Intel imitates AMD!

[Technoid]

Intel adopts a "PR" scheme for its line of cpu's :

Source

[High_Jumbllama]

So then a PIV3.2ghz would be an Intel 3000-?

[skinrock]

I think AMD is a little misleading. A lot of people look at P4's and see 3.2 GHz, and that's how fast its clocked (or so I'm guessing, I have a 2.4 that runs at 2.4), and then they see an AMD 3200+, and they think, hmm maybe it's faster, when in fact it runs at 2.2 GHz. Of course there are a lot of other factors here, but it's one of those things where AMD is using it to their advantage, giving the processors numbers in relation to older processors. So where Intel is going with this, I don't know, but for the general public, it's not fair to give something a number that doesn't truly describe the product. Oh wait, what am I thinking, that's big business for ya.

[bsdgeek]

But the rating system was fairly accurate up until the latter part of the Athlon XP era, and with the A64s it's become accurate again. One might even say it's a bit conservative.

[skinrock]

Yea, I have to agree with ya there, but that's what I'm talking about, the new Athlon XP's, like I said, releasing a "3200+" that runs at 2.2. The 64's are fairly new though, so we shall see.

[Helevitia]

Originally posted by skinrock
Yea, I have to agree with ya there, but that's what I'm talking about, the new Athlon XP's, like I said, releasing a "3200+" that runs at 2.2. The 64's are fairly new though, so we shall see.

but that is the whole point. Their 2.2GHz chip can run as fast a an Intel 3.2GHz chip so they call it a 3200 so people see it runs the same speed as Intel.

Dave

[skinrock]

So...when you say run as fast, do you mean, it can run 3.2 or the fact that the Intel 3.2 is only running at 2.2? Because I know the AthlonXP's may not clock as fast, but I heard they are more efficient running XP. I just didn't know if the actual clockspeed was up there.

[Wombat]

What he means is that clockspeed has nothing to do with comparing two different processor designs.

[mmp121]

Originally posted by Helevitia
but that is the whole point. Their 2.2GHz chip can run as fast a an Intel 3.2GHz chip so they call it a 3200 so people see it runs the same speed as Intel.

Dave

I think what Dave is trying to say is that at 2.2Ghz the AMD64 (PR 3200+) chip can do as much work (calculations) as a 3.2Ghz Intel P4 can. Hope that clears up any confusion you might have Skinrock. I for one am all in favor of AMD's PR rating. I don't know how Intel is going to do their rating, because AMD was using their ratings to mirror Intel's MHz speed.

[skinrock]

Ok, I gotcha, yea that clears it up, thanks!

[Jon P. Inghram]

It's just gonna confuse people even more. An Intel P4 3500 will be clocked at 4 GHz, while the AMD 3500's run at 2.5 GHz.

[Wombat]

FYI, I'm pretty sure that AMD's PR rating is officially based off of the 1GHz Thunderbird Athlon being a 1000XP rate. So a 3200XP processor is 3.2x as fast.

[Chrono_Wanderer]

nay, not that confusing...

@skinrock: In fact, I think processor's performance should not be labelled by clockspeed. IMO this clockspeed thing is misleading instead. If the average joe thinks a P4 3.2GHz = A64 3.2GHz, then that's just plain wrong. Unfortunately the average joe relates performance with clockspeed, and that would be unfair for AMD. The Athlon is a lot harder to clock than a P4... it has to do with the processor design. Athlon 64 has like 10 stages pipeline, while the P4 Prescott has like 30. Its like, if we count processor speed only by clockspeed, then AMD taking the effort to implement hyper-transport would be not fair. only by using the PR system, it would be fair for AMD IMO.

[Mehen]

Simply put, AMDs can do more operations per pass through the cpu so it requires less passes to do the same amount of work as a P4. This is why AMDs scale better, but it also makes it harder for them to get the big overclocks, or just regular clock rates, because it gets too hard to go through the entire cycle, hence the lower clock speeds of the AMDs vs. the P4.

[az]

It's like cars. A car with 500 HP may be slower than one with "only" 400 HP. There are many many other things to consider, and it's stupid to only look at HP or displacement.

AZ