| ||Thread Tools|
|25th May 2002, 18:14||#1|
Join Date: May 2002
INFO: AMD PR Rating (XP1800+ etc..)
The AMD PR rating is based on the Tbird. It could never be based on the P4 as intel would sue the bollocks off AMD for doing it. I wont even bother insulting you for being such an inbred, youve managed to make yourself look a far bigger fool than I could ever have done.
On page 9 of this white paper released by AMD you can see that the XP1500+ is in fact far above the P4 1.8 in normalized performance ratings, and nowhere near equal to the P4 1.5. If AMD were indeed comparing their cpus to the P4 then thyve done themselves a great dis-service.
Quote from page 6 of same white paper on model number approach :
"Desktop processors based on the "Palomino" core will be marketed as AMD Athlon XP Processors. Higher numbers equate higher pefromance. The first member of the AMD Athlon XP Processor family, the AMD Athlon XP processor 1500+ provides more performance than the current 1.4ghz AMD Athlon processor."
From this quote you can see that AMDs PR methodology is infact only inplace to show people that their lower clocked processors infact perform higher than their previous mhz marked CPUs. There is no sinister comparison between P4s and XPs, its merely to show joe public that the 1333mzh Xp is faster than the 1.4ghz athlon. The 1500+ shows that its the next model along from the 1.4ghz tbird.
On page 6 of this white paper on understanding processor performance by AMD you can clearly see that under their test conditions the 1.4ghz Athlon Thunderbird infact significantly outperforms the 1.7ghz P4. By your reasoning this would infact mean that the 1.4ghz tbird is as fast or faster than the 1700+ XP. Again completely wrong.
When comparing benchmark data on whitepapers for the AThlon and the Athlon XP you can quite clearly see that the 1500+ XP is almost exactly what you would expect in performance from an Athlon 1.5ghz. The performance increase along the Athlon range is for all intents and purposes a linear increase, as is the performance increase across the XP range. The performance results you would expect from a 1.5ghz Tbird are within 0.4% of the results from the 1500+. The same can be said if you project performance for the Tbird up to 2100mhz comparing directly to XP model numbers equal to the mhz rating of the Tbird. Basic maths.
Some 10 days after realease of the XP AMD was legally obliged to release a small article on exactly what the XP performance scale was based on after a review at toms hardware (that guy has a hell of a lot to answer for) reported that the XP model number was indicative of its comparitive performance with a P4. They duely released this article in which it was outlined that the XP rating system was infact based on projecting performance of a Thunderbird core across to the Palomino platform. They were legally obliged to make this article available to the general public for a term of 3 months. After this the article was taken down (good business sense if you ask me) because even tho it was dumbing down the XPs performance, it was a comparison which joe public could relate to, and overall very good for PR to allow the public to think this. AMD NEVER ONCE stated that the XP rating is compared to the P4. In all the white papers released on the XP and its architecture it is compared to a P4 1.5 or 1.7 and in every paper the 1500+ is shown to outperform both these processors.
Feel free to quote as many second rate hardware sites as you like - the fact is AMD has never and will never suggest that the performance numbers of its XP processors are related to the P4 as its simply not the case. The only reason this idea is floating around is because of toms hardware and the particularly gullible people who were sucked in by his review. AMD catagorically stated that the XP rating system was based on the thunderbird core and thats all there is to it. Show me one instance where AMD is quoted as saying its PR system is realted to the P4. you cant. Because they dont.
Im sure somebody will come up with the quote from AMDs article on the XP performance rating system as it was front page on a hell of a lot of hardware sites when all this P4 comparison crap was floating about.
No hard feelings, just the truth....
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|AMD Launches 45nm Triple Core Phenom II with DDR3 support||jmke||WebNews||0||9th February 2009 10:26|
|AMD Announces Widespread Availability and Broad Global OEM Support for New Quad-Core||jmke||WebNews||0||13th November 2008 17:17|
|AMD GAME! Enables Console-like Simplicity for Mainstream PCs||jmke||WebNews||9||19th May 2008 21:51|
|AMD Introduces ‘AMD Business Class’, Designed With Business in Mind||jmke||WebNews||0||28th April 2008 10:33|
|AMD Launches World’s First x86 Triple-Core Processors||jmke||WebNews||0||27th March 2008 16:16|
|AMD Introduces Three New Dual-Core AMD Opteron™ Processors||jmke||WebNews||0||12th March 2006 20:25|
|INFO: What AMD Athlon CPU's are there and what are the differences between them||jmke||FAQ / INFO / HOW-TO||15||25th February 2005 09:06|
|INFO: Reading the OPN code on your AMD Athlon 64 to find out what CPU you have||jmke||FAQ / INFO / HOW-TO||1||6th October 2004 15:35|
|AMD Introduces Industry's First Embedded x86 Performance-Power Rating System||Sidney||WebNews||0||24th May 2004 07:12|
|AMD Introduces Line of Low-Power, High-Performance AMD Geode Embedded x86 Processors||Sidney||WebNews||0||24th May 2004 07:10|