AMD's PR system is now totally useless!

[Sid03]

<< This comparison is still perfectly valid since it in no way involves intel specifications. Those who believe the PR rating is in comparison to P4 are wrong. Check amd's website out and read up on the rating system. >>

i did check out amd's site, and found this in their faq:


"Q: What do the 2000+, 1900+, 1800+, 1700+, and 1600+ numbers mean?

A: These are model numbers. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz, such as the 2100+, 2000+, 1900+, 1800+, and 1700+ versions. Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors. The AMD Athlon XP processor 2100+ will outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 2.0GHz on a broad array of end-user applications. "


those who believe that amd is not comparing them with a p4 have their eyes closed.

 

[HardWareXpert]

<< <<Because Intel realized that AMD could out perform them easy clock for clock so they made the P4 scalable to aleast 3Ghz.>>

Actually thats not a very accurate statement. The P3 and Original Athlon ran about neck and neck in most benchmarks, they were not "easily outperforming them". The Tbird started to pull away, but by that time they created the P4 for higher mhz cause AMD is the one who started this whole Mhz war. AMD started something they obviously couldn't finish and are now getting toasted mhz to mhz. AMD chose to create this mythical "PR" system to make their chips give the appearance they were faster than what their Mhz rating is. See people really only care about Mhz. AMD was pushing for that because at they were spitting out chips with Higher mhz quicker than intel at the time...always trying to stay ahead. Intel created the P4 and destroyed that little game and you know the rest.

Intel knew they would take a performance loss, but it was worth it to them because of the ability to scale so high and sell chips.

AMD's PR system is a crock of shiit and pathetic. They really need to re-think that whole plan. They have some killer chips already (and more coming in the future we hope). Just sad they can't call their chips what they are. >>



Your words are flawed, The fact is the PR system tells the real truth and that is Mhz means NOTHING and performance is all, Intel consistanly tell people that there P4 huge Mhz is the best, however this a crap because AMD's AthlonXP's clocked at 400Mhz slower can give the same performance, how else are AMD supposed to tell people as they think more Mhz =Faster.

AMD are only at 1.73Mhz but it's performance is equel to that of a 2.2Ghz P4, how the hell are you supposed to tell people that the 1.73Ghz is faster than a 2.2Ghz?, yep, the PR system does that quite well indeed. by saying Mhz means NOTHING, after all your not getting a slower CPU and your paying a third of the price for the same performance.

 

[Demonicon]

AMD's PR scheme sucks, plain and simple.

AMD I think take their customers for complete idiots, if they stray at all from the PR "formula" they are using now, they're hosed.

I believe that Intel is going to use AMD's PR system against them to hurt their sales, since AMD wants everyone thinking this PR formula is the judgment for how their processors perform, what happens when AMD can no longer ramp up with intel and get left behind?

I know T-bred is coming, but Intel is making their move first. Also, I think T-bred is going to be a disaster for AMD and a big mistake.

 

[Sid03]

hardwarexpert, so you believe that a tbird is equal to a p4, clock for clock?


<< The fact is the PR system tells the real truth and that is Mhz means NOTHING and performance is all, Intel consistanly tell people that there P4 huge Mhz is the best, however this a crap... >>

since the p4 is the fastest desktop cpu, how can you say that "this is a crap".

 

[LikeLinus]

<<Your words are flawed, The fact is the PR system tells the real truth and that is Mhz means NOTHING and performance is all, Intel consistanly tell people that there P4 huge Mhz is the best, however this a crap because AMD's AthlonXP's clocked at 400Mhz slower can give the same performance, how else are AMD supposed to tell people as they think more Mhz =Faster.

AMD are only at 1.73Mhz but it's performance is equel to that of a 2.2Ghz P4, how the hell are you supposed to tell people that the 1.73Ghz is faster than a 2.2Ghz?, yep, the PR system does that quite well indeed. by saying Mhz means NOTHING, after all your not getting a slower CPU and your paying a third of the price for the same performance. >>

My words weren't flawed, i never stated Mhz mean jack. Mhz definately DON't mean much now adays, they used to, but not anymore.

The problem lies in the fact that AMD MADE UP this supposed "PR" rating system. That is a serious flaw in itself. There needs to be a non-bias party, or a board of people that set the standards for performance. There needs to be a set standards of benchmarks and test that will represent the true performance of a CPU, not based on Mhz.

AMD has created their OWN rating system which is very flawned, bias, and simply screwed up. There are different performance percentages between one chip and another, even though they are based on the same standard? One chip XP chip @ xxxmhz has a rating of 1700. But the next chip set at xxxmhz has a pr rating of 1800. Now the change in the technology is nihl, they are the same core, same everything. But why does the 1800 have a 15% increase while the 1700 has a 12%. I don't have the actual numbers, but it's been noted that the PR scale is baed on a "Fluxuating Scale" and that several chips have large increases than others. If thats not flawed....i dont know what is.

I'm ALL for a rating system if done non-bias and appropriately. But if Intel made up their own system basing the p4 off the pentium 2 and started saying their 2.4ghz chip is a 5000+, all theses zelots/fanboys would be throwing an absolute fit! It wouldn't be right either! It's not right for AMD to do it, and it's not right for Intel to do it.

 

[HardWareXpert]

Your missing the point, AMD's PR system basiclly tell you that Mhz really does not matter, but performance does, i.e Apple Mac s have a RISC CPU which is less Mhz but would outperform a P4/Athlon clock for clock.

A RISC only has to do 2 (or is it 1?) instructions per clock cycle rather than the Athlon 6 per clock and the P4's 9 per clock. The need for RISC's to have higher clock speeds is not a issue at all since they are more effecient (like Athlon is over P4)

 

[HardWareXpert]

<< hardwarexpert, so you believe that a tbird is equal to a p4, clock for clock?


<< The fact is the PR system tells the real truth and that is Mhz means NOTHING and performance is all, Intel consistanly tell people that there P4 huge Mhz is the best, however this a crap... >>

since the p4 is the fastest desktop cpu, how can you say that "this is a crap". >>



I would put a good bet on a Athlon T-bird beating a P4 1.4Ghz easy.

I have a AthlonXP 1700+ anyone with a P4 1.7/1.8 want to test this PR system?, because my benchmarks will beat it in most games.

 

[MrMaster]

There is NO WAY I could have convinced my friend to get an Athlong XP chip without the PR ratings. Everyone cares about megahertz and when you say the Athlon 1700+ will perform similar to the P4 1.7 and say "here is the benchmarks to prove it" he said wow and got the 1700+. From an ego point of view do you really want to tell someone oh yeah, I just bought a 1.5 gigahertz chip what did you get? I bought a 2 gigahertz chip.

Come on people. Unless you follow the industry people don't even know the difference between a 1 gigahertz P3 compared to a 1 gigahertz celeron. It is the same chip in people's eyes.

 

[HardWareXpert]

One more thing, P4 needs bandwith(RDRAM/DDR) Athlon/AthlonXP still use SDRAM and still keep up with a higher clocked P4, the P4 with SDRAM is totally awful, so take that into consideration because alot of people are buying this crock of crap.

 

[HardWareXpert]

<< There is NO WAY I could have convinced my friend to get an Athlong XP chip without the PR ratings. Everyone cares about megahertz and when you say the Athlon 1700+ will perform similar to the P4 1.7 and say "here is the benchmarks to prove it" he said wow and got the 1700+. From an ego point of view do you really want to tell someone oh yeah, I just bought a 1.5 gigahertz chip what did you get? I bought a 2 gigahertz chip.

Come on people. Unless you follow the industry people don't even know the difference between a 1 gigahertz P3 compared to a 1 gigahertz celeron. It is the same chip in people's eyes. >>



My uncle and grandma have a P4 1.8Ghz/SDRAM system and believe me, my AthlonXP 1700+ totally wipes the floor with them, oh and the same can be said about the one in our office(P4 1.7GHz/RDRAM)

THe Athlon/AthlonXP FPU performance is just way superiour, Unreal Tournament, Seroius Sam, 3D studio Max and a number of other FPU benchmarks prove it is.

 

[Demonicon]

<< One more thing, P4 needs bandwith(RDRAM/DDR) Athlon/AthlonXP still use SDRAM and still keep up with a higher clocked P4, the P4 with SDRAM is totally awful, so take that into consideration because alot of people are buying this crock of crap. >>



Are you making this up as you go? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

 

[Sid03]

<< I would put a good bet on a Athlon T-bird beating a P4 1.4Ghz easy. >>

since the pr scheme says that they are equal, you must realize that it has flaws.



<< My uncle and grandma have a P4 1.8Ghz/SDRAM system... THe Athlon/AthlonXP FPU performance is just way superiour, Unreal Tournament, Seroius Sam, 3D studio Max and a number of other FPU benchmarks prove it is. >>

heh, your grandma must ROCK at ut!

i'm sure she doesn't care how well her pc performs in ut. she cares about other things like a quiet system that doesn't heat up the room. or maybe that it won't burn up if the cooling fails.



<< I have a AthlonXP 1700+ anyone with a P4 1.7/1.8 want to test this PR system?, >>

sure, i'm game! i'll pick the benchmarks.

 

[Wolfsraider]

i once believed that the rating system was flawed but the benchmarks are there to support
amd's claims that their processors are as good as intels and it does prove this also i believe
that amd is cheaper in most cases so that makes it a good value in my book

but there are strong points for each processor as well as weak points for both

so depending on your needs/wants should be what determines which you buy.

why does it always have to end in a mine's bigger debate?

every company uses marketing strategies to make their product the best in the consumers eyes but some take this waaaay to seriously lol


take care

mike

 

[dullard]

"AMD has created their OWN rating system which is very flawned, bias, and simply screwed up."
I'll agree with that.

"I don't have the actual numbers, but it's been noted that the PR scale is baed on a "Fluxuating Scale" and that several chips have large increases than others. If thats not flawed....i dont know what is."
The PR scale they have used is not fluxuating at all - each chip uses the same formula. This formula is:

PR=1.5*Frequency - 500.

For example the 1600 MHz Athlon XP gets a rating of 1.5*1600 - 500 = 1900. This holds for all of the Athlons.

There are major flaws with this:
1) How many benchmarks have you seen where one the speed differences are such nice looking numbers like 1.5 or 500? Thus AMD never actually benchmarked them, they just used a nice looking formula.
2) The PR of theoretical 950 MHz Athlon is slower than a 950 MHz T-bird. We all know that the Athlon is an improved T-bird so the formula is dead wrong in this extreme. The Athlon is always faster or equal to a T-bird, never slower.
3) In the other extreme of large speeds, the PR rating says PR~1.5*Frequency. (The ~ symbol means approximately). Thus it predicts the improvements from the T-bird to the Athlon to give a full 50% speed boost. Yes there were some core changes, but they give no where near a full 50% boost. 25% would be much more accurate.
4) Any improvements in the Athlon aren't included in this PR scale. Thus when Throughbred comes along, it will either need a whole new PR scale, or it will be really flawed. How many different PR scales can we keep track of?
5) The PR scale is supposedly based on a T-bird. When my grandmother wants to buy her first computer and she sees a PR scale does she wonder "what is the equivalent T-bird speed?". No way! She has never heard of a T-bird, so she doesn't want a comparison to a T-bird. Instead she wants something to compare to the P4's that are also in the store.
6) AMD made the PR rating, this makes it an easilly biased benchmark. A good PR rating would be independantly tested.

 

[Diable]

<< Redshirt, has anyone yet mentioned that nearly everyone uses DDR instead of PC1066 and there's a very very very extremley large performance disparity between the performance of a PC266 Pentium4 machine and a PC1066 pentium4 machine? Next time try comparing the AthlonXP 2100+ with PC266 memory running at CAS 2.5 to the Pentium4 running the same (This is standard config for alot of OEM's) and better yet test the 2.2 or the 2.0 against the AthlonXP 2100+ and I guarantee you you'll be eating your words. >>



The above is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read. Why would your cripple the P4 by running it on a slower platform? Are you gonna run the XP on a old KT133 board to? Dell, Gateway, Micron, Compaq and H/P all sell PC's with RDRAM so that comment holds no weight. As long as you can buy a motherboard that uses the i850 or i860 chipset its perfectly ok to benchmark using RDRAM.

 

[Rectalfier]

iamgod2u

"Ok, that's BS and you know it. The P7 design started in 1996. You honestly think Intel thought "gee, well AMD will release the K7 and beat us in the MHz in 1999, so we've gotta start on a MHz monster now?". "


No it's not BS. Face the facts. AMD released the K6 in 1996, and was actually faster in Mhz than Intel at the time. Craig Barret then stated, "we will never let AMD get faster Mhz than us again". Intel did not want to be lagging in Mhz, so they purposely created a processor such.

Face it - The PR rating is here to stay as long as the parity between performance and Mhz is so wide.

 

[SteelCityFan]

<< Intel are also fooling people with the 400MhzFSB which is 4x100Mhz quadpumped, adding more pipes to the bus dont make things better, making the water flow faster down the pipes does. Very few apps and games take advantage of heavy bandwith thats why in anything using FPU the Athlon wiped the floor with P4. >>



You need to change your name and FAST!!

Adding more pipes? WTF? Where did you get that?


Are you saying that AMD is not fooling people when they claim their 133FSB is 266Mhz?

http://athlonxp.amd.com/technicalInformation/

AMD calls theirs 266Mhz because they transfer data 2 times per clock... once on the rising edge, and once on the falling edge. How is it that Intel is fooling people by saying that their is Quadpumped, while AMD is not about their double pumped? Intel's FSB tranfers data FOUR TIMES per clock cycle... two times on both the rising and falling edges. This is what gives you your 100x4, which is the same place AMD gets their 133x2.

Educate yourself...

AnAndTech Article

The bandwidth on RDRAM is so high, something like this capable of supplying that bandwidth to the CPU was needed. The 400Mhz (now 533Mhz) FSB of the P4 was needed.


At least you used the past tense "wiped". I have to give you credit for that.

 

[Nemesis77]

People, you are arguing about name of a product! Since when have product-names been really descripotive? My Laptop is Compaq Evo N600c, yet it only has 256 megs of RAM. It's HD is 28GB. So what is this 600 then???? Ati has a video-card called Ati Radeon 7200. 7200 what? It ain't it's fill-rate, it aint it's memory-bandwidth.

So what if AMD decides to name it's CPU 2000+ (or whatever). They are not claiming it to be MHz or anything of the sort, it's just name of the product.

My VCR is JVC HR-J711. 711 what? How does that decribe the product? It doesn't. Yet I don't complain. But people complain when AMD names their CPU's in certain way?? Oh please. At least their naming-scheme has some basis in reality, and that's more I can say for alot of other products.

 

[SteelCityFan]

<< People, you are arguing about name of a product! Since when have product-names been really descripotive? My Laptop is Compaq Evo N600c, yet it only has 256 megs of RAM. It's HD is 28GB. So what is this 600 then???? Ati has a video-card called Ati Radeon 7200. 7200 what? It ain't it's fill-rate, it aint it's memory-bandwidth.

So what if AMD decides to name it's CPU 2000+ (or whatever). They are not claiming it to be MHz or anything of the sort, it's just name of the product.

My VCR is JVC HR-J711. 711 what? How does that decribe the product? It doesn't. Yet I don't complain. But people complain when AMD names their CPU's in certain way?? Oh please. At least their naming-scheme has some basis in reality, and that's more I can say for alot of other products. >>



The problem is that it is deceptive.. Sure they have not said they have a 2100Mhz chip, but most a ton of people have told me they have a 2000Mhz AMD or whatever. There is an obvious link to the Mhz of a P4. People can quote their webpage all they want, but I am not quite that gullible. The PR system was made to "look" like Mhz, and there is no denying that. It is deceptive to most people.

 

[CQuinn]

<< Your missing the point, AMD's PR system basiclly tell you that Mhz really does not matter, but performance does, i.e Apple Mac s have a RISC CPU which is less Mhz but would outperform a P4/Athlon clock for clock. >>



That is incorrect, the area that the G4 CPUs are usually promoted is in apps that take advantage of the
AltiVec processing, which is not RISC instructions by any means.

Besides, both the P4 and the Althon decode their higher level instructions into simplified code for processing, giving
them somewaht equal footing to straight RISC CPUs.



<< A RISC only has to do 2 (or is it 1?) instructions per clock cycle rather than the Athlon 6 per clock and the P4's 9 per clock. The need for RISC's to have higher clock speeds is not a issue at all since they are more effecient (like Athlon is over P4) >>



RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) works by breaking down each instruction into more simplified steps,
which makes it easier for the CPU to deal with; but at the same time that means the processor has to handle many
more instructions in the same amount of time in order to process the same amount of information.

To say that a RISC CPU is more efficient because it processes less instructions per cycle seems to go against the
very logic of using RISC, as far as I understand it.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< The problem is that it is deceptive. >>



Well, if we use the rating to compare the chip to P4, we see that for the most part it's pretty accurate. Sure there are benchmarks where it doesn't hold water, but overall it's pretty accurate.

And if it's so deceptive, why aren't you campaigning against other companies that use deceptive names, like Ati with Radeon 7200?



<< Sure they have not said they have a 2100Mhz chip, but most a ton of people have told me they have a 2000Mhz AMD or whatever. >>



If they are that ignorant when it comes to computers, that really is their problem.



<< There is an obvious link to the Mhz of a P4. >>



If there is a link, then how can it be deceptive? If there is a link, it would suggest that Athlon XP 2100+ has overall performance somewhere between 2000 and 2200 MHz P4 (and, surprise surprise, it does!).



<< People can quote their webpage all they want, but I am not quite that gullible. The PR system was made to "look" like Mhz, and there is no denying that. It is deceptive to most people. >>



So what if it isn't about MHz? Why should they use MHz in the name of the chip? Don't you know that MHz is a good indicator of performance when comparing chips inside one CPU family (for example, 2.1 GHz P4 is faster than 2.0GHz P4 if the chips are identical), but it fails horrible when comparing two different families (like Athlon XP and Pentium 4). Using the MHz would be equally deceptive, maybe even more so, since people who bought 2GHz P4 would mistakenly believe that their CPU kills 1730MHz Athlon XP (it doesn't).

 

[CQuinn]

<sarcasm> If that is deceptive, then should I get mad at Intel when I buy a P4 and don't get to meet little gray aliens
along with it? </sarcasm>

But seriously, has owning an Intel CPU really made your internet move any faster?

 

[SteelCityFan]

<< And if it's so deceptive, why aren't you campaigning against other companies that use deceptive names, like Ati with Radeon 7200? >>



Totally different. Now, if Video cards had a long istory of bing rated and categorized based on Mhz, and Nvidia had a 600 to 400Mhz advantage, I would feel the same way about ATI if they decided to start calling their card a 600+. Video cards have always been given model numbers, and no one has it in their mind that that number means anything other than a company specific rating. When AMD uses numbers so close to Intel's Mhz numbers, a large number of people will assume 2100+ means Mhz.



<< If they are that ignorant when it comes to computers, that really is their problem. >>



Some people are just that way. I am sure that when you first got into PC's that you did not know everything about them. People new to buying PC's can easy assume 2100+ = 2100Mhz.




<< So what if it isn't about MHz? Why should they use MHz in the name of the chip? Don't you know that MHz is a good indicator of performance when comparing chips inside one CPU family (for example, 2.1 GHz P4 is faster than 2.0GHz P4 if the chips are identical), but it fails horrible when comparing two different families (like Athlon XP and Pentium 4). Using the MHz would be equally deceptive, maybe even more so, since people who bought 2GHz P4 would mistakenly believe that their CPU kills 1730MHz Athlon XP (it doesn't). >>



I have no problem with a rating system for CPU's, HOWEVER, that rating system should not be developed by the company that is going to use it. An independant third party would have to be the rating authority, and each company would have to list that rating on their box. Right now, Mhz is the only thing not biased.

 

[RedShirt]

The thing that I think will have to happen is AMD will have to change their scale, because if it is kept the same, the Athlons will preform worse than the PIV's.

As of right now, the ratings are still correct, as an AMD Athlon XP 2100+ beats the Intel 2.2 GHz in most areas, however, this is going to change at higher speeds. This is why I said that the scale is now useless, maybe I should have said, "AMD'S PR system is going to be totally useless".

I am not a big fan of PR ratings ever since the day when I got a Cyrix MII 200 processor. This is when I was first getting into building computers (and this was not for me, it was for someone else who just needed to do office tasks, so no bashing over the Cyrix Proc please). I thought this chip was 200 MHz, but it was 150 or something like that. It needed a 75 Mhz bus or something, and eventually the RAM didn't like the strange bus speed.

AMD does not do things this bad, they keep everything in spec and have done a good job in their comparisons, but the scale just will not work for faster AMD chips. I bet they will change it and make it more confusing.

So in the end, they will probably change their scale, just showing how unscientific their PR system is.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< Right now, Mhz is the only thing not biased. >>



Yeah, right

. By that logic 1GHz Celeron beats 900MHz UltraSPARC III (hint: it doesn't). What's that? "You can't compare those two CPU's because they are of different CPU-families!"? Well, how can you then compare Athlon XP and Pentium 4 then by using just MHz? The answer: you can't!