PCMech Forums - View Single Post

mike breck · 01-09-2003, 06:14 PM

"The new model numbers are designed to represent the performance of the new chips compared both to previous Athlons and the competition. For example, AMD says the 1800+ outperforms other processors running 1.8GHz, although the chip only runs at 1.53GHz, said Mark Bode, division product marketing manager for desktop products at AMD."

http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2055/IDG011009AthlonXP/

"Q: What do the 2200+, 2100+, 2000+, 1900+, 1800+ and 1700+ numbers mean?

A: These are model numbers. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz, such as the 2200+, 2100+, 2000+, 1900+, 1800+ and 1700+ versions. Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors. The AMD Athlon XP processor 2200+ can outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 2.2GHz on a broad array of end-user applications."

http://www.thinkcp.com/AMD/XPFAQs.html

"I have seen the argument that AMD does not use P4 benchmarks to name their chips, but rather basic x86 architecture ratings. Looking at technical whitepapers may suggest so, but one look at how AMD is marketing their chips, and you'll see quite the contrary. The following quote was taken directly off AMD's AthlonXP FAQ:

"The AMD Athlon XP processor 2100+ will outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 2.0GHz"

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/...axp_2100/1.php

"AMD is giving mixed signals about these ratings, too. One one hand, it states the numbers "communicate the architectural superiority over existing AMD Athlon processors"; on the other hand, AMD literature also says, "The AMD Athlon XP 1800+ will outperform an Intel Pentium 4 processor operating at 1.8GHz" (a bit later in its announcement, AMD pegs the performance advantage over the P4/1.8 at 25 percent)."

http://hardware.earthweb.com/chips/article.php/900831

"The AMD Athlon XP processor represents “A new kind of fast,” one more relevant for today’s user.

How AMD Athlon XP processors compares with Intel Pentium 4 ® on different software applications.

Benchmark
Other processor manufacturers measure performance by clock speed (1.8 GHz, 1.4 GHz etc). AMD uses a more relevant measure – Overall Processor Performance"

http://www.amd.com/gb-uk/Processors/...4_3820,00.html

"Looking Ahead

In short, AMD certainly seems to have dodged a bullet in moving from the original Athlon to the Athlon XP and its model numbers. This doesn't mean it's all wine and roses, though; both short and long-term concerns remain. The first relates to the PR ratings themselves, as many a consumer has asked: "So if the new Athlon XP outperforms the 2.0GHz Pentium 4, why is it called a 1900+?". This is a great question; whether AMD intends its numbers to compare to generic Athlons or current P4s (its published statements try to have it both ways), the average consumer is guaranteed to make the Pentium 4 link. In trying not to repeat its and Cyrix's old sins, AMD may have erred a bit too much on the side of caution."

http://www.nzpca.org.nz/megabyte/2002/05/art04.htm

"The ratings rank XP chips based on their performance relative to that of the most recent Athlons. For example, the fastest new chip is the XP 1800+, which according to AMD performs like a 1.8-GHz Athlon--though its true clock speed is 1.53 GHz. AMD also asserts that PCs with an XP 1800+ should run faster than comparable 1.8-GHz P4 units, a claim borne out in our business-applications testing.

Likewise, AMD claims that the Athlon XP 1700+, which runs at 1.47 GHz, delivers more speed than 1.7-GHz P4 systems; the Athlon XP 1600+, which runs at 1.4 GHz, outdoes 1.6-GHz units; and the XP 1500+, which runs at 1.33 GHz, bests 1.5-GHz systems."

http://pcworld.shopping.yahoo.com/ya...d,65171,00.asp

"AMD uses model numbers to rate its processors and give users an idea of their relative performance, rather than using the clock speeds of its chips in the official name, like Intel Corp. The model numbers are derived from internal benchmarks that measure the performance of the chips against competitors while running popular software applications such as Microsoft Corp.'s Word, the McAfee antivirus software from Network Associates Inc., and various games, said Mark deFrere, Athlon brand manager for AMD.

The benchmarking results, certified by PricewaterhouseCoopers, are available on AMD's site."

http://www.computerworld.com/hardwar...,73673,00.html

"Make no mistake, that's exactly what AMD is trying to say. For all its claims that the new model numbers signify the Athlon XP's performance relative to the old Thunderbird Athlons - purely for legal reasons; it doesn't want the Federal Trade Commission and Intel on its back - AMD's sample OEM advert compares the 1800+ XP to "competitive 1.8GHz PC processors". Since AMD doesn't actually make a 1.8GHz processor, T'Bird or not, competitive or otherwise, the chip company clearly has its arch-rival in mind."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/22145.html

"Q: What do the 1900+, 1800+, 1700+, 1600+, and 1500+ numbers mean?

A: These are model numbers. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz, such as 1900+, 1800+, 1700+, 1600+ and 1500+ versions. Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors, as well as communicate the architectural superiority over existing AMD Athlon processors. The AMD Athlon XP processor 1900+ will outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 1.9GHz on a broad array of end-user applications. "

http://www.bellmicro.com/VendorShowc...xpqa.asp#10228

"However, Aberdeen's report argues that "clearly the competitive comparisons are to Intel's microprocessors," positioning an Athlon XP 2100+, for example, as equal to a 2.1GHz Pentium 4. That comparison will grow quickly more erroneous as benchmarks, the operating systems and applications evolve, Aberdeen argues."

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-869796.html

The best for last. Read this excellent article for an insight into story behind the story about the MHz war.

"While Intel has been able to capitalize on Joe Sixpack's love of high numbers, AMD's naming scheme would only manipulate it. AMD isn't lying outright, but there's an air of deception when one defies industry standards that even the MHz-crippled Mac adheres to. If AMD's naming scheme didn't so closely resemble the MHz values posted by Intel, then it could be forgiven here. However, using model numbers similar in value to MHz, in an attempt to compare performance with Intel, only does the consumer a disservice by failing to disclose the processor's actual speed.

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...p/index.x?pg=3

01-09-2003, 06:14 PM	#19
mike breck Member (13 bit) Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Scotland Posts: 4,700	"The new model numbers are designed to represent the performance of the new chips compared both to previous Athlons and the competition. For example, AMD says the 1800+ outperforms other processors running 1.8GHz, although the chip only runs at 1.53GHz, said Mark Bode, division product marketing manager for desktop products at AMD." http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2055/IDG011009AthlonXP/ "Q: What do the 2200+, 2100+, 2000+, 1900+, 1800+ and 1700+ numbers mean? A: These are model numbers. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz, such as the 2200+, 2100+, 2000+, 1900+, 1800+ and 1700+ versions. Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors. The AMD Athlon XP processor 2200+ can outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 2.2GHz on a broad array of end-user applications." http://www.thinkcp.com/AMD/XPFAQs.html "I have seen the argument that AMD does not use P4 benchmarks to name their chips, but rather basic x86 architecture ratings. Looking at technical whitepapers may suggest so, but one look at how AMD is marketing their chips, and you'll see quite the contrary. The following quote was taken directly off AMD's AthlonXP FAQ: "The AMD Athlon XP processor 2100+ will outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 2.0GHz" http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/...axp_2100/1.php "AMD is giving mixed signals about these ratings, too. One one hand, it states the numbers "communicate the architectural superiority over existing AMD Athlon processors"; on the other hand, AMD literature also says, "The AMD Athlon XP 1800+ will outperform an Intel Pentium 4 processor operating at 1.8GHz" (a bit later in its announcement, AMD pegs the performance advantage over the P4/1.8 at 25 percent)." http://hardware.earthweb.com/chips/article.php/900831 "The AMD Athlon XP processor represents “A new kind of fast,” one more relevant for today’s user. How AMD Athlon XP processors compares with Intel Pentium 4 ® on different software applications. Benchmark Other processor manufacturers measure performance by clock speed (1.8 GHz, 1.4 GHz etc). AMD uses a more relevant measure – Overall Processor Performance" http://www.amd.com/gb-uk/Processors/...4_3820,00.html "Looking Ahead In short, AMD certainly seems to have dodged a bullet in moving from the original Athlon to the Athlon XP and its model numbers. This doesn't mean it's all wine and roses, though; both short and long-term concerns remain. The first relates to the PR ratings themselves, as many a consumer has asked: "So if the new Athlon XP outperforms the 2.0GHz Pentium 4, why is it called a 1900+?". This is a great question; whether AMD intends its numbers to compare to generic Athlons or current P4s (its published statements try to have it both ways), the average consumer is guaranteed to make the Pentium 4 link. In trying not to repeat its and Cyrix's old sins, AMD may have erred a bit too much on the side of caution." http://www.nzpca.org.nz/megabyte/2002/05/art04.htm "The ratings rank XP chips based on their performance relative to that of the most recent Athlons. For example, the fastest new chip is the XP 1800+, which according to AMD performs like a 1.8-GHz Athlon--though its true clock speed is 1.53 GHz. AMD also asserts that PCs with an XP 1800+ should run faster than comparable 1.8-GHz P4 units, a claim borne out in our business-applications testing. Likewise, AMD claims that the Athlon XP 1700+, which runs at 1.47 GHz, delivers more speed than 1.7-GHz P4 systems; the Athlon XP 1600+, which runs at 1.4 GHz, outdoes 1.6-GHz units; and the XP 1500+, which runs at 1.33 GHz, bests 1.5-GHz systems." http://pcworld.shopping.yahoo.com/ya...d,65171,00.asp "AMD uses model numbers to rate its processors and give users an idea of their relative performance, rather than using the clock speeds of its chips in the official name, like Intel Corp. The model numbers are derived from internal benchmarks that measure the performance of the chips against competitors while running popular software applications such as Microsoft Corp.'s Word, the McAfee antivirus software from Network Associates Inc., and various games, said Mark deFrere, Athlon brand manager for AMD. The benchmarking results, certified by PricewaterhouseCoopers, are available on AMD's site." http://www.computerworld.com/hardwar...,73673,00.html "Make no mistake, that's exactly what AMD is trying to say. For all its claims that the new model numbers signify the Athlon XP's performance relative to the old Thunderbird Athlons - purely for legal reasons; it doesn't want the Federal Trade Commission and Intel on its back - AMD's sample OEM advert compares the 1800+ XP to "competitive 1.8GHz PC processors". Since AMD doesn't actually make a 1.8GHz processor, T'Bird or not, competitive or otherwise, the chip company clearly has its arch-rival in mind." http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/22145.html "Q: What do the 1900+, 1800+, 1700+, 1600+, and 1500+ numbers mean? A: These are model numbers. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz, such as 1900+, 1800+, 1700+, 1600+ and 1500+ versions. Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors, as well as communicate the architectural superiority over existing AMD Athlon processors. The AMD Athlon XP processor 1900+ will outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 1.9GHz on a broad array of end-user applications. " http://www.bellmicro.com/VendorShowc...xpqa.asp#10228 "However, Aberdeen's report argues that "clearly the competitive comparisons are to Intel's microprocessors," positioning an Athlon XP 2100+, for example, as equal to a 2.1GHz Pentium 4. That comparison will grow quickly more erroneous as benchmarks, the operating systems and applications evolve, Aberdeen argues." http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-869796.html The best for last. Read this excellent article for an insight into story behind the story about the MHz war. "While Intel has been able to capitalize on Joe Sixpack's love of high numbers, AMD's naming scheme would only manipulate it. AMD isn't lying outright, but there's an air of deception when one defies industry standards that even the MHz-crippled Mac adheres to. If AMD's naming scheme didn't so closely resemble the MHz values posted by Intel, then it could be forgiven here. However, using model numbers similar in value to MHz, in an attempt to compare performance with Intel, only does the consumer a disservice by failing to disclose the processor's actual speed. http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...p/index.x?pg=3 Last edited by mike breck; 01-09-2003 at 06:27 PM.