also @ TechSpot: Nortel's internal network "owned" by hackers for almost a decade
Welcome to the TechSpot OpenBoards. Please read the FAQ if you have any questions. Sign up or Login to participate.
Go Back   TechSpot OpenBoards > TechSpot Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page AMD's Model Numbers, Intel query them

Collaborate in the cloud with Office, Exchange, SharePoint, and Lync

AMD's Model Numbers, Intel query them
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 03-13-2002
Arris's Avatar
TechSpot Evangelist
  
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Member since: Feb 2002, 4,083 posts
System specs
AMD's Model Numbers, Intel query them
Hardwarecentral have an interesting article discussing the pros and cons of AMD's performance rating system. Since the Athlon XP has been AMD's most successful processor to date, Intel have been querying their rating system and suggesting that it confuses consumers more than it clarifies the actual performance that the chips give.

Quote:
From hardware.earthweb.com:

We start off with an Athlon XP 1500+ running at 1.33GHz and end with an XP 2000+ running at 1.67GHz. Sounds about right, with a 333MHz core speed increase alongside a 500-point jump in the model numbers. If you compare the actual megahertz per PR score for each processor, however, things get weird -- the higher the model number, the exponentially faster the performance rating.

This is due to starting the 1.33GHz Athlon XP off at a relatively high 1500+ rating (88MHz per 100 PR points), then using a totally different 66MHz per 100 points for the following models. A different way to look at it is to take imaginary steps down the scale, to find that a theoretical Athlon XP 1000+ would actually run at 1.0GHz, while any lower-speed processors would feature clock rates in excess of their performance ratings.

....

Intel seems bound and determined to jeer and resist any proposed move to a performance-ratings solution, probably because it enjoys a substantial clock-speed advantage in the current market. This strikes me as a bit ironic, because with the introduction of the Pentium 4 Northwood, Intel might actually benefit from some sort of performance rating comparison.

That's because the Northwood's 0.13-micron-process design and larger L2 cache deliver a higher level of performance per clock speed than the older Pentium 4. Sound familiar? The Northwood is an impressive processor, but its marketing puts Intel between a rock and hard place: If you're Joe Consumer, which would you buy, a Pentium 4/2.0A Northwood or slightly cheaper Pentium 4/2.0? According to Intel's conventional wisdom, 2.0GHz is 2.0GHz, so you're safe to save a few bucks with the older model.
Is there a need for a new industry standard for performance rating?
Last edited by Arris; 03-13-2002 at 08:28 AM..
  #2  
Old 03-13-2002
uncleel's Avatar
TechSpot Maniac
  
Location: Naugatuck Valley, CT
Member since: Feb 2002, 1,145 posts
which means *ntel is losing market share & is worried.
  #3  
Old 03-13-2002
Arris's Avatar
TechSpot Evangelist
  
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Member since: Feb 2002, 4,083 posts
System specs
Quote:
Originally posted by uncleel
which means *ntel is losing market share & is worried.
Yup. It does seem to be the case.
AMD seem to be getting into a stronger position.
Its going to make the rest of the pre-64bit releases very interesting. I am most looking forward to the Barton 0.13 SOI release.... With Intel at 0.13 and AMD at 0.13 + SOI it should be interesting to see who comes out top.
  #4  
Old 03-14-2002
Arris's Avatar
TechSpot Evangelist
  
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Member since: Feb 2002, 4,083 posts
System specs
Intel adopts PR rating/ part number shock?
Quote:
From theregister:

We understand that this will have a lower clock speed than P4 mobiles, yet deliver better performance. Will there be more PR ratings on the cards?

Maybe not, but Intel´s choice of one little letter represents a small, very small, victory, we think, for AMD in the Megahertz Madness war.
  #5  
Old 03-14-2002
Arris's Avatar
TechSpot Evangelist
  
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Member since: Feb 2002, 4,083 posts
System specs
http://www.spec.org/

Quote:
Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation
MISSION: To establish, maintain, and endorse a standardized set of relevant benchmarks and metrics for performance evaluation of modern computer systems
  #6  
Old 03-16-2002
uncleel's Avatar
TechSpot Maniac
  
Location: Naugatuck Valley, CT
Member since: Feb 2002, 1,145 posts
Quote:
AMD saw Commerical Growth In 2001
by Julio @ 9:47 PM - [Comments]
http://www.3dspotlight.com/
AMD today announced significant year over year market share growth in 2001 based on shipments for both the commercial and consumer desktop PC markets worldwide, according to Gartner Dataquest.

Overall, AMD's worldwide market share increased from 18 percent in 2000 to 22 percent in 2001 for Windows®-based desktop shipments, according to Gartner Dataquest.

AMD posted gains in several U.S. commercial desktop market segments. From Q4 2000 to Q4 2001, market share in the U.S. small business desktop sector rose from 20 percent to 37 percent and in the U.S. medium business desktop market share increased from 11 percent to 28 percent. For the same quarters, the U.S. desktop education market share grew from 12 percent to 17 percent and growth in the U.S. desktop government sector doubled to 32 percent. In other regions of the world, AMD processor-based desktop PCs accounted for 42 percent of PCs shipped to the Japanese home desktop PC market in 2001. AMD ended 2001 with 41 percent market share of home desktop PCs in Western Europe and 28 percent market share of home desktop PCs in Eastern Europe. All figures reflect Windows®-based desktop market segments.
  #7  
Old 03-17-2002
uncleel's Avatar
TechSpot Maniac
  
Location: Naugatuck Valley, CT
Member since: Feb 2002, 1,145 posts
Which pot is calling which kettle black.
AMD's Model Numbers Revisited
[SIZE=3]Will the Athlon XP's Success Force Intel -- and AMD -- To Clear CPU Confusion?[/SIZE] By Vince Freeman
http://hardware.earthweb.com/main/ar...989591,00.html
Quote:
an alleged Intel marketing brochure is now making the rounds of the Internet, getting in a few jabs about how AMD saw no need for model numbers when it had the lead in megahertz, and accusing the Athlon XP team of underhandedly confusing consumers.

Intel may insist that clock speed is the best metric, but if so, what in heck is the difference between the 2.0GHz and 2.0AGHz Pentium 4s? Which pot is calling which kettle black.


Intel knows that the Athlon XP ratings are quite fair, and in many ways even understate comparative performance. What AMD's strange math means is that its processors below the XP 2000+ are actually a bit faster than their performance ratings would attest.

The Athlon XP 1500+ would beat the 1.5GHz Pentium 4 more soundly than the XP 2000+ ever could the 2.0GHz Pentium 4. This extra bang for buck from the lower-speed Athlon XPs is something Intel would probably not like consumers to know -- nor, maybe, would AMD, since those value-priced CPUs' profit margins are likely lower.









  #8  
Old 03-18-2002
uncleel's Avatar
TechSpot Maniac
  
Location: Naugatuck Valley, CT
Member since: Feb 2002, 1,145 posts
Quote:
Originally posted by uncleel
which means *ntel is losing market share & is worried.
[SIZE=3]AMD dented Intel market share [/SIZE] http://www.theinquirer.net/18030209.htm
Quote:
"aggressive moves" by AMD last year meant its share of X86 processors grew to 20 per cent worldwide.
Closed Thread

Similar Topics
Topic Replies Forum
Are there model numbers for the fx5200 cards? 4 Audio and Video
AMD's M2 vs 939 12 Processors and Motherboards
Intel to release new Pentium 4 model 1 General Discussion
IP Numbers 6 Software Apps

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:16 AM.