As Intel changes, AMD changes too

D

DaveX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2003
Messages
1,774
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040331173218.html

AMD Athlon 64 560+: AMD Athlon 64 3400+
AMD Athlon 64 550+: AMD Athlon 64 3200+
AMD Athlon 64 540+: AMD Athlon 64 3000+
AMD Athlon 64 530+: AMD Athlon 64 2800+

Pentium 4 570: actual clock-speed 3.80GHz
Pentium 4 560: actual clock-speed 3.60GHz
Pentium 4 550: actual clock-speed 3.40GHz
Pentium 4 540: actual clock-speed 3.20GHz
Pentium 4 530: actual clock-speed 3.00GHz
Pentium 4 520: actual clock-speed 2.80GHz
 
Opteron has had model #'s since the day it came out so who is following who here. Personally I like AMD's Athon64/AthlonXP current rating system just fine, model numbers are for cars not processors.
 
Except it was posted on X-Bit at 03/31/2004 | 05:34 PM so you lose :p

Seriously though, AMD bumping itself up 200 more mhz? Oy, the proc market is getting annoyingly stupid now.
 
Originally posted by NightRaven
Except it was posted on X-Bit at 03/31/2004 | 05:34 PM so you lose :p
Click to expand...
No, YOU lose. It was originally posted here, on April 1 and propagated through www.hardware.fr to North American news sites. Remember the time change...

It's fake, and I laugh at eveyone who believes it. Including whoever put it on the fron [H] page.
 
Originally posted by NightRaven
<SNIP>Seriously though, AMD bumping itself up 200 more mhz? Oy, the proc market is getting annoyingly stupid now.
Click to expand...

If this is indeed going to happen, then lemme take time to reply to your post.

I do not know how I can explain this any clearer than model numbers already do. If we are moving away from mhz ratings all together, then AMD(or Intel) cannot be "bumping itself up 200 more mhz". What you are doing is like trying to determine that the Ford 150 is more powerful that the Chevy S10 because the model number is different.

Model numbers can only be used as a metric against itself when contained within a single Modeling scheme. You can only barely use them to compare similar products within a single company and rarely can you use them to compare different families of products within the same company. You can NEVER compare different companies' products using only model numbers.

Personally, I have not decided weather or not I prefer model numbers yet. One side of me likes them because it forces the users to become at least a little more educated on thier purchases. It also does, in an arcane way, level the playing field by effectively removing a broken metric (MHZ) by which the two companies were being compared. The bad side is, by moving away from anything that could be used as a metric (PR Ratings to MHZ), It makes it more difficult to know what is faster at a glance.
 
we need an SAE standard ratings system.

AMD Athlon FX 53 - 300lbs torque, 300hp @ 2.4GHz
Intel Pentium 4 3.4GHz - 175bs torque, 300hp @ 3.4GHz

the problem is we measure things differently, so the car analogy only goes so far.
 
Originally posted by chdude3
No, YOU lose. It was originally posted here, on April 1 and propagated through www.hardware.fr to North American news sites. Remember the time change...

It's fake, and I laugh at eveyone who believes it. Including whoever put it on the fron [H] page.
Click to expand...

I saw it yesterday night. Why would you laugh? It makes perfect sense as a move to counter Intel's move to a PR system. AMD might cause more confusion if they stick to the current one.
 
Actually, I could see it being a major advantage for AMD to stay with the current scheme. If Intel switches its new processors over to the proposed scheme, AMD's 3200+, 3400+, etc. would be a much higher number than Intel's and be perceived as an advantage. Now AMD has the advantage of supposedly corresponding to a certain clock frequency, and Intel's numbers mean what to the customer? The customer is confused now, and in this confusion, what will he or she pick, the weird new system or an established system based on equivalent MHz, which capitalizes on Intel's huge push for clock frequency as a performance metric?
 
personally I would only think of pentium4 if it was led by a 4 (pentium '4') but I mean who am I to say heh
 
Originally posted by chdude3
No, YOU lose. It was originally posted here, on April 1 and propagated through www.hardware.fr to North American news sites. Remember the time change...

It's fake, and I laugh at eveyone who believes it. Including whoever put it on the fron [H] page.
Click to expand...

you shaddap

I have seen reports of this a while ago, as in like late feburary
 
You all are wasting your breath. AMD put that rumor to rest. The verbatim is in the X-Bit link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top