amd uses arthur andersen to validate it's benchmarking for the pr rating?

[Sid03]

yes, it's true!

this is the same company that's on trial for shredding documents for enron.

they are also being sued for concealing huge losses in the collapse of the Baptist Foundation of Arizona, costing about 13,000 investors $570 million.

btw... if they get convicted for the enron thing, then they will not be allowed to audit public companies for five years (and up to a $500,000 fine.) amd will have to look for another consulting company.

 

[AGodspeed]

Yes, it's true. But then again, so has Intel, Motorola, Sun, etc.

It might seem suspecious, but then again, exactly how would Arthur Andersen screw with the benchmarks, considering the benchmarks that are run are also run at a bazillion other hardware sites on the Internet, meaning it would be foolish to fool with the benchmarks to begin with.

 

[Sid03]

it's just hard to have faith in them being an unbiased third party. they haven't exactly been honest in their other dealings.

 

[LikeLinus]

And who exactly cares?

The PR system is a joke and a shame for such an up and coming company like AMD.

 

[AGodspeed]

<< it's just hard to have faith in them being an unbiased third party. they haven't exactly been honest in their other dealings. >>

Do you really believe AA is hugely different from other auditing companies?

And like was said before, it wouldn't be in AMD's best interest to have AA screw with the benchmarks that are listed on their site, considering any Joe Retard can verify the numbers by simply reading a few hardware reviews online.

The Enron and AA situation is quite different compared to the AMD-AA relationship.

 

[BD231]

The PR system is a joke and a shame for such an up and coming company like AMD.[/]

Yeah, I mean even though it's wroking really well and all it really is a shame.......

 

[Rand]

<< And who exactly cares?

The PR system is a joke and a shame for such an up and coming company like AMD. >>



Perhaps, but it's pretty much a necessity if AMD is to have even the slightest hope of competing against Intel. The average consumer certainly isnt aware that anything contributes to performance except sheer clockspeed.
We've all seen numerous times how unsuccessful many companies have been of educating the consumer as to the fact that clockspeed does not equate to performance. AMD, Cyrix, IDT etc.
They've all had marketing campaigns with preciou little success.

It's a safe bet that if AMD were to market the AthlonXP 2100+ as a 1.73GHz processor that the overwhelming majority of the market would istantly choose even a 1.8GHz Willamette-128 (Celeron) over the 2100+, and the OEM's are alway equally quick to promote MHz above all else.

 

[ST4RCUTTER]

It should also be noted that before the Enron debacle Aurthur Anderson was considered by many to be quite a respected name. It's not surprising that AMD made the choice. At least they tried to offer a third party validation of their PR ratings. Not many other (any other) companies ever have...

 

[Adul]

Aurthur anderson is really going to have a hard time continuing business after this mess.

 

[Sid03]

<< It should also be noted that before the Enron debacle Aurthur Anderson was considered by many to be quite a respected name. >>

yep... and before OJ decided to kill a couple people, he was pretty well respected. what's your point?

 

[Aboroth]

<<

<< It should also be noted that before the Enron debacle Aurthur Anderson was considered by many to be quite a respected name. >>

yep... and before OJ decided to kill a couple people, he was pretty well respected. what's your point? >>



You are completely correct. Nobody should have anything to do with anybody else, ever, because you never know what else they may be doing. You don't want to be associated with riff-raff, because some people who don't look at the context of the situation may not like you anymore.

 

[Rand]

<<

<< It should also be noted that before the Enron debacle Aurthur Anderson was considered by many to be quite a respected name. >>

yep... and before OJ decided to kill a couple people, he was pretty well respected. what's your point? >>



The point being was that prior to Enron, Arthur Anderson was a very respected name. Meaning that it made complete sense for AMD to choose Arthur Anderson to validate the AthlonXP Model rating system, at the very least it made as much sense as choosing ny other company to do so.

One can hardly predict the future and somehow know in advance what was going to happen with Enron, and Arthur Anderson's involvement.

 

[ST4RCUTTER]

yep... and before OJ decided to kill a couple people, he was pretty well respected. what's your point?


What Rand said...

 

[Sid03]

i'm not saying that amd is part of any cover up. i'm just saying that simply because their benchmarks are endorsed by this company, doesn't make them honest. i don't know how amd comes up with this pr rating crap. i just found it funny that they justify it as being verified by an unbiased third party, and this third party happens to be not all that trustworthy.


if i were to pose the question "which is faster... a 1400mhz p4 or a 1400mhz tbird?", the tbird would get unanamous results.

however, the pr rating says that they are equal. how, you may ask?

a 2000+ athon xp is on par with a (theoretical) 2000mhz tbird, according to amd. yet the 2000+ is pretty much equal to the 2000mhz p4. so that would mean that the tbird is equal to the p4.

i like my tbird system, and i'm sure i'll like my hammer system when i build that next year. but this pr crap is well, crap. but all you zealots just eat it up.

 

[AGodspeed]

<< i'm not saying that amd is part of any cover up. i'm just saying that simply because their benchmarks are endorsed by this company, doesn't make them honest. i don't know how amd comes up with this pr rating crap. i just found it funny that they justify it as being verified by an unbiased third party, and this third party happens to be not all that trustworthy.


if i were to pose the question "which is faster... a 1400mhz p4 or a 1400mhz tbird?", the tbird would get unanamous results.

however, the pr rating says that they are equal. how, you may ask?

a 2000+ athon xp is on par with a (theoretical) 2000mhz tbird, according to amd. yet the 2000+ is pretty much equal to the 2000mhz p4. so that would mean that the tbird is equal to the p4.

i like my tbird system, and i'm sure i'll like my hammer system when i build that next year. but this pr crap is well, crap. but all you zealots just eat it up. >>

One has to wonder why someone would have a problem with the model rating system when the alternative is clearly more misleading to the uninformed Joe Average (e.g. OEM's advertising the MHz of an Athlon to the MHz of a P4 instead of comparing model number to MHz. Yes, MHz is a very exact, scientific measurement, I'm not debating this fact. My point is that MHz shouldn't be advertised to begin with because it gives 99% population the false pretense that more MHz for one processor = better performance when compared to a lower MHz processor. It's a well known fact to people "in the know" that MHz isn't everything, but Joe Average doesn't know that, therefore you have the model rating system).

 

[Sid03]

you'll get no argument from me about how mhz isn't everything. but this pr scam isn't any better. it doesn't make any sense. my example above is excellent. the mobile ratings don't make sense. if its true that the hammer 2.0ghz will have a 3400 rating, then that makes even less sense.

"confusing" is a word i'm seeing more and more, to describe the ratings. and i think its an accurate description.

i honestly think that if you believe in these ratings, then you aren't looking at them with an open mind. i'm a big amd fan, and i can see through this smokescreen.

 

[AGodspeed]

you'll get no argument from me about how mhz isn't everything. but this pr scam isn't any better. it doesn't make any sense. my example above is excellent. the mobile ratings don't make sense. if its true that the hammer 2.0ghz will have a 3400 rating, then that makes even less sense.

"confusing" is a word i'm seeing more and more, to describe the ratings. and i think its an accurate description.

i honestly think that if you believe in these ratings, then you aren't looking at them with an open mind. i'm a big amd fan, and i can see through this smokescreen.

What part of the mobile ratings don't make sense? And if you were to read more closely, you'd notice that a 3400+ ClawHammer will be running at at least 2GHz, which could mean 2.5GHz or 2.2GHz, we don't know yet. It makes very little sense to postulate how accurate the model rating system will be for Tbred, Barton, or ClawHammer when you're just making guesses based on unconfirmed info.

 

[Sid03]

<< What part of the mobile ratings don't make sense? >>

the mobile ratings don't make sense because there was no mobile t-bird to compare it to. some mobile paliminos have the pr and some don't. and the fact that they run on a slower fsb (and sdram, if i'm not mistaken), but get the same pr as the desktops.



<< And if you were to read more closely, you'd notice that a 3400+ ClawHammer will be running at at least 2GHz, >>

i understand that... hence the "if its true" beginning of my statement. (who was it that needs "to read more closely"?)

 

[AGodspeed]

<<

<< What part of the mobile ratings don't make sense? >>

the mobile ratings don't make sense because there was no mobile t-bird to compare it to. some mobile paliminos have the pr and some don't. and the fact that they run on a slower fsb (and sdram, if i'm not mistaken), but get the same pr as the desktops.



<< And if you were to read more closely, you'd notice that a 3400+ ClawHammer will be running at at least 2GHz, >>

i understand that... hence the "if its true" beginning of my statement. (who was it that needs "to read more closely"?) >>

Well if you were to actually listen to some of Jerry Sander's statements, you'd know that he's been saying "at least" 2GHz for a while now. Why would there even be the possibility of a 2GHz ClawHammer rated at 3400+ if no such thing was ever mentioned to begin with?

As for the mobile ratings, exactly why would a non-existent 1.4GHz mobile Tbird perform any different than a 1.4GHz desktop Tbird? Hence the mobile model rating's legitmacy, no?

However, this is trivial. The point is that MHz is no better than the model ratings as they stand now. So what's the point complaining about the model ratings if there isn't a better alternative? Well?

 

[Sid03]

<< However, this is trivial. The point is that MHz is no better than the model ratings as they stand now. >>

actually, the mhz is an actual fact. not some made up number. is it the only thing to take into consideration when comparing different model cpu's? of course not. but at least its honestly what the cpu is running at.

and you are right, this is trivial. the fact is that the p4 is the fastest processor out, and that amd simply cannot keep up (no matter what pr numbers they manufacture.)

that may change when hammer comes out. but if it's delayed as much as palimino and t-bred has been, then it's going to be a moot point too.

 

[HardWareXpert]

Intel may have the fastest CPU but a £650-700, i'd rather buy a AthlonXP 2100+ for £230, you make it sound as though people in there masses are going to buy a new P4 2.53Ghz.

 

[Sid03]

you think people in masses are buying the 1733mhz athlon? i'll bet that more people are buying the high end p4's.

anyway, i never intended this thread to be intel vs amd. i really like amd's chips. i just think the pr is bs.

 

[sandorski]

Where's the proof of the "bs"? Theoretical speeds need not apply.

 

[AGodspeed]

actually, the mhz is an actual fact.

Yes, and so is the fact that the Pentium 4 has a 20 stage integer pipeline. Would it then be OK for Intel to advertise the Pentium 4 as having a 20 stage integer pipeline which is supposedly "better" than the Athlon's 10 stage integer pipeline? Do you get the point? Just because it's a fact that the best P4 has a certain MHz (e.g. 2.53GHz) doesn't mean it should be used as a measurement of performance.

Similarly, it's not precisely clear to me how AMD comes up with the model rating system, it's based on some formula supposedly. But even if AMD just came up with these numbers from the top of their head, they're still an accurate measurement of performance when compared to the targeted P4 CPU (2000+ versus 2GHz for example). In general, when you look at a wide array of benchmarks, this is true (funnily enough, I've meet people that wouldn't admit a 2000+ is generally faster than a 2GHz P4...).

Yes, I know AMD says its ratings are derived from the previous generation Tbird, however it's quite clear it's versus the P4. It's confusing in some ways that AMD's official statement is that the model rating system is a comparison to previous Tbird generations (however it's possible that AMD just didn't want to admit that Intel is the standard to compare against).

However, knowing that the model rating system equates very well to the P4 (and conservatively in most cases depending on the processor) it's better than only advertising the Athlon's MHz, which would be even more misleading because MHz does not = performance, even though the MHz measurement is a fact.

Is it just zealotry to accept the model rating system for what it is like you claim Sid03? Well I don't know, would it be just zealotry to have a scenario where a common, everyday Joe Average walks into a store and picks up a 1.8GHz P4 system instead of a 1.73GHz AXP system thinking the P4 system was the better performer all because people like you claim that "MHz is fact, even though it doesn't accurately measure performance"? You tell me Sid...

 

[hungrygoose]

the only thing PR is for is to catch the uneducated consumer's eye and make them ask questions so that someone better educated will explain it. .....how can people say that this is a bad marketing ploy?.....it's like when dish detergent companies like Dawn show that they need less of their soap to clean the dishes better than the competitor......how is that bad?.....as long as it can be proven true, they should say watever better helps them sell.....think of it outside of the technology field......it happens everyday.....competition is what keeps this country alive