Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PR Mobile <> PR Desktop ?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 22, 2002 8:20:04 PM

PR Rating has been discussed many many times and everyone would agree that AMD is being conservative on it's side. But how about Mobile version it's processor. I think AMD is just mis-using this PR rating for Mobile. Here's the rating for newley released mobile processors...

Athlon 4 1600+ = 1400Mhz
Athlon 4 1500+ = 1300Mhz
Athlon 4 1.2Ghz = 1200 Mhz

Ratings for Desktop Processors

XP 2100+ = 1733 Mhz
XP 2000+ = 1667 Mhz
XP 1900+ = 1600 Mhz
XP 1800+ = 1533 Mhz
XP 1700+ = 1467 Mhz
XP 1600+ = 1400 Mhz
XP 1500+ = 1333 Mhz

All of these processors are based on Palomino core. Also the mobile processors have 200Mhz FSB instead of Desktop's 266Mhz. So you should also agree that Preformance will be different between Mobile and Desktop with the same Mhz processor. So my question is how come PR 1500+ on desktop is 1.333Ghz and it's 1.3Ghz for Mobile. And the difference between 100Mhz on Mobile equal to 100PR. But on desktop it's only 66.67 Mhz equal 100PR. Is AMD mis-using this PR rating for mobile processors??????

KG


<b>"Hey! It compiles! Ship it!"</b>

More about : mobile desktop

March 22, 2002 8:47:59 PM

And it begins...

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 22, 2002 8:51:08 PM

I agree with you in this case, Raystonn. AMD is misusing their own PR rating.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Related resources
March 22, 2002 8:52:58 PM

It has happened every time a PR rating has ever been used. It was only a matter of time before it would happen again.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 22, 2002 8:55:48 PM

Not like their auditors are doing a hell of a lot of good...

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
March 22, 2002 9:03:24 PM

Condering their auditor for PR ratings is Arthur Andersen, it does not surprise me. We need a new way to indicate performance.

A better way to indicate performance might be to list the clockspeed and number of pipeline stages for the processor, along with the clockspeed and width of the FSB. Something like: Pentium 4 2.4GHz/20/400/64. This would indicate a Pentium 4 running at 2.4GHz with a 20 stage pipeline, and a 400MHz 64-bit FSB. I believe this would cover the important performance aspects of all processors, would it not? An Athlon 2100+ would be: Athlon XP 1.73GHz/10/266/64.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 22, 2002 9:05:04 PM

Quote:

A better way to indicate performance might be to list the clockspeed and number of pipeline stages for the processor, along with the clockspeed and width of the FSB. Something like: Pentium 4 2.4GHz/20/400/64. This would indicate a Pentium 4 running at 2.4GHz with a 20 stage pipeline, and a 400MHz 64-bit FSB. I believe this would cover the important performance aspects of all processors, would it not? An Athlon 2100+ would be: Athlon XP 1.73GHz/10/266/64.

Good idea! If only both Intel and AMD can agree to do that!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 22, 2002 9:13:10 PM

This would also simplify indicating what you have done with an overclock. For example, a processor I am currently burning in (a 1.6A) is currently at 2.407GHz/20/600/64. You can easily see what I did using these simple numbers, and you can easily see what kind of processer I am talking about by looking at the number of pipelines and FSB width.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 22, 2002 9:15:52 PM

Only problem being, that would confuse the average consumer. They're confused enough as it is.

And yes, I knew Arthur Andersen was AMD's auditor.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
March 22, 2002 9:21:36 PM

Take this
Quote:

2.407GHz/20/600/64

And tell people the higher the first number the better. The lower the second number the better. The higher the second number the beter and higher the last number the better.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 22, 2002 9:24:31 PM

The average consumer should not be making purchases without help. The numbers exist to give the salesman something to point at when he explains that X is faster than Y. Would you rather a salesman point at the PR rating and say "this number is larger, therefore it is faster"? Using something like what I suggested would break down performance into a few numbers similar to how it is done for hard drives. The salesman can simply explain that higher is better for all of the numbers except the second, for which lower is better.

As compared to a hard drive, the CPU clockspeed would be similar to the rotation speed (7200 vs 5400, etc.), the number of stages in the CPU's pipeline would be similar to the seek time, the FSB clockspeed would be equal to the controller bandwidth (i.e. ATA100, ATA133, etc.), and the FSB width would be equal to the width of the controller's cables to the hard drive.

None of this would actually need to be explained to the average consumer though. The salesman would simply point out that bigger is better except for the second number, for which smaller is better.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 22, 2002 9:27:23 PM

You mentioned hard drives with similar ratings, but people don't use them all as they should. Not even people who know roughly what they mean.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
March 22, 2002 9:34:13 PM

Well, salesmen are going to sell whatever crap they have, regardless of performance. Two things you simply cannot trust are salesmen and PR ratings. If you want the facts then you talk to someone knowledgable. Someone who is knowledgable would benefit from these extra numbers when comparing the performance of processors and explaining it to the newbie.

This is going to end up turning into something similar to the car market. We are going to end up with model numbers and such just to make things 'sound cool.' "Introducing the brand new Athlon 10000 Special Edition! The Athlon 10000 SE comes with a shiny new IHS/spoiler to make all your friends gasp with delight!"...

If the salesmen want a spiffy name, let them have it. But it should be prepended to a set of numbers similar to what I gave. Introducing the Athlon 10000 Special Edition 2.0GHz/10/266/64!

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 22, 2002 9:38:23 PM

Quote:
All of these processors are based on Palomino core. Also the mobile processors have 200Mhz FSB instead of Desktop's 266Mhz. So you should also agree that Preformance will be different between Mobile and Desktop with the same Mhz processor. So my question is how come PR 1500+ on desktop is 1.333Ghz and it's 1.3Ghz for Mobile. And the difference between 100Mhz on Mobile equal to 100PR. But on desktop it's only 66.67 Mhz equal 100PR. Is AMD mis-using this PR rating for mobile processors??????


Hmmm, dont the mobile processors run on a sdram platform, and would that not lower performance.


It appears to me that amd is lowering the pr rating of its mobile parts due to the fact the benchmark lower than their desktop counterparts on the average system.

But I agree its a tad weird.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
March 22, 2002 9:40:10 PM

I want a spoiler on my computer :frown:

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
March 22, 2002 9:45:42 PM

Problem being, though, is that when it comes to salesmen at Best Buy, Circuit City, etc., they are nothing more than high school students or people who need a second job to suppliment their income. They are just a bit more educated than Joe Consumer. So, most often, you get two people ignorant about the finer points of a computer, who both just look for bigger numbers to indicate better performance. In that case, Intel would win, always, since their numbers are bigger. Wouldn't a better method than yours Ray be IPC times clockspeed? So, a AXP 2100+ would have a rating of 15597 and a 2.2GHz P4 would be 13200. Granted, it shows AMD to be in the lead, by quite a margin. So, there is no answer, now is there. Consumers and salesmen think big = better. Right now, things are not in sync with anything, so f--- it... let the consumers keep making uninformed decisions. As long as they keep buying, the prices stay low.

Pardon the cynicism, but I'm tired of trying to educate people, 'cause they don't want to be educated. Let AMD and Intel worry about it, as it only affects their high-end anyway. So, I give up... let the ignorant remain ignorant. What do we care anyway? We buy based on performance and price, and sometimes overclockability... I'd buy a 500MHz processor if it whipped the 1.5GHz and 2.0GHz competetors (as long as it's PC, and not Mac)

-SammyBoy
March 22, 2002 9:53:50 PM

Quote:
... both just look for bigger numbers to indicate better performance. In that case, Intel would win, always, since their numbers are bigger.

Well, we could always change the second number into the inverse of the number of stages in the pipeline, perhaps multiplied by 100. Then bigger would always be better. Athlons would use 10.0 and the Pentium 4 would use 5.0.


Quote:
Wouldn't a better method than yours Ray be IPC times clockspeed?

IPC is not a measurable quantity. Every instruction takes a different number of clocks to execute and every application uses a different selection of instructions. This would always take us back to the question of which applications to measure. I prefer an inverse of the number of stages of the pipeline if you really demand that all numbers mean that bigger is better.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 22, 2002 11:28:07 PM

AMD didn't produce a 1.3ghz Palomino for the desktop. Their lowest desktop stepping was 1.33ghz.

The closest PR rating to the desktop equivalent is PR 1500.
The next would be PR 1600 so the 100mhz jump there. It looks like AMD chose not to release a 66mhz stepping and did a full 100mhz stepping instead is all.

Mark-



When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 22, 2002 11:56:34 PM

Dosent the notebook athlon run at 200fsb, a 66mhz jump is not even possible if that is the case.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
March 22, 2002 11:58:55 PM

...but a 50MHz jump is. An Athlon 4 1500+ running at 1.35GHz would be more reasonable.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 23, 2002 12:02:11 AM

Quote:
...but a 50MHz jump is. An Athlon 4 1500+ running at 1.35GHz would be more reasonable.


Then the 1600+ would only be 50mhz faster, and people would be whining about that heh.


"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
March 23, 2002 12:08:06 AM

They could just drop the “+” from the mobile processors, I doubt they would accept a “-“.

All errors are undocumented features waiting to be discovered.
March 23, 2002 12:25:37 AM

Maybe Mat is somewhat right about the relation in FSB.
Maybe the notebook versions have a different FSB or such? In any case I think we should try to contact AMD on it, or look on their website.

Ray this isn't the beggining of PR madness, AMD might probably change the Hammer PR relation to AXP, and if it does, then the Hammer has serious strengh then. But just note that this is a very variable system, like MHZ and FSB versions of one processor.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 23, 2002 1:25:55 AM

Quote:
IPC is not a measurable quantity. Every instruction takes a different number of clocks to execute and every application uses a different selection of instructions. This would always take us back to the question of which applications to measure. I prefer an inverse of the number of stages of the pipeline if you really demand that all numbers mean that bigger is better.

The problem with all of these approaches is that they don't actually measure total system performance. Some of the benchmarks attempt to do this, but some are sponsored by the vendors and have enhancements for one brand but not another and therefore can't really be trusted. In addition you always get back to the question: which applications are important to the user?

The only true solution to this problem would be for an industry association or the governments to develop independant ratings for individual components and total system performance. The processor ratings would need to be similar to horsepower and torque in the auto industry - something that can be independently tested and verified - right now clock speed is just maximum RPM ratings. Total system performance ratings would have to be similar to max MPH/KPH and 1/4 mile time/speed ratings. This is something that AMD has been trying to do, but Intel refuses to participate because their bread is buttered with the GHz clock speed ratings.

I don't see true cross vendor performance ratings ever happening until (and if) AMD's procs outperform Intel's to the point that Intel can no longer charge a premium based on name alone. Whether or not this will ever happen, I don't know, but AMD is well on their way with their small die/high IPC/x86-forever strategy.

Don't get me wrong, Intel makes a quality part, but they have until just recently (past 2 years) been able to charge whatever they please for their procs. Since the release of the Athlon, Intel has had to scramble to keep ahead on the MHz curve (i.e. the1GHz PIII release and the 1.13GHz PIII recall). Intel, intentionally IMHO, threw a wrench in the works by introducing a higher-clocking lower-IPC processor with the P4. AMD simply countered by introducing the model rating. The validity of the ratings - although certified by Arthur Anderson - are being determined by the market.

Until comparable laptops with P4Ms and A4Ms are released (something Intel has used its "preferred vendor" status to prevent up until now), we will never know. Just try to buy a corporate grade desktop replacement laptop (high performance, three spindles including DVD/CDRW combo, large 15" screen, etc.) with an Athlon proc - I haven't found one yet. Only the Sony Viao FXA49 even comes close - but only at 1.2GHz. HP only offers the Athlon 1.2GHz with a 12" screen and only the 1GHz comes with a 14" screen, both on their consumer line. Even some of HP's Celeron models get 15" screens. HP used to offer a 15" screen with the Athlon, but Intel successfully pressured them to eliminate it. Compaq is a little better, actually touting the business model NV115 1500+ as coming with "a large 14 inch screen," and a custom built 1600+, but offers no AMD model with a 15" screen.

Intel has already shown us the way to create a concensus in the industry - anytime that Intel becomes the performance/technology/recall underdog/pariah, everyone else (relatively speaking) aligns against them. :tongue:

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
March 23, 2002 1:32:40 AM

Well, I'm just saying that the assumption of salesmen being intelligent about the product they are selling is false. <i>Some</i> are top-notch, and take their job seriously, but most only have a passing knowledge of computers. I'm just saying that we shouldn't have to worry about this, it's AMD and Intel's problem. Who cares what they start using for a speed rating. In the end, all that matters is that <i>we</i> have the knowledge and use it correctly. They could call their processors "S--- on a chip," and as long as they performed well and had a reasonable cost, we'd still buy them.

-SammyBoy
March 23, 2002 5:02:07 AM

Quote:
The problem with all of these approaches is that they don't actually measure total system performance.

The idea of a "total system performance" is a misnomer really. There is no such thing, especially when you are looking at only a single component. In order to remain accurate one must break apart system performance into many categories. This would confuse buyers more than the 4 numbers I listed above.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 23, 2002 1:53:44 PM

Actually, the more numbers, the more confusing for your average system buyer. That is why Intel (and AMD before the P4) has been able to get away with using the clock speed for so long - it is just one number for the consumer to look at to determine the performance of the system. Consumers want just one number. Then they can move on to other things like how big the HD is or whether or not there is DVD, etc.

Yes, total system performance is something that can only be determined on an application by application basis, but an unbiased, annually updated, independant, industry, or government regulated system performance rating is something the consumer can more reliably base a decision on than MHz (even when combined with pipelining and memory bandwidth).

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
March 23, 2002 2:23:15 PM

Indeed, IPC is very hard to determine. Friend of mine is into assembler, optimizing heavily for PIII. Gets 56 or so instructions (including MMX and SSE) executed in 32 clockticks ... Just by changing the order of execution, most of the times ...

Bikeman

<i>Then again, that's just my opinion</i>
March 23, 2002 2:41:32 PM

raystonn, just out of interest would i be right in assuming that you are an employee of intel?

how do you set a laser printer to stun?
March 23, 2002 3:24:14 PM

I agree, there are enough numbers to confuse buyers.

Many people do not know the difference between ram and hard disk space.. For instances if someone complained their computer was slow, I would ask them how much ram they had. They would say something like 20gigs. I would say no, that is not ram, that is hard disk space. Then when I asked the person what kind of processor they have, they might say pentium. I would ask which model, how many mhz. They would not know.

Some of these people spend 3000$ on their computers, yet they have no idea what the actually bought.

Often their 'slow performance' can be solved by defragging their hd, which they may have never done (I know people who have had computers for 3 years and never defragged their hd)

<i>My life wasn't complete untill I tried sse-2 optimized pong</i>
March 23, 2002 3:36:28 PM

Yes indeed, he is.
Although often he tends to take his employer's stance, and it kinda clouds his judgement over other CPU companies.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 23, 2002 3:39:40 PM

Well, if I could get to see previews of Intel goodies and get discounts on Intel processors, then I'd say "INTEL ALL THE WAY!" too!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 23, 2002 7:24:13 PM

Quote:
Yes, total system performance is something that can only be determined on an application by application basis

Not even then. A measurement of total system performance must include performance figures that apply only to a specific set of hardware, including the video card, hard drive, type of memory, etc. A total system performance indicator could not be used as a label for a processor. In looking at processors alone, we should look only at how well that individual processor performs. Indications of that processor's clockspeed and number of pipeline stages would give a fairly good representation of CPU performance when combined with something like Spec. Adding in the processor's FSB clockspeed and width would show how well it could do with various memory technologies.

Total system performance has nothing to do with how a processor itself should be labelled. Imagine someone benchmarking a processor with expensive memory, a SCSI RAID array, and an expensive workstation-class OpenGL video card, perhaps a Quadro from nVidia. Then they could sell it in an SDRAM system with a TNT2 video card and a 5400 rpm IDE hard drive. The performance rating of that processor woudl then be completely wrong. Performance ratings simply do not work. I want numbers that show the architectural features of the processor, not marketing drivel.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 23, 2002 7:29:51 PM

Click on my name. ;) 

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2002 4:14:08 AM

The industrial standard way to gauge processor performance is Gigaflops, or, in the case of supercomputers, Teraflops.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
March 24, 2002 5:30:48 AM

That is a measurement of operations per second and depends entirely on which operations you are performing. This brings us back to the age old debate of which software to use in the benchmark. That is not a very objective measurement.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2002 5:58:42 AM

How about raw math? Just tell the thing to calculate PIE and see how many digits it performs in 1 second?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
March 24, 2002 6:02:08 AM

That only measures the performance of those very few instructions. It is not a measurement of the performance of the processor as a whole. Very few people actually sit there calculating Pi all day with their computers.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2002 4:40:32 PM

Dang, so I'm one of the few?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
March 25, 2002 6:11:27 AM

Quote:
A measurement of total system performance must include performance figures that apply only to a specific set of hardware, including the video card, hard drive, type of memory, etc. A total system performance indicator could not be used as a label for a processor. In looking at processors alone, we should look only at how well that individual processor performs.

That is why I advocate - if you look at my previous post - BOTH component level performance ratings as well as a single total system performance rating. Obviously home and small custom builders wouldn't be able to provide a total system performance indicator, but all of the major included components could have standardized ratings. Modems, NICs, Memory, etc. already have this type of standardization - why not procs (especially), mainboards and video cards?

Using MHz, pipeline depth, and memory bandwidth is only an indicator of <i>possible</i> performance, not actually performance - i.e. a 357 cu in. engine on a car has many factors that indicate performance - fuel injection system (memory bandwidth), air intake system (memory technology), turbo (sse/3Dnow), supercharging (sse-2/3Dnow Pro), cylinder bore (IPC), cylinder stroke (pipeline depth), etc. The only way to find out how powerfull the engine really is - is to test it and determine how much horsepower and torque it really puts out.

In addition - as you noted and as Packard Bell used to do - any one can put a powerfully rated engine (CPU) into an underpowered car (system). The only way to find out how well the components of a system really work together is to test them - engineers can make predictions based on extremely complicated algorithms that may come close to the reality, but unbiased and current regulated (government or industry) component and system ratings are the only way to ensure that the consumer is adequately informed as to the performance of what they are buying.

If individual software vendors (autocad, lighwave, etc.) would also rate their software on platforms for which they are optimized, it would aid the system buyer that is buying to a particular application.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
March 25, 2002 4:02:16 PM

-----
Dosent the notebook athlon run at 200fsb, a 66mhz jump is not even possible if that is the case.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
-----

I know 66Mhz jump is not possible. What My point was that they are misleading the consumers. They are saying their 1300Mhz processor is equal to 1500Mhz T-bird. Which is not ture for mobile because the t-bird was also running @ 200Mhz FSB. Also there is 1.2Ghz Mobile but no 1300PR and 1400PR. What's up with that?


<b>"Hey! It compiles! Ship it!"</b>
March 25, 2002 5:37:49 PM

Quote:
What My point was that they are misleading the consumers. They are saying their 1300Mhz processor is equal to 1500Mhz T-bird. Which is not ture for mobile because the t-bird was also running @ 200Mhz FSB. Also there is 1.2Ghz Mobile but no 1300PR and 1400PR. What's up with that?

Keep in mind that the 1500+ rating is technically in comparison to a possible T-bird <b><i>mobile</b></i> processor - which never existed (all Athlon mobiles have always been Palomino core) - running at 1500MHz. Now, the true comparison is to a P4M 1500MHz. Keep in mind, though, that the P4Ms will most likely be running with single channel SDRAM - which limits the performance of the P4 significantly - so it is VERY possible that the 1500+ (1300MHz) A4M will perform on par with its P4M counterpart. We'll just have to see - if the vendors can be convinced to produce truely comparable systems.

Why no A4M 1300+ or 1400+? The same reason there aren't any 1300-1400+ AXP or any 1.3a-1.4a Northwood - because neither vendor backfills that far. They would have to sell these parts below cost to even move them.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
March 25, 2002 6:08:38 PM

heh, intel would need to lower their PR compared to the clock:) 
1.6Ghz=PR1200+

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
March 25, 2002 6:12:16 PM

Quote:
Keep in mind that the 1500+ rating is technically in comparison to a possible T-bird mobile processor - which never existed (all Athlon mobiles have always been Palomino core) - running at 1500MHz. Now, the true comparison is to a P4M 1500MHz. Keep in mind, though, that the P4Ms will most likely be running with single channel SDRAM - which limits the performance of the P4 significantly - so it is VERY possible that the 1500+ (1300MHz) A4M will perform on par with its P4M counterpart. We'll just have to see - if the vendors can be convinced to produce truely comparable systems.


While you are probably right...many mobile P4's will be coupled with SDRam, not all of them will be. There are mobile DDR P4 chipsets available, just as there are similar mobile chipsets available for Athlon. I have yet to see a mobile Athlon coupled with DDR though.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 25, 2002 9:25:33 PM

We are talking about the label on the processor here, not on a computer system. The only things that should matter are the performance characteristics of the processor itself. When I go to purchase a boxed Pentium 4 1.6A I want to hear about its architectural features, not how well it benchmarked on a PC with 256MB of DDR SDRAM, an IDE (Inferior Drive Electronics) drive, and some cheap video card. The label on a product should contain information about that product, not how the product performs with other third party products.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 25, 2002 9:48:06 PM

OK, OK, I understand that they don't have a T-bird Mobile processor. But they do have a A4 1.2Ghz on palomino core which doesn't have a PR rating so why Start now. I don't think there is any arch change between 1.2Ghz and 1.3Ghz of Athlon 4 which would cause them to introduce PR for 1.3 and not 1.2. What I want to know is AMD using this PR for desktop to confuse the customers of Mobile processors. From these evidence, I can't avoid beliving the obivious.

KG

<b>"Hey! It compiles! Ship it!"</b>
March 25, 2002 10:03:41 PM

Take a look at the processor PR ratings. How many DESKTOP PR1500's are there?

None. Zero Zippo Zilch

So, how will a PR1500 MOBILE processor be confused with a nonexistent desktop PR1500 processor?

AMD has phased out the 1600 and is phasing out the 1700 desktop processors as well. So, whn those mobile chip based systems come out there will be no desktop of that speed rating sold.

FINALLY, How many mobile Athlons have YOU seen for sale? I've seen NONE outside the actual notebook PC's they are sold as part of.

So I ask...where is the confusion?

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
March 26, 2002 12:23:09 AM

The problem is that with such features, you're promoting Intel and downgrading AMD because the so called 400MHZ FSB is a big number. It sells, but for real it's not as efficient as Athlon's 266MHZ. Same applies for the RAM path data. So it really is hard to decide, however a law that would actually state that each company would introduce a test benchmark in their website with both processors, would really help. It would show average hardware setting, and easily show you the overall performance. It would be unbiased, and it would be controlled by the government or an association against biased results.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 26, 2002 12:31:00 AM

Quote:
The problem is that with such features, you're promoting Intel and downgrading AMD because the so called 400MHZ FSB is a big number. It sells, but for real it's not as efficient as Athlon's 266MHZ.

A 400MHz FSB is more efficient than a 266MHz FSB. Here the bigger number actually is better. Remember that information such as the number of stages in the pipeline would also be included. Thus, having a shorter pipeline would be advertised on the Athlon's box.


Quote:
a law that would actually state that each company would introduce a test benchmark in their website with both processors, would really help. It would show average hardware setting, and easily show you the overall performance. It would be unbiased, and it would be controlled by the government or an association against biased results.

Government regulation is a very bad thing. The government is extremely inefficient. It should only be given the tasks of those things that really must be entrusted to it, such as national security. Everything else should be left to the private sector. As far as benchmarking, it can never be done totally objectively. It will always be a choice between various benchmarks that do well on different types of platforms. Nothing is going to change that.

I want to hear about the physical characteristics of the processor, not hear how people think it may perform on whatever specific applications they feel like bringing up. I do not use any of the games or applications any reviewer has ever used for a benchmark. None of them apply to me.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 26, 2002 12:41:20 AM

To be honest, most people expected 400MHZ FSB to be wonderous, but simply put, it isn't anymore. AthlonXPs with 400MHZ FSB have been proven to perform extremly well, as well as coupled with DDR 400, it outruns the PC800 RDRAM bandwidth, and keeps on challenging the PC1066 in different apps. The PC800 only won in Write mode, but only 2 tests. I really don't know the characteristics of the Bus P4 or Athlons work with, but I know so many who have claimed and seen that Athlon's bus is much more efficient.
BTW how is pipeline stages so helpful? P3 has 10, yet it still manages to be better than P4's 20 stage, so no it does not help in buying. Besides, if you want processor info, Intel's website has more chunks to chuck in your mouth than any PC retailer's website ever will show.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
!