In this article

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927

It shows an Athlon 2000 (1.67ghz) clearly with more performance than a 2.6 Celeron. If I were a unknowing consumer, I'd probably think that the 2.6 celeron was the better choice.

We should stop complaining to AMD for trying to come up with a better rating system. We should be upset with Intel for all of its misleading performance mhz myths.

Everyone should applaud AMD.

Scott, in order for there to be a "performance metric" it is necessary that the major cpu suppliers all agree to it. That's not negotiable. Simply put, if Intel won't agree, and the record is clear that AMD has been trying to get Intel to agree for years to an official performance metric, then there can be none. And, of course, you can't hold AMD responsible for what Intel refuses to do.

You'd think, based on the fact that both its Banias and Itanium cpus are faster per clock than the P4, that Intel would see the inherent wisdom of establishing a performance metric which moves everybody off of the old, discredited "MHz" notions as to performance among cpus built on differing architectures. You'd certainly *think* so, as using the MHz metric (a left-over relic from Intel's heyday as a monopoly x86 cpu supplier), isn't suitable for convincing a potential Itanium customer that a cpu clocked 1/3 as fast as a P4 is 2-3x faster. I would think there'd be some difficulty there. A performance metric would explain it; a MHz metric simply cannot.

So now that we've established that it's Intel which is deserving of your ire instead of AMD, as it is Intel blocking the adoption of an industry performance metric and not AMD standing in the way, I think we have to consider that AMD will of course be cautious and careful about the application of its own performance metric, which Intel's non-compliance is forcing AMD to apply unilaterally. Would it do AMD much good to exaggerate the metric for its own cpus versus Intel's? I can't see how, since it would surely be found out, exposed, and hurt rather than help AMD in the general markets. Note this is especially true in the server markets where Opteron is aimed--at professionals. So, I would think if any error is to be made that AMD would err conservatively, and *understate* its metric, if anything.

Another way to look at it is that at least AMD has a performance metric, whereas Intel has none at all, apart from raw MHz numbers, which mean just about nothing when consumers are comparing cpus of differing architectures, and as I said that applies to Intel's own family of cpus--AMD need not be mentioned to see the merit of a performance metric among Intel cpus. Basically, it seems to me that you're upset with AMD because of something Intel refuses to do...:)

From another point of view, however, the market has become accustomed to the idea that MHz numbers shouldn't be used to compare performance among competing cpus of different architectures. Intel's own Itanium has helped this conception along to no small degree, not to mention IBM's G5's, and of course AMD's Opteron/A64/Athlon. So, truthfully, whether or not Intel adopts a performance metric is simply not as important to the market as it was a year or two ago, because the markets much more clearly understand when you can use MHz as a performance metric (only when comparing cpus of identical architectures) and when you can't (when the cpu architectures are different.) I think some of the pressure relative to the markets confusing MHz with performance in the wrong ways is simply no longer present, and so in a sense it's no longer as important whether Intel agrees to a performance metric or not, from the standpoint of Intel's competitors.

I really do not know what you mean when you talk about "trusting AMD" to get the performance metric right. When Intel throws nothing but a MHz number at you--what's the good in *that*?....:) How is it that you figure Intel's "MHz metric" is inherently more reliable than AMD's "performance metric"...? It seems to me that a performance metric, even a unilaterally applied one, is more informative than a MHz number.

"And taking AMD at its word, we have learned, may not always be the wisest thing to do."

Granted, AMD's comparative metrics have not always been accurate, but at least an attempt to be accurate is made. And, is usually "pretty good." It sure beats augmenting the pipeline to present a bigger MHz number, while decresaing the actual performance. Need I remind you all of the P-3 clock-for-clock against the P-4? A CPU doen't get built by accident, and marketing campaigns don't just happen either.

There are lies, there are damn lies, and then, there are benchmarks. It always depends on tuning, this is a fact proven in just about every test run for either side's claims.

If it may not always be wise to take AMD at their word, who's would you prefer? Another company that you can be absolutely certain is lying (and if you're an Intel groupie, puh-leez, you'd be mad to even try arguing with that and you now it!)? At least AMD makes an effort to be comparative. There's always a benchmark somewhere that will make it look wrong.

It seems reason must always be anonymous. If your name was on it, would you be objective?

Read These:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5144907.html

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927

And after you realize that the new Prescott will actually be a bit slower than the current Northwood P4, tell me how you can still complain about AMDs rating system when Intel is all about deception.

Intel doesn't want the TPI system.... They wouldn't sell their celerons, or their new prescotts if people really knew.

You Intel guys are a bunch of idiots.

Once you have used an AMD Athlon XP / 64, you never go back to an Intel. Intels are expensive, slow, flaky, and flat out crap.

Intel should be embarassed that a 2ghz Athlon 64 can whip up on its 3.2ghz processor. And this is just in 32-bit. You'd be a stupid f**k to go out and pay double the price for an Intel that gives you the same performance as the AMD Athlon 64 3000+. And do you people realize that this Athlon 64 3000 gives you 3-3.2ghz P4 performance today, BUT, when 64-bit software comes out, you could get up to a 50% increase or more. You'd be f**kin stupid to buy pay double for the p4 3.2 if u knew any better.

So, you people can slam AMD all you want. But I think its Intel who should be being slammed for their high prices, mhz brainwashing, misleading celeron performances. Intel should not be where they are today... If only more people were aware of AMD.....

Could you imagine what a TPI would do to Intel's product line?

Think Celeron. A Celeron 2.8GHz with a TPI of 1000+ would look truely tragic.

Hey thats great WaltC, instead of one huge long post post 3 med size ones in a row!!

Only joking, but it does look funny in flat view.

tpi is a stupid idea because the amd cpus at a lower clock can be faster in some areas and slower in others. Therfore depending on what the consumer is willing to do with a computer, the tpi can be a good benchmark for one user and not for another user.

For example i need cpu speed mainly for divx encoding where intel slaps amd in the face. So in my case TPI is bullshit, but for someone playing games it could have a meaning.

Hence why no firm outside amd wants to support that TPI. it considers every users the same

The PR number is based on performance in a range of benchmarks and gives a general performance rating. we know what those benchmarks are and it would be easy enough for a site, like TR to test the claims.

If you have a specific task in mind like DivX encoding then don't use a general performance rating to make your buying decision use DivX. (that includes a MHz rating)

The Athlon64 3000+ is slower than the 3200+ on the vast majority of benchmarks, therefore deserves a lower general rating, which it gets. The rating is equivilent to being 6% slower. In games this is consistant with the difference between the performance delta of the P4 3.0 and 3.2 (also 6% "performance rating" difference) at about 4-5%.

In media encoding/3D rendering the scores are a lot closer between 0 and 4%, this would suggest that a rating of 3100+ is more applicable (PR diff 3%, performance difference 2%).

AMD clearly decided to use the LOWER of the two options in order to not take flack for the chip not performing like a 3100+ in gaming situations and are still taking flack for the chip performing better than the name implies in certain situations in comparasion to its siblings!

A similar situation has occured with the 3400 but nobody seems to have complained, this chip has had an increase of 10% clock speed (8% performance increase? can't be bothered to look at that, can't afford one!) and only 6.5% PR increase. IMHO it should have been a 3500.

The fact is that chips with similar or even the same names have always performed differently (or even fitted different slots/sockets) P3 600, Athlon 1.0, P4 2.0, P4 2.4. Never mind the fact that 2 same "rated" chips from different makers could perform vastly different, K6-2 500, P3 500

The PR system is not perfect but it is no worse than using MHz as a performance yardstick and is unfortunatley suseptable to the same problems.

AMD had to do something to show the relative performance of their chips V intel for Joe publics benefit, I know somebody here thinks JP does not buy AMD anyway but, in the UK at least, thats not true, PC world the largest high street retailer here sells quite a few AMD PCs and Time (the 2nd largest?) sell huge numbers of AMD systems and JP given the choice between 2.0GHz and 3.0GHz will take the bigger number most times, How do you think Intel sells all those celerons?

I don't care what they name it.

Doesn't matter to me if it's called the 3200+, MMMCC+, 2 + 2, 4X4, See++, or the Gerbilnator XXX.

I don't know much about cars, so whatever they name them, or call this season's "features," doesn't mean much to me. Hence, when I'm in the market for a car, I do some research. I dig up car mags at the library or online, get a sense for what does what compared to what, and then I'm in a position to buy a car.

I'm inclined to think that, to at least some degree, the majority of computer buyers tend to do the same thing. They may not know what things are called, and if they don't, they could probably care less. Instead, they set an objective, and either the computer clerk or their own research meets that objective, a sale is consummated, and everyone goes away happy.... regardless what it says on the label.

The only people who could get bent out of shape over this are people who spend way too much time to worrying about what something is named in the first place.

Take TR's cachemem graphs and somehow add it to the end of a processor name. Sure it''s long, unweildly, and difficult to pronounce, but think of how easy it would be to tell the difference between processors and their performances.

If Intel was ahead of AMD in performance, I think they'd agree to a universal metric. Until that happens TPI is outta luck.

A universal performance rating will happen one day! Just after world peace, DNF in the stores bundled with a Bit Boys graphic card and my grandma is using linux.

Life would be so much simpler without marketing hype.

I cant believe the guy's name is Mr. Speed, ROTFL

Their model numbers are getting out of hand. I just wanna know how fast the damn thing really is and now what they think it is compared to Intel. I'll let the review sites like this place tell me how the CPU really stacks up against the competitors offerings.

Besides... who is AMD really trying to impress? Average Joe or Alpha Geek?

Average Joe will always want to stick with Intel just because that's what Average Joe knows. Most computers you see for sale at popular consumer stores are Intel based anyways. Average Joe won't think twice about AMD because Average Joe wants a computer with "Intel Inside" because that's what he sees on TV.

Alpha Geek will at least take the time to do some research as to what is out there and how each CPU performs among each other. Alpha Geek will understand that MHz to MHz ratings is no longer a valid way to compare processors between companies. Alpha Geek will be the only one who will seriously look at AMD as a viable competitor to Intel. Alpha Geek doesn't care for the lame model numbers AMD is associating with their CPUs.

It's like the posers who put V-TEC stickers on their Honda Civic when it's not. Or the poser who put an ///M5 badge on a car that is clearly is 3-series BMW (not even an ///M3). Who do those posers think they're fooling?? The people who would even care what kind of engine is in your car are the same people who would know that you're a wannabe idiot poser for making it look like your car is something it's not.

Why did I mark that as a reply to #2, hehe oh well :P.

I had completely forgotten about this. Good catch.