Who's naming scheme is the stupidist

[dmw16]

Well...?



Sorry, messed that poll up, there was supposed to be two choices


EDIT: Added a third choice just for carni

 

[nick1985]

get hit by a bus

 

[carni]

Well I met a guy named Cookie, so I would say parents....

 

[Anubis]

intells

 

[Cheetah8799]

I don't understand the question...

Naming like Sempron, Opteron, Thoroughbred, Barton, Northwood?

or

AMD 2500+, Intel 2.4GHz, AMD 3200+, Intel 3.0GHz?


I'd have to say the whole GHz to ####+ model thing between Intel and Amd just messes up the non-computer-savvy customers. It's all a marketing thing. The model names though don't bother me.

 

[dullard]

Intel's is pretty confusing. But I can't get over a performance rated part (supposedly based on a part that expired years ago) that the ratings don't match the speed. 3100+ parts running slower than 2800+ parts for example. There goes any credibility they had in their ratings before. Thus I grudgingly voted AMD.

 

[imported_jediknight]

I'd say AMD's naming scheme is worse.. considering that we have now, what 3 3000+ processors?
At least with Intel, it's pretty clear: 300 < 500 < 700 series. It's not so clear with AMD's scheme:
we know a 3000+A64 > 3000+ Sempron or 3000+ XP, but what about a 2800+ A64 vs a 3000+ Sempron or XP?

That said, more obfuscation by hardware manufacturers = more reason to read Anandtech, so it's all good :->

 

[Budman]

 

[CraigRT]

They both suck... but the Intel one is slightly worse because it basically gives you NO idea based on model number, how fast the CPU's really are.

Celeron 520? .... retarded

I originally thought AMD's was bad, but that's just stupid!

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: CraigRT
They both suck... but the Intel one is slightly worse because it basically gives you NO idea based on model number, how fast the CPU's really are.

Celeron 520? .... retarded

I originally thought AMD's was bad, but that's just stupid!

I agree totally.
I can understand AMD doing it for the server market (Opteron's), but for desktop CPU's,, it makes it impossible to know what the hell you may be getting half the time.
At least AMD's numbering gives you an idea of what to expect!

 

[sandorski]

Intel's. You have a ballpark figure when you buy an AMD, but with Intel you just know the 7xx is faster than 5xx. That said, as others have alluded to, AMD's system is not totally reliable either, most noted by the XP 3000+ vs 64 3000+ vs Sempron 3000+ differences. What we really need is a Third Party naming scheme that rates all CPUs based upon a rigid selection of tests. I'd prefer a MHZ based numbering system(like AMD's), but it has to be consistant with no overlapping CPUs with the same Model# with differing Performance.

Though some like to compare Sempron with Celeron(a fair comparison to be sure) and explain away AMD's Model# scheme for the Sempron, it only serves to undermine AMD's Model# scheme in the end. A 3000+ should always be better than a 2800+ and less than a 3200+ of any iteration. Just because Intel was deceptive with MHZ and Celeron, doesn't mean AMD should as well.

I wish Tom, Anand, and other Hardware sites would get together and devise such a Processor Rating scheme. If they stuck to using the scheme eventually AMD and Intel would have to acknowledge it and perhaps even use it for themselves. It is obvious that AMD and Intel are not going to volunteer to subject themselves to such a scheme, it'll have to be thrust upon them by popular demand and/or by Consumers learning to ignore their schemes.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Intel's. You have a ballpark figure when you buy an AMD, but with Intel you just know the 7xx is faster than 5xx. That said, as others have alluded to, AMD's system is not totally reliable either, most noted by the XP 3000+ vs 64 3000+ vs Sempron 3000+ differences. What we really need is a Third Party naming scheme that rates all CPUs based upon a rigid selection of tests. I'd prefer a MHZ based numbering system(like AMD's), but it has to be consistant with no overlapping CPUs with the same Model# with differing Performance.

Though some like to compare Sempron with Celeron(a fair comparison to be sure) and explain away AMD's Model# scheme for the Sempron, it only serves to undermine AMD's Model# scheme in the end. A 3000+ should always be better than a 2800+ and less than a 3200+ of any iteration. Just because Intel was deceptive with MHZ and Celeron, doesn't mean AMD should as well.

I wish Tom, Anand, and other Hardware sites would get together and devise such a Processor Rating scheme. If they stuck to using the scheme eventually AMD and Intel would have to acknowledge it and perhaps even use it for themselves. It is obvious that AMD and Intel are not going to volunteer to subject themselves to such a scheme, it'll have to be thrust upon them by popular demand and/or by Consumers learning to ignore their schemes.

I agree AMD's whole 3200+XP/2800+A64/3100+Sempron is kinda lame, but atleast it is within a closer range~ With Intel there is NO WAY a 2.8Celery is as fast a 2.6P4 in overall usage~ So while the 3100+ Sempron preforms within the range; a Celery is far off the mark.

but that said, i think each line has its own"mhz" rating and in the end the way to gauge the two lines is "oh, 3100+ for a Sempron is equal to about a 2800+ for the A64 line"

If you can think that Mhz are not indepdendant of different kindsof processors the confusion is lessend...or just read AT a lot and memorize it all

And I agree with a third party standard...but like you said it must be FORCED upon them; they will not accept it otherwise

 

[gwai lo]

I don't see why they can't just give us the clock speed and leave it at that.

I think AMD's is pretty bad, at least with intel there's a page to define all the processor numbers.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: gwai lo
I don't see why they can't just give us the clock speed and leave it at that.

Because the general public has bigger penis envy. the larger the number = better for them. they can't grasp the fact a 2Ghz AMD can match something faster from Intel.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: lnguyen

Originally posted by: gwai lo
I don't see why they can't just give us the clock speed and leave it at that.

Because the general public has bigger penis envy. the larger the number = better for them. they can't grasp the fact a 2Ghz AMD can match something faster from Intel.

aka: MHZ is more useless than the current Model# schemes.

 

[corkyg]

Why must polls be cast in a negative light? Why not ask which naming scheme is the smartest?

 

[SleepWalkerX]

i don't know what you guys are talking about. its pretty clear with AMD's naming scheme. but intel's is just plain retarded. they should've just left it at the MHz rating..

 

[Oyeve]

Im still trying to figure out why intel still calls their chips Pentium 4. It literally mean Five Four. I liked it better when it was simply 8086, 8088, 286, 386, 486. They should have kept going....586, 686, 786 etc.

 

[dguy6789]

I can see it now.

And thus the new AMD cpu gets a score of 925 anands, quite a step up from the previous one of 796 anands hehe.

 

[JBT]

Intel's new thing is plain stupid. I didn't like AMD's before but Intel totaly blew it out of the water.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I can see it now.

And thus the new AMD cpu gets a score of 925 anands, quite a step up from the previous one of 796 anands hehe.

Hehe, I like, can't wait for the 1000 Anands barrier to be broken!

 

[McMadman]

I voted the third options just.. because.

Both of the labeling schemes are pretty awful. First we had the mhz ratings which were somewhat useful back in their days, but nowadays most improvements will be had with core changes to the processor or fsb speed rather than just making the part faster. Celerons don't help matters here either, considering we've seen how the classic celerons performed even at their "2.6ghz" rating.

AMD has their "pr" scheme which a lot of people will see something like "3500+" and think it'd compare to an intel 3.5ghz, which will lead to confusion among the uninformed. Their overlapping model numbers really don't help matters either. (333fsb athlon xp 3000+, or 400fsb athlon xp 3000+)

I'm sure as time goes on we'll see even more ridiculous naming schemes from both companies, as well as video cards (GeForce FX and AMD's FX-53 gee.. trying to imply that they're supposed to work well together?)

Just proves the fact that you can't buy anything based on a name, you really want to do some research on the product(s) in question and see how they compare against similar products in a specific price range. Yeah, right.. like the average consumer will research anything computer wise.

 

[bcoupland]

Originally posted by: corkyg
Why must polls be cast in a negative light? Why not ask which naming scheme is the smartest?

Why? Because none of them are smart.

 

[randumb]

Intel.

 

[bcoupland]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I can see it now.

And thus the new AMD cpu gets a score of 925 anands, quite a step up from the previous one of 796 anands hehe.

Hehe, I like, can't wait for the 1000 Anands barrier to be broken!

Official Press Release: April 30th, 2023: Advanced Micro Devices (tm), a publicly traded company on the NYSE, NASDAQ, has just recently announced a new naming scheme. Processor speed (Anands, or Andz. for short) will now be represented by a model number. For example, the new Athlon69++ running @ 6 billion MegaAndz, will now be know as 75,000,000,00+. Says one analyst, It has been shown that AMD is significantly faster clock for clock than the Intel Penteleronium22 (tm).

Lesson: It's a vicious cycle. live with it.