AMD's admission, Matisaro, are you listening?

[Crashman]

In any case, our recent test comparisons made it clear that the model numbering for the top AMD CPUs did not correspond to the performance of comparable P4s. Because of this, AMD adjusted its virtual values to become lower: previously, a clock increase of 66 MHz meant the equivalent of 100 additional points; now, the 100 points are related to the absolute values. This is AMD's admission that the previous performance scale was set too high, especially when it came to the higher clock speeds

I had this argument with Matisario like 4 months ago, that AMD's XP rating sytem could not scale indefinately when compared to the P4, he said that the 66MHz=100points system would always hold true. Guess who was right?

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>

 

[ritesh_laud]

I had this argument with Matisario like 4 months ago, that AMD's XP rating sytem could not scale indefinately when compared to the P4, he said that the 66MHz=100points system would always hold true. Guess who was right?

Lol sounds like that argument's been stewing under your skin for some time. I'm sure you're the only one who remembers it. The PR system had to be revised eventually anyway because it started at a non-zero value and was hence non-linear compared to the P4.

*However*, IMO the reason it's been revised so early is because the new T-Bred core doesn't perform per clock as well as the old core, so they had to change the PR system. AMD obviously did something to the core to squeeze out a few more MHz at the expense of IPC. The FPU seems as strong as ever but many of the benchmarks indicate that other parts of the core were compromised.

Ritesh

 

[Crashman]

The PR system had to be revised eventually anyway because it started at a non-zero value and was hence non-linear compared to the P4.

Yes! That was the basis for MY argument!

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>

 

[FatBurger]

</away>

Did anybody else think it ironic that AMD's auditing firm and PR rating stance changed at the same time?

<away>

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>

 

[shallowbaby]

AMD's new PR system will incorporate fuzzy math 2i, using advanced mathematic calculations and simple marketing manipulations from 100 supercomputers and a car salesman.

my prediction of the athlon XP 8000abM4ggx2.158a6 versus the P4 5GHz looks like it will come true after all!

What I don't understand is that: if amd marketing thinks that people like a higher number (if not, then why can't they just publish MHz and note equal performance to p4 XGHz), why not just use number in the trillions already.

New! AMD Athlon XP 50,000,000,000,000,000+ (at 2.8GHz) is better than XP 3000+, don't you think?

Ok let me be more realistic, cos I know there's alot of thickheaded people here. Why couldn't there be a AMD Athlon XP 8000+ at 2.8GHz. 8000+ is bigger than 3000+, it must be better (lol) and since their PR is going to make no sense whatsoever very soon, why not just blow it out of the water. (i'm sure some fool will buy it if it was 8000+ instead of 3000+ tho)

<font color=green> there's more to life than increasing its speed -Ghandi</font color=green>

 

[lhgpoobaa]

maybe they might want to keep some remote bit of honesty involved whoknows.


<b>MegaHertz Matters! ... But not without Cache our a decent chipset!!! </b>

 

[Ncogneto]

The PR system had to be revised eventually anyway because it started at a non-zero value and was hence non-linear compared to the P4.

1) The PR system was never meant to be compared to the P4 it was based on a Tbird comparison. Like it or not this was AMD's stance from the get go. Sure, you can say that it was intented to REALLY be used against the P4, but isn't that basically the same silly argument some fools are using to try to sue Intel with?

2) Even if you still want to argue that, when first introduced, wasn't the Willy the p4? How well would this 2600+ look against a Willy at 2.53 ghz?

3) I've never sean a CPU that scaled linearly (?) throughout its lifespan...have you?

This being said, what do you think the Barton with 512 cache and a 333 fsb bring to the table? Perhaps coupled with a better chipset, say Nvidia nforce2?
Suffice it to say AMD is far from dead and has at its disposal a few tricks up its sleave until they are ready with the Hammer. Good for them I say, rather then release a casterated POS Hammer like Intel did with the Willy.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

 

[LED]

1) The PR system was never meant to be compared to the P4 it was based on a Tbird comparison. Like it or not this was AMD's stance from the get go.

Do you really believe that? Honestly? Trident says its PX4 graphics chip will perform 70% of a Radeon9700.....You should get one, because Trident said it's good. Tell Pavlov I said hi.

This sig runs too hot.

 

[Ncogneto]

As much as I believe I need a PEE4 to enhance my internet expeirance.

Trident says its PX4 graphics chip will perform 70% of a Radeon9700.....You should get one, because Trident said it's good.

Crazier things have happened. SIS is making good chipsets. At least maybe they will have better driver support. Oh, and you can tell Homer I said hi as well.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

 

[LED]

"As much as I believe I need a PEE4 to enhance my internet expeirance."

Then why make a point about AXPs PRs being in comparison to the birds, when we all know its to market against Intel? If you don't even believe it yourself...

"Crazier things have happened. SIS is making good chipsets. At least maybe they will have better driver support."

Trident cheapo boards competing performance wise to Geforce4 Ti's sure is crazy.

This sig runs too hot.

 

[eden]

Dude, Anand tested the XP4 T2, which was not even finished, with Beta drivers, was about 80% the performance of a Ti4200, which is expected. The T3 was not tested, but coupled with finished drivers, I doubt their 80% is way off, in fact I think it will eventually be true.

I beleive the fact that a 2.6GHZ Tbird would not beat the 2.53GHZ, wouldn't you?
It would in FPU, no doubt, but since it has less IPC than the Palomino, this means that the P4's added cache and bandwidth obviously CAN beat the Tbird per clock. So I don't think the XP2600 is THAT much exaggerated.

To Crash, doesn't 'AMD's admission' mean that AMD admitted they were way off? If so, aren't you the one who respected companies that ADMIT their mistakes?

--
Is the opportunity to earn money by working, free?

 

[ritesh_laud]

The PR system was never meant to be compared to the P4 it was based on a Tbird comparison.

That's bulls_h_i_t but AMD likes the fact that you believe their marketing. No matter what AMD says on their web site, everyone knows that the PR was developed purely as an arbitrary formula to try to boost the image of the lower clocked Athlons against the P4, because megahertz sells. The vast majority of the market uses Intel so they never knew or cared how the T-bird performed. Therefore the PR figure would be completely meaningless to them if it was based on the T-bird.

Let's put it another way. Assume that the P4 had been clocked twice as fast but had half the IPC. You can bet your right arm that AMD would have made their PR twice as high: AXP 4000+ for a 2 GHz processor. And they would have fed you some crap about the PR being based on their 386 clone. And you would have believed it wouldn't you...

Ritesh

 

[Kzzrn]

Exactly. But something I don't understand is why will they continue it with the Hammer since it's supposed to be able to compete with the P4 in the numbers department.

Knowledge is the key to understanding

 

[Crashman]

1) Matisario made the arguement in favor of the viability of XP numbers vs P4 speeds
2) The Northwood was already out when HE argued the XP rating system would remain the same and remain viable for all future speeds.
3) I tried to argue that, but HE denied it.

So you THINK you're arguing AGAINST me, but in reality you're simply VARIFYING WHAT I SAID.
3)

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>

 

[shallowbaby]

i wasn't around for that argument, but i like to add this:
(and maybe this is exactly the same as everyone is pointing out.. but anyways..):

The current line of chips is based on a core codenamed "Thoroughbred." An older version of the Athlon-branded chips was based on a core codenamed "Thunderbird." The numbers attached to Thoroughbred-based chips officially describe how their performance would compare to a chip made on the Thunderbird core with the same clock speed-that is, if such a chip had ever been made, which it wasn't. So the Athlon XP 2600+ performs like an older Athlon with a clock speed of 2.6GHz would have.
... while that supposedly is the real reason for the PR+ and amd will never admit this, but the PR (2600+) is actually aimed squarely at intel's current flagship, the p4 2.53GHz.

Intel is rumored to have a 2.8GHz P4 launch as soon as next week as a warm-up for its 3.0GHz in the christmas season. goodnite amd, happy hibernation (mode)..we'll see you next spring.

<font color=green> there's more to life than increasing its speed -Ghandi</font color=green>

 

[Crashman]

LOL, I would LOVE to see an XP2600+ perform twice as many operations per second as the Tbird 1333!

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>

 

[Matisaro]

had this argument with Matisario like 4 months ago, that AMD's XP rating sytem could not scale indefinately when compared to the P4, he said that the 66MHz=100points system would always hold true. Guess who was right?

Thats a blatant mischaracterization of my comments.

I dare you to quote me saying it would ALWAYS hold true, in fact I said that they would have to reset them eventually because it isnt perfect.

Im ashamed of this post crash.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[Matisaro]

PS: My name is Matisaro, not matisario, weve ben posting together for almost 2 years crash lol.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[Ncogneto]

That's bulls_h_i_t but AMD likes the fact that you believe their marketing. No matter what AMD says on their web site, everyone knows that the PR was developed purely as an arbitrary formula to try to boost the image of the lower clocked Athlons against the P4,

I never disputed this fact. Of course it was a marketing scheme by AMD. At the time the Tbird was performing on par with the p4 clock for clock, if not better. If a=b and b=c, then a=c......got it?

because megahertz sells

I see you have bought into Intels marketing.

Let's put it another way. Assume that the P4 had been clocked twice as fast but had half the IPC. You can bet your right arm that AMD would have made their PR twice as high: AXP 4000+ for a 2 GHz processor. And they would have fed you some crap about the PR being based on their 386 clone. And you would have believed it wouldn't you...

Just exactly what is your point? Are you trying to say that AMD is more guilty of misleading advertising then Intel? You sure you want to make that argument?



It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

 

[Ncogneto]

Then why make a point about AXPs PRs being in comparison to the birds, when we all know its to market against Intel? If you don't even believe it yourself...

You answered your own question. It was a comparison to the tbird for the purposes of marketing against the p4. Never did I state this was not a marketing tool. It really comes down to a question of legality. How Joe Sixpack interprets it is entirely a different matter. The fact that AMD knew if would be percieved as a direct comparison to the P4 is hardly any worse than Intel knowing that the vast majority of its users expect a 1.4 ghz part to outperform a 1.2 ghz part.


It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ncogneto on 08/22/02 05:11 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Ncogneto]

So you THINK you're arguing AGAINST me, but in reality you're simply VARIFYING WHAT I SAID.

No, just clarifying. I never saw the argument you had with Mat. If that was indeed his argument it was a bit flawed. I do see however he doesn't agree he claimed it would remain linear. I don't see how it could, as the p4 has gone from willy to northwood @400 fsb to northwood @533 fsb.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

 

[Crashman]

Help me out here, I can't find the argument!

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>

 

[Crashman]

LOL

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>

 

[Crashman]

I looked for 10 minutes and gave up, maybe Matisaro will find it.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>

 

[zengeos]

Uhm...even AMD stated when they introduced their PR rating system that it was only a temporary ratings system UNTIL a ratings system agreed upon by the industry as a whole agreed to a set of performance ratings for CPUs. So, with that being the case I doubt Mat would say the PR would ALWAYS hold true.

Mark-

PS: As for a 2600 having double the IPC in benchmarks when compared to a T-bird....since performance isn't linear, and since there are other bottlenecks to system performance, like memory bandwidth, bus speed/bandwidth, hard drive speed and throughput, etc....it's doubtful that a 2600 would perform double the TBird.

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>