Now AMD follows Intel's lead

Black Jack wrote:

 > AMD may begin adopting Intel's model numbering scheme for its own
 > Athlon 64's. Strange, AMD adopts model numbers and then Intel follows,
 > and then AMD retweaks to fit Intel. Well, so much for the PR-rating
 > system being an indicator of relative performance from an Athlon
 > Thunderbird.

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://theregister.co.uk/content/51/36722.html" target="_blank">http://theregister.co.uk/content/51/36722.html</a>

<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Now AMD follows Intel's lead 

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', Grumble <invalid DeleteThis @kma.eu.org>
scribbled:

 >Black Jack wrote:
 >
  >> AMD may begin adopting Intel's model numbering scheme for its own
  >> Athlon 64's. Strange, AMD adopts model numbers and then Intel follows,
  >> and then AMD retweaks to fit Intel. Well, so much for the PR-rating
  >> system being an indicator of relative performance from an Athlon
  >> Thunderbird.
 >
 >http://theregister.co.uk/content/51/36722.html0

Got this far without twigging? Yes, it's an April Fool's gag, as the 1 April
2004 date on the original Chinese story reveals, but the French, reading the
story late at night on 31 March didn't spot. Nor did a number of US sites who
spotted the Hardware.fr piece early in their timezones, but long after it had
already become April in the Far East.






To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Now AMD follows Intel's lead 

"Black Jack" <news.yaya.bbbl67.RemoveThis@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:d8bc87ef.0403312216.3766d324@posting.google.com...
 > AMD may begin adopting Intel's model numbering scheme for its own
 > Athlon 64's. Strange, AMD adopts model numbers and then Intel follows,
 > and then AMD retweaks to fit Intel. Well, so much for the PR-rating
 > system being an indicator of relative performance from an Athlon
 > Thunderbird.
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040331173218.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040331173218.html</font</a>>

Actually in a strange way this exactly what AMD wanted from the start.
Universal model numbers for all processors that describe their relitive
preformance to eachother better than MHz. I guess in a weird way it's an AMD
win still.

Carlo<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Now AMD follows Intel's lead 

Drift...

Given the number of times the old guard in comp.arch is able to
describe how some "new thing in computing" being touted somewhere or
other was done N years ago on system bar or OS foo, I have to wonder
if despite various peoples' desire to anoint "leaders" and "followers"
the proper description of the industry is really closer to "Duck Duck
Goose" or "Ring Around the Rosy" than "Follow the Leader."

rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com but NOT BOTH...
 >> Stay informed about: Now AMD follows Intel's lead 

Rick Jones wrote:
 > Drift...
 >
 > Given the number of times the old guard in comp.arch is able to
 > describe how some "new thing in computing" being touted somewhere or
 > other was done N years ago on system bar or OS foo, I have to wonder
 > if despite various peoples' desire to anoint "leaders" and "followers"
 > the proper description of the industry is really closer to "Duck Duck
 > Goose" or "Ring Around the Rosy" than "Follow the Leader."
 >
 > rick jones

damn, that's what i call a long sentence!!!

--

Nadeem M Nayeck [ m n n a y e c k @ i n t n e t . m u ]
______ ______ .
.:_\_ . \\_ . \_::.
. .::./ ./ // ./__/.:::. . Registered LU #290695
:_<_____/<____ >_:.
. \/ .<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Now AMD follows Intel's lead 

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 15:25:04 -0500, "Carlo Razzeto"
<crazzeto DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

 >Universal model numbers for all processors that describe their relitive
 >preformance to eachother better than MHz. I guess in a weird way it's an AMD
 >win still.

The question is, will the consumers win? I can envisage a situation
that goes like this

1 May 200x : Intel announces x.1 Ghz Model 810 CPU
3 May 200x : AMD announces a.1 Ghz Model 810+ CPU
5 May 200x : Intel annnounces x.15 Ghz Model 812 CPU
7 May 200x : AMD announces a.15 Model 815+ CPU
9 May 200x : Intel announces x.2 Ghz Model 820 CPU
11 May 200x :.... and so on and so forth...

:ppP


--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Now AMD follows Intel's lead 

"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
message news:406cfbc1.36203046@news.pacific.net.sg...
 > The question is, will the consumers win? I can envisage a situation
 > that goes like this
 >
 > 1 May 200x : Intel announces x.1 Ghz Model 810 CPU
 > 3 May 200x : AMD announces a.1 Ghz Model 810+ CPU
 > 5 May 200x : Intel annnounces x.15 Ghz Model 812 CPU
 > 7 May 200x : AMD announces a.15 Model 815+ CPU
 > 9 May 200x : Intel announces x.2 Ghz Model 820 CPU
 > 11 May 200x :.... and so on and so forth...
 >
 > :ppP
 >
 >
 > --
 > L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
 > If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me

 > Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
 > If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
 > But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

Is the customer really winning with the old MHz is the only way to measure
preformance method? For Intel customers looking at laptops it means they
were buying P4-M systems when it's really not the best mobil solution out
there...

Carlo<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Now AMD follows Intel's lead 

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 20:56:20 -0500, "Carlo Razzeto"
<crazzeto.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

 >Is the customer really winning with the old MHz is the only way to measure
 >preformance method? For Intel customers looking at laptops it means they
 >were buying P4-M systems when it's really not the best mobil solution out
 >there...

Definitely, I don't agree that the Mhz was that fantastic a measure of
actual performance, but this entire model number thing is going to
murk up the waters even more because the marketing dept is just going
to have a field day with it and this time, they don't even have to ask
the engineering department a single question!

If they could get away with it, they would probably sell a Model 580
and Model 585 that is no difference except for a CPU ID that tells the
BIOS I'm 580 and the other guy is 585

At the very least with an actual measureable metric like Mhz or a
equivalence rating, we make a good guess within the same architecture.
After a few models, it's also quite easy to establish X Mhz of A is
around Y Mhz of B in a general ratio of c.xx : d.xx

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Now AMD follows Intel's lead 

"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
message news:406f5fe7.192912781@news.pacific.net.sg...
 > Definitely, I don't agree that the Mhz was that fantastic a measure of
 > actual performance, but this entire model number thing is going to
 > murk up the waters even more because the marketing dept is just going
 > to have a field day with it and this time, they don't even have to ask
 > the engineering department a single question!
 >
 > If they could get away with it, they would probably sell a Model 580
 > and Model 585 that is no difference except for a CPU ID that tells the
 > BIOS I'm 580 and the other guy is 585
 >
 > At the very least with an actual measureable metric like Mhz or a
 > equivalence rating, we make a good guess within the same architecture.
 > After a few models, it's also quite easy to establish X Mhz of A is
 > around Y Mhz of B in a general ratio of c.xx : d.xx
<snip signature>

Marketing would probably have to ask the engineers all kinds of questions
assuming neither Intel nor AMD want to pull a Cyrix (ever use a P-150+ or
contemporary processor)? They would have to know how cache size, bus speed
MHz and core refinements interact to affect performance.

Carlo<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Now AMD follows Intel's lead 

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 01:12:30 GMT,
a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:
 >On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 20:56:20 -0500, "Carlo Razzeto"
 ><crazzeto RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
 >
  >>Is the customer really winning with the old MHz is the only way to measure
  >>preformance method? For Intel customers looking at laptops it means they
  >>were buying P4-M systems when it's really not the best mobil solution out
  >>there...
 >
 >Definitely, I don't agree that the Mhz was that fantastic a measure of
 >actual performance, but this entire model number thing is going to
 >murk up the waters even more because the marketing dept is just going
 >to have a field day with it and this time, they don't even have to ask
 >the engineering department a single question!
 >
 >If they could get away with it, they would probably sell a Model 580
 >and Model 585 that is no difference except for a CPU ID that tells the
 >BIOS I'm 580 and the other guy is 585

I don't think we'll have to worry TOO much about that. We don't
generally see this with other products marketed using model
name/numbers (and that is virtually every product in the world) for
the simple reason that it quickly becomes obvious that the marketing
department is trying to pull a quick one on consumers. Consumers
really don't like this and tend to react rather negatively, so such a
move just isn't worth it.

 >At the very least with an actual measureable metric like Mhz or a
 >equivalence rating, we make a good guess within the same architecture.

The problem is that only a small percentage of the buying public know
enough about the architectures to tell one from the other. How many
of the buying public know that the Celeron 1.4GHz was a TOTALLY
different (and MUCH faster) chip than the Celeron 1.7GHz? Probably
about 1%. It's a little bit better with the P4 line, though there are
still some tricky parts there, ie the P4 3.0GHz being faster than the
P4 3.2GHz. It's also rather complicated on the mobile front where
there is a "Mobile Pentium 4" and a "Pentium 4-M" that had VERY
different power consumption characteristics (though similar
performance).

In short, I like model numbers, because at least everyone KNOWS that
they're a meaningless indicator of performance. MHz was pushed as an
important measure of performance when really it wasn't.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Now AMD follows Intel's lead 

"Carlo Razzeto" <crazzeto RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote :

 > questions assuming neither Intel nor AMD want to pull a Cyrix
 > (ever use a P-150+ or contemporary processor)?

Cyrix P120 was as fast as P200MMX in RC56 crunching (weird) so its not
an obvious example.



Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/" target="_blank">http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/</a>
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Now AMD follows Intel's lead 

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 21:12:40 -0500, "Carlo Razzeto"
<crazzeto RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
 >Marketing would probably have to ask the engineers all kinds of questions
 >assuming neither Intel nor AMD want to pull a Cyrix (ever use a P-150+ or
 >contemporary processor)?

I was a very happy user of my Cyrix 150Mhz PR 233 or something like
that. It did everything I wanted it to do in general and was much
cheaper than what the equivalent Pentium was.

 >they would have to know how cache size, bus speed
 >MHz and core refinements interact to affect performance.

They do? Ok maybe they do, but do they really care? I certainly don't
remember seeing any marketing materials describing in any details that
bigger memory bandwidth doesn't help with latency bound applications.
:PpppP

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Now AMD follows Intel's lead 

Tony Hill wrote:

 > The problem is that only a small percentage of the buying public
 > know enough about the architectures to tell one from the other.
 > How many of the buying public know that the Celeron 1.4GHz was a
 > TOTALLY different (and MUCH faster) chip than the Celeron 1.7GHz?
 > Probably about 1%. It's a little bit better with the P4 line,
 > though there are still some tricky parts there, ie the P4 3.0GHz
 > being faster than the P4 3.2GHz.

Is that Northwood (P4C) @ 3.0 GHz vs Prescott (P4E) @ 3.2 GHz?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Now AMD follows Intel's lead