Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel disagrees with AMD's PR Rating

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 3, 2002 1:01:25 PM

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>
March 3, 2002 1:28:15 PM

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>
March 3, 2002 2:39:39 PM

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.
Related resources
March 3, 2002 3:08:02 PM

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>
March 3, 2002 3:25:26 PM

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?....
March 3, 2002 4:14:15 PM

Quote:
And they are endorsed by Arthur Anderson

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.
March 3, 2002 4:22:47 PM

I have no idea of what you said there.

<font color=purple>~* K6-2 @ 333MHz *~
I don't need a 'Gigahertz' chip to surf the web just yet ;-)</font color=purple>
March 3, 2002 4:28:43 PM

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.
March 3, 2002 4:31:41 PM

<<<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.
March 3, 2002 4:36:24 PM

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.
March 3, 2002 4:42:38 PM

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.

-Rick
March 3, 2002 4:46:31 PM

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>
March 3, 2002 4:48:04 PM

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.
March 3, 2002 4:59:38 PM

I know that. But saying that MHz represents performance IS lying to the customers.

<font color=red>DO NOT LIGHT YOURSELF ON FIRE</font color=red>
March 3, 2002 5:17:01 PM

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
March 3, 2002 5:31:02 PM

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.
March 3, 2002 5:36:21 PM

Intel has been worried since the day Athlon came out....

<font color=red>DO NOT LIGHT YOURSELF ON FIRE</font color=red>
March 3, 2002 5:50:15 PM

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.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
March 3, 2002 5:51:28 PM

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> :smile:
March 3, 2002 5:54:38 PM

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.
March 3, 2002 6:08:46 PM

If Intel hadn't completely gutted the P4 from the original spec, just to get high GHz speeds, this wouldn't even be an issue. Intel is the company that is trying to confuse the consumer - they're like a car manu selling a 3-cylinder engine that can do 22000 RPM and saying that it will out-perform a V6 that does 16000 RPM. Oh yeah, and they have a special "turbo" called SSE2 that requires a special fuel adative that you can buy for an additional $1000 down at the dealership - if you can get the dealership to even stock the stuff.

AMD is just trying to come up with a decent comparison; Intel is the one refusing to discuss true comparative metrics like MPH/KPH, Horsepower, Torque, etc.

Imagine if monitor manus measured their monitors from front to back instead of diagonally across the face - then my 21" CRT would be a 22" Monitor.... Then when companies tried to introduce 18" diagonal LCDs which measure 3" front to back they would be a laughing stock - they would have to come up with a comparative measurement. It is nearly the same thing with the P4 and AthlonXP procs.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ath0mps0 on 03/03/02 12:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 3, 2002 6:10:52 PM

"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?....
"

I agree! Intel should just get on with making a processor that actually performs! AMD's seriously outperforms Intel's clock for clock and Intel is between a rock and a hard place because more and more people are realizing that.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 3, 2002 6:14:25 PM

Besides what the others said here which I agree thoroughly...

Intel cannot do anything to influence the others, as long as AMD had approved the PR rating to be related to Thunderbird, so this insures AMD of any guilt.
Second of all, those benchs do not seem valid. Where in the world does a 2GHZA do so well against an XP 2000, especially in FPU??? I'd say FUD in first place, but lies in second.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 3, 2002 9:19:06 PM

Quote:
QuantiSpeed™ Architecture

Understanding Processor Performance

AMD Athlon™ XP Processor Benchmarking and Model Numbering Methodology


Desktop processors based on the "Palomino" core will be marketed as the AMD Athlon™ XP processor. As a way of communicating the performance improvements of the new AMD Athlon™ XP processor relative to the performance of the currently available AMD Athlon™ processor, AMD has developed a model numbering convention.



That line clears it up pretty well...based on tbird performance.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 3, 2002 9:22:09 PM

AMD did that with the introduction of the Athlon in Slot A format. It gained them more market share than they could handle--if you recall, they sold out of Athlons much more quickly than they expected at the time. That's why they're not doing commercials anymore.

The PR rating cost AMD some market share, but increased their average selling price. That probably suits them just fine, as they can keep about the same profit levels, and the decreased demand frees up more of their resources to work on future products.

As for the honesty of the PR rating, it's about as honest as Intel suggesting that MHz is all there is to performance. Plus, most of the benchmarks we've seen suggest that Intel's specific claim here is BS. The AthlonXP 2000+ generally meets or exceeds the performance of a Northwood 2GHz.

<i>If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?
March 3, 2002 9:45:41 PM

Notice how Intel choses to look at only the apps where it beats the AXP? lol. There is a huge number of apps where the opposite is true. Ahh....if you ask me, I'm getting tired of all these half-truths that are coming from both AMD, Intel, ATI and nVidia. These are currently the big four in the PC market and they're all standing on the thin line between lying and stretching the truth.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 3, 2002 10:01:26 PM

I don't think that either company is lying or fraudulent....IMHO, Intel was just putting forth (some of, but not all) the latest benchmarks in which their Northwood can best a rival CPU. If you were selling a Mercedes, you wouldn't start off by saying "It's great, even though the Corvette is faster and costs $40,000 less....". You market to your strengths and let the consumer find out your weaknesses. Intel's strength is it's name. People trust the name and really take comfort seeing "Intel Inside". Aside from many of your personal skepticisms (is that a word?), the majority of people, myself included still have a small degree of fear that AMD may have trouble running out of the ordinary apps (many still believe Office and Windows will run better and more stably on an Intel CPU). I have talked to lots of people and read lots of bulleting boards, and have not been told once that AMD has problems with any applications, but it's still one of those irrational fears that I can't overcome. Since it's my $1000 that I'm spending, stupid and irrational fears, unfortunately come into play (much to the dismay of AMD). If that's not true, it's AMD's responsibility, not Intel's, to make it known to the public. 3 or 4 years ago, it was my impression that there were many apps which couldn't run well on AMD and Cyrix chips....I don't remember them saying "buy our chips even though lots of stuff can't run on them" or "get our chips for gaming even though no software makers support 3D-NOW". I'm sure those problems have been fixed (Cyrix can now guarantee it :smile: ), but AMD needs to do some infomercials (or something). If they aren't advertising because they don't have the production capacity to meet that kind of demand, then whose idiotic idea was it to make a better chip than the leading company in the industry, and then not be able to make enough of them (and sell them tremendously cheaper than the competition)? Generally, in business, only the top dogs discount to put the squeeze on other businesses (Intel lowered their prices to compete), companies like DeBeers. I know the times are a little uncertain, but they missed the computer revolution of 2-3 years ago, and may never see it again.....if you want misleading companies to fess up, let's start with Dell's margins and claims about customer service. If you really look at either of Intel/AMD's claims ads objectively, it's not lying, they're just listing their strengths. BTW, I have an Intel, but was seriously considering an AMD this time....I just didn't yank the chain. I don't make a nickel from either company, so I don't consider myself pro- or con- for either.

-Rick
March 3, 2002 10:17:00 PM

If the main reason you chose intel over amd was that you fear amd wont work with an app, you wasted your money IMO.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 3, 2002 10:46:37 PM

That's your opinion, and I already stated that my fears are probably unfounded, The digging I did didn't turn over any negative dirt on AMD. The fact remains that me and 95% of the rest of the world still choose Intel over AMD. VHS beat beta, didn't it? Windows beats the daylight out of linux and unix in the consumer market (and linux is FREE). Which ever product is better may be quantifiable, but it doesn't mean that that company will sell more of them; right or wrong, it is what goes on in people's heads that sells stuff, and the strongest companies influence these notions the best....a la Coke vs. Pepsi. That stuff is just water, bubbles, sugar, and coloring, yet one dominates the market, and another up-and-comer (Mountain Dew), is now doing a tremendous job marketing their version of sugar water. I'm not defending either Matisaro, but I think people claiming that one of these companies is lying and fraudulent is ridiculous. Let's face it, every computer company (H/W or S/W) on the planet stole something from someone at sometime, and anyone that says they haven't is adding to their list of lies.

-Rick<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by rickd59 on 03/03/02 07:48 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 3, 2002 10:57:24 PM

Quote:

The fact remains that me and 95% of the rest of the world still choose Intel over AMD.

No, that's not true. The last I heard, AMD had a market share in the computer industry of over 20%.

Quote:

VHS beat beta, didn't it?

Correct me if I'm wrong but VHS and Beta were incompatible. AMD and Intel are both completely compatible with all available applications.

Quote:

I'm not defending either Matisaro, but I think people claiming that one of these companies is lying and fraudulent is ridiculous. Let's face it, every computer company (H/W or S/W) on the planet stole something from someone at sometime, and anyone that says they haven't is adding to their list of lies.

Your words are so true!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 3, 2002 11:20:11 PM

A 1.4ghz IBM Power4 can beat both the XP2000 and P4 2.0a !!!!

I wish i had $4,000 laying around till then im stuck with x86 processer :*) Well atleast they both but a cyrix ;*)

THGC, saving 1 pc user from buying a GeForce4 MX at a time.
March 3, 2002 11:51:44 PM

amdMELTDOWN really needs to stop writing PDF's and sending them to the Inquirer.

THGC, saving 1 pc user from buying a GeForce4 MX at a time.
March 3, 2002 11:52:35 PM

Yeah, I believe your number...I didn't mean for the 95% to be factual, since I have no idea what the breakdown really is....I simply meant to purport that it is heavily lopsided in Intel's favor.


-Rick
March 3, 2002 11:54:53 PM

Oh yeah, and the other thing...VHS and Beta were totally incompatible, but competing standards. Beta was regarded as the better system, but lost out heavily in favor of VHS....the right companies jumped on board and marketed the crap out of it before Beta could become popular.

-Rick
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2002 1:44:08 AM

AMD is indeed intentionally confusing the customers. A 2000+ is only 66% faster than a PIII 1000. Forget the P4. Instead of confusing customers, AMD should have launched another add campaign explaining how their processors actually perform better than the P4. At least that would have been honest. Anyone who defends the PR rating as being honest is simply making excuses for the company they prefer. See "Machiavellian ethics".

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
March 4, 2002 1:52:59 AM

Finally someone sees it as it is :) .

-Spuddy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
March 4, 2002 1:55:32 AM

AMD doesn't have the funds that Intel does to launch a large scale ad campaign to educate people about the performance gap between P4's and Athlons. Using the PR ratings costs probably no more than displaying the true mHz of the chip, but does help to show that the AMD processor performs more equally as a higher clocked P4. 1800 mHz Pentium for or 1800+ Athlon XP to the layman looks the same, which they pretty much are, so it does its job. Sure, it's a little dishonest, but you are getting what you paid for performance wise compared to a P4.

"Trying is the first step towards failure."
March 4, 2002 2:04:04 AM

Noticed something today and I'm not sure if it's something new...

There was an Intel commerical on the radio and their jingle and slogan went something like this: "performance where it counts".

There's a lot of ways to interpret the ad, but it really suprised me. Don't want to start a flame war, but it seemed weird for Intel to concede that their processor isn't the best anymore, but is merely tied if anything.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
March 4, 2002 2:27:31 AM

Was it Cyrix or another coimpany who in the mid 90's used a performance rating. It seems their processor clock speed was quite a bit higher than the pentium, but the actual performance wasn't as high. So they gave the processor a rating close to the actual Pentium's performance to be more equitable in performance relative to the industry standard processor.

Now, AMD is doing the opposite to indicate a more accurate performance. Nothing whatsoever dishonest about it at all. If anything, Intel is being dishonest by not being clear about the MUCH mower performance of their P4 compared to the P3.

They know that most of the less savvy people will look at the processor speed and buy based on that. So Intel is selling a lie. While consumers expect a performance improvement with the speed increase, they aren't really getting it.

But we've been through this circular argument time and again. Each side perceives the cup as half full or half empty and that's not going change so why belaborr it with circular discussion?


Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 4, 2002 2:32:22 AM

i'm going to kick my own asss if some one wont tell me WHAT THE FUCKK is going on.


a while back i remember i said that the PR rating is compared to the old P4 and i got flamed for it, but now you guys don't say a thing when it was mentioned!?!?!?!?!?


so what is it? P4 or Tbird? i remember i even mentioned that what i said was also what an AMD rep told me, but i still got flamed.

??????? HELP good people of THG. I'll see if i can find that post.

<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/scamtron2000/Lochel.html" target="_new"> <font color=red>go to my site</font color=red> </A>
March 4, 2002 2:40:27 AM

It is based on the tbird, the link provided above proves it, specifically the quote I highlighted.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 4, 2002 2:45:01 AM

hold on for just a sec. firs i'm going to shoot me with a fake gun for not reading and then punch me in the face since i'm still confused.

<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/scamtron2000/Lochel.html" target="_new"> <font color=red>go to my site</font color=red> </A>
March 4, 2002 2:49:23 AM

Quote:
Desktop processors based on the "Palomino" core will be marketed as the AMD Athlon™ XP processor. As a way of communicating the performance improvements of the new AMD Athlon™ XP processor relative to the performance of the currently available AMD Athlon™ processor, AMD has developed a model numbering convention.



That says it all.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 4, 2002 2:55:43 AM

The mistake AMD made was releasing processors at the speed of their already exhisting chips. They should have started with 1466 MHz and up and completely forgotten about a PR rating. Everyone knew that a 1400 Tbird spanked a 1400 Pentium 4. AMD seems to do very well with "word of mouth" advertising. Interesting information seems to spread pretty fast, so lots of people would start hearing "Oh my 1466 MHz Athlon XP delivers quite a nice spanking to 1400 MHz Thunderbird" and think twice before getting that Pentium 4.
To me the PR rating only seems to draw in the support from the big guns like Dell or Gateway. If AMD wants to get into these markets more they practically need the PR system, because most consumers unfortunately only look at the simplest numbers. Intel knew people looked almost completely at MHz so they developed a CPU with higher MHz. I'm sure they could have made a CPU with better instructions per clock and been right around the same MHz range as AMD. Its all in the marketing and all we can do is our own research and discover the better product. Unfortunately there are people that do almost no research and are more likely to make a mistake.

BTW I'm also pretty sure the PR rating is compared to the Thunderbird, I remember being suprised when it was NOT for comparing to Pentium 4. I also remember thinking that was a good idea because we all knew that the next "flavour" of pentium 4 was going to give a performance boost throwing the entire PR system out of whack.

"Why can't I be the man? I mean, I DO have harmony balls..." -epoth
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2002 3:07:01 AM

I would actually expect many corporations to use Machiavellian ethics, but get a little perturbed when people call such practices honest.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
March 4, 2002 3:11:01 AM

Yes, it's dishonest, and yes, it does show performance equivalency to the P4. Machiavelli stated that you should lie when you must, and to make sure you have a good story to cover the lie. He also stated that the majority of people will believe the lie, and those that are smart enough to figure out the truth will be ridiculed by the majority to the point that they don't even bother trying.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
March 4, 2002 3:28:38 AM

did you pick your title or did fredi give it to you? thats a funny title man. Gigolo here Gigolo there Gigolo Gigolo Gigolo Gigolo, as you can see i have a song for it too.

<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/scamtron2000/Lochel.html" target="_new"> <font color=red>go to my site</font color=red> </A>
March 4, 2002 3:47:17 AM

Yeah, but Machiavelli isn't quite the demon he is made out to be. His other writings talk a lot about ethics and areas where the ends <i>don't</i> justify the means. But, business is a cutthroat world, and sometimes, if you want to play with the big guys, you have to be willing to step on toes and make yourself look better by hiding some things. It <i>is</i> up to the consumer to learn these things. I have yet to figure out why someone is willing to spend three thousand dollars on a system without researching the facts a little bit. That's a big purchase, and much like a car, a horrible investment. Not like it's hard to look things up, since everyone and their mother is connected to the internet now. AMD and Intel are both relying on the ignorance of consumers, Intel with inflated MHz/GHz, and AMD with an inflating PR. Both are dishonest, both are decieving, and both work equally well on stupid/uneducated people.

So, you can blame Intel for artificially increasing GHz to gain back lost market share, or AMD for not taking the "honest" approach of spending money for ad campains. But blame falls squarely on both companies shoulders. I couldn't care less, since it's keeping prices lower and innovations higher.

-SammyBoy
!