An artical at the inquirer has a PDF created by Intel showing what Intel think of AMD's PR rating system.
<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/modelperf.pdf" target="_new">READ THIS PDF FIRST BEFORE FLAMING ABOUT THIS TOPIC!</A>
Intel basically are saying that the PR rating is wrong and that thier 2Ghz Northwood outperforms the Athlon 2000+.
It seems to me that Intel have misunderstood AMD's PR rating....
AMD have clearly stated that the PR rating is based on the old Athlon 'Thunderbird' core.
Intel however think that the PR rating is equivalent to the clock speed of thier P4....intel have obviously totally misunderstood of how the PR rating works or have they ?...
Intel go on further and say that the Athlon XP is exaggerating its performance and have produced a pretty little graph to prove thier point. They claim that the P4 performs better in some benchmarks than an equivalent PR Athlon XP.
All this is very interesting....no doubt this is sensitive topic for AMD lovers and Intel trolls....<b>please keep flaming and FUD to a minimum or I shall be forced to delete this thread !
You have been warned !</b>
<font color=purple>~* K6-2 @ 333MHz *~
I don't need a 'Gigahertz' chip to surf the web just yet ;-)</font color=purple>
Yes, the XP ratings were based on comparision with a Williamette P4 available then, and obviously pretty conservative that even a XP2000+ is able to match or at times beat the Northwood. The Northwood has double the L2 cache which contributes significantly towards performance in certain benchmarks, where the Williamette with just 256k looses.
Intel really shouldnt question the XP ratings with the Northwood since they were not developed in view of it. Interesting is, they even prove good enough in comparision with the Northwood.
girish
<font color=red>Nothing is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
At least they used KT266A chipset. Although they picked a fair array of benchmarks, they did exclude a few that may have balanced out the actual figures. I saw no rendering or compiling tests, areas where the XP would shine. If you really wanted to debunk such a figure as the XP rating, you have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the figures given by any party are severely misrepresented. I truly believe this is not the case.
I would doubt we are that far off from a .13m XP that will most certainly sport an equally sized L2 cache. I wonder how such a processor would stack up to an equally configured Northwood.
Intel is so retarded! It's not comparing PERFORMANCE between the cpus, merely it's comparing MHz!! It's the one whose confusing and cheating it's customers.
<font color=red>DO NOT LIGHT YOURSELF ON FIRE</font color=red>
I thought it was compared to the P3? maybe the point is it is a bit confusing for most people! Still, shouldn't they just get on and make a faster processor?....
it was compared to the P4, Williamette core. read the official docs <A HREF="http://athlonxp.amd.com/technicalInformation/benchmarkingModelNumbering.jsp" target="_new">here</A>.
And they are endorsed by Arthur Anderson.
<font color=red>Nothing is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
However, Arthur Anderson does not condone the hiding of latencies to off chip subsidiaries. True account value should be held in relation to the stock of the company producing the chip and not the value of the supporting chipsets.
Ha Ha I like the Arthur Anderson endorsement!! Numbers games are always confusing especially when you can't count! You are right though maybe the thunderbirds were compared to P3? Seriously though there needs to be some sort of agreed standard, as far as consumers go it is just far too much to get your head around.
<<<Intel is so retarded! It's not comparing PERFORMANCE between the cpus, merely it's comparing MHz!! It's the one whose confusing and cheating it's customers.>>>
companies have been comparing mhz for years. its the only standard that has been given for measuring the speed of a cpu. intel stating they have a p4 at 2.2ghz is not lying to the customers.
Yeah it was kind of sad. I was trying to build a false analogy between the accounting practices of Enron and its subsidiaries to the performance of CPUs and their chipsets. I guess I missed the mark.
When AMD was going to switch 6 months ago, they mentioned that they were afraid of this. They had done it before, and the majority of their customers were confused and felt mislead. Mind you, the average consumer thinks that the speed of the CPU is the only guage for performance. They mistakenly assume that for every clock cycle (for any processor, regardless of manufacturer), an equivalent amount of data is transfered. It's all a marketing game, for each company.....I should think most readers here have a better understanding, and should avoid these marketing gimmicks. Either company will do whatever they must to sell chips.
We are not disputing Mhz...we are disputing real world performance of applications.
Intel should have released a table of benchmark results listing the applictions that AMD use for thier PR rating system and shown this incomparison to the Athlon XP +2000 figures only then can they say that P4 2Ghz Northwood out performs the Athlon XP +2000.
<font color=purple>~* K6-2 @ 333MHz *~
I don't need a 'Gigahertz' chip to surf the web just yet ;-)</font color=purple>
I think you hit the mark if only by illustrating the ridiculous nature of a chip selling game only understood by a small percentage of the worlds population.
lol, that reminds me when I saw a paper from nVidia putting down the Kyro II. It's what we call competition. Each company bashes the other for market share. I think Intel is worried now.
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
What strikes me in this PDF is that Intel doesn't give the specifics of the benchmarks; yes, they do list some of the hardware and driver details, but everything seems weighted to the P4's benefit. They use the "Intel Acceleration Driver" while the Athlon uses the "default driver." They use Intel's compilers, not a disinterested third party's. It seems they took every opportunity to skew the results in favor of their proc. None of the tests are certified by a third party.
All of AMD's tests were structured in a way to provide the maximum possible benefit to both processors and they were certified by a dis-interested third party. In addition, AMDs tests have be proven by many many individuals and publications.
It looks to me that this is standard, run of the mill, Intel <b>FUD</b>. Actually, it does exactly that: The title tries to instill <b>fear</b> that OEMs could be misleading their customers; <b>uncertainty</b> that the processors really perform to spec; and <b>doubt</b> that they should continue selling the Athlon proc.
Like I said, Intel marketing FUD. This and Rambus' illegal activities are the reason I'm an AMD supporter and fan.
I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
I doubt they expected to lose this much market share to AMD. If the Thoroughbred beats the Northwood with 133 FSB, then it's going to get worse. It will be a long time before either loser, whoever it might be, will be able to make a comeback. It all seems to be pivoting on those releases in the near future. Everyone basically bought a new computer 2+ years ago when the economy was amazing. Pretty soon, right around this release, people are going to be coming out of their caves again to buy new rigs.
Considering that no other CPU manufactures fabricate a PR system to repesent their CPU performance I see little need for it. Also remeber that AMD and Cyrix did the PR system way back when. It failed too and look where Cyrix is now. The system is unessasary if AMD's CPU's are soo good place a commercial on at prime time and explain to america why. Telling half truths gets you nowhere fast.
-Spuddy
<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue>
Ironically, it does seem like an accounting scandal. If you artificially withhold some documents to inflate the perceived value of an object, you’re committing a fraudulent accounting practice. Someday we’ll have congress arguing the validity of chips and their performance.
