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
January 26, 2002 5:15:18 AM

"... The PR rating is useless for the technically oriented. It is obviously a method to trick unknowledgeable consumers into thinking the XP chips have a higher mhz ...."

I was merely explaining a fallacy of using the PR number when not comparing the performance of the Athlon XP with the performance baseline of the Thunderbird. All you did was interject a political statement to slam AMD. Didn't really add anything new to the discussion.
January 26, 2002 5:18:18 AM

They are NOT decieving anyone, the mhz speed of the processors is NOT hidden. The performance rating is NOT tauted as mhz. I fail to see ANY deception in amds marketing.


As for your example, cpus cant kill you, and there is nothing performance wise different between an amd cpu at 1700+ and a p4@1.7ghz (except for the fact the amd system is STILL faster.)


I would see amds actions as wrong if either they
A: Overblew the numbers.
OR B:Hid the mhz rating of their processors from the public.


They do NEITHER.

The ignorant consumer has been brainwashed to treat mhz as a performance rating, when intel released a cpu which sacrifised IPC for higher mhz, AMD was forced to attamept to educate the consumer on the value of BOTH mhz AND IPC, their performance project website shows their goals. THe pr rating was devised for many reasons, one of which was to show the relative performance of the axp OVER A TBIRD!


There is nothing wrong with how they implemented the pr rating, or in the way it works that I can see.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
January 26, 2002 5:21:00 AM

HOW are they using mhz as a frame of reference for their pr ratings. They are comparing an axp to a tbird in mhz, NOT to a p4 in mhz. What you THINK they are doing is not an issue, what they STATE they are doing is the only thing you can attack realistically. Now if you want to argue against the pr system claiming that the pr rating is in comparison to the p4's mhz, you would be wrong, amd has said itself its not...whether they are lying or not is an OPPINION, and to debate an oppinion is pointless.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
January 26, 2002 5:22:41 AM

Quote:
That's like taking 200lbs off the weight of that Porche and then advertizing it as having more horsepower, then explaining "but with the weight reduction if PERFORMS like it has more horsepower".


And herein lies the cruxt of the debate, the pr system is NOT horespower, it is NOT mhz, and amd does NOT claim it is, and NEVER WILL.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
January 26, 2002 5:24:38 AM

Yes, but thats far from the point.
the comparison they did is Preformance VS Heat and thats the only resonable way to do it.

since if you want to by cooler CPU and your thinking a 1.7GHZ Pentium 4 and look for other CPUs to compare it to you wouldnt go with a 1.67GHZ Athlon Xp. you would compare it to a 1.4Ghz Athlon XP 1600 becouse an XP 1600 and a Pentium 4 1.7GHZ preforme alike - and preforemnce is the GUIDE LINE for any System since MHZ ALONE IS USLEES.

if Intel went the clock speed way and gave up high IPC
it should take the Penalties of higher clock speed and higher transistor counts and MORE HEAT in ORDER TO PREFORM ON PAR WITH OTHER PROCESSORS.

and it shoud stop bitch about it.
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2002 5:30:00 AM

Quote:
MHZ ALONE IS USLEES


Actually MHz is the biggest contributor to heat!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2002 5:32:32 AM

Your right, the PR system doesn't claim to be MHz, it simply dupes the uninformed public into thinking it is. It's a nonsense number based on whatever criteria AMD wants to apply at the time, just like those artificial "12HP" and "5.5A" ratings on vacuum cleaners.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
January 26, 2002 5:32:54 AM

Crash, what we are saying, is that there is no point to compare processors mhz to mhz on ANYTHING, because it is pointless. So what if a 1.4ghz p4 is cooler than a 1.4ghz axp, a 100mhz p1 is cooler as well, its a pointless argument.

If you wish to compart heat or powerconsumption, the only meaningful measure would be on a per performance basis, because mhz and ipc are only 2 halves of the cpus power.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
January 26, 2002 5:34:55 AM

It isnt a nonsense number, it is the relative performace of an axp processor to a tbird, so an axp1600+ performs about the same as a tbird@1.6ghz would, this has been independantly verified.

Again, there is no dishonest thing about the pr ratings, sure some people think they are to confuse uneducated buyers so they dont get a p4 which LOOKS faster, but is not. And I ask, what is wrong with that, even if it were true, the CONSUMER wins, they get a better processor for cheaper. It is far from dishonest.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2002 5:40:37 AM

Quote:
HOW are they using mhz as a frame of reference for their pr ratings.

You're flat out lying on this one to save your own arse and defend the industries lies. Damn hatred can make a person loose their logic. Look, imagine you're Joe Blow, an automotive mechinic. You and your brother the plumber go to Best Buy and see XP2000+ on a system. You automatically think "I'm getting a 2GHz system".
If you DON'T think this was the INTENT of AMD in the first place, you're either dilusional, lying to yourself, or extremely niave.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
!