Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,391 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
After browsing through 2 computer papers and an on-line computer store it seems to me that AMD's new model number system for their Athlon XP CPUs isn't going that well. It's supposed to replace the old "Mhz" speed designation but most, if not all vendors still post the Mhz speed. Some post it alongside the model number while others just display it as "Athlon XP 1.6 Ghz". AMD has specifically requested that motherboard manufacturers not display the clock speed at post (while some still do) and the same should go for retailers but no one seems to be paying attention. Even Microsoft's new OS, Windows XP displays the clock speed in its system properties. Is AMD's model number system doomed to fail and is there any point in trying to standardize it? CPUs have always been measured in clock speeds (although the educated population knows it's not always a valid measurement of performance). Anyone have any opinions on this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,992 Posts
As you said, "the educated population knows it's not always a valid measurement of performance". The problem is that there quite a lot of uneducated ppl out there. As far as they are concerned, the bigger the no. the better. See signiture for more details.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,776 Posts
I agree with you Betamax, but the great majority of the population is considered "uneducated" about this subject. Also, it would be really difficult to try to teach people that "higher clocks does not mean better performance". It needs a lot of knowledge about the subject to understand that. Most people, as you said, think that "higher frequencies, higher speed", and they don't really want to learn more about it.

We are considered educated about the subject, but if any of us go to a normal person in the street and tell him that a 1.6GHz performs better than a 2GHz one, this person will ask why. Then you would start explaining about instructions, cache, ALU, FPU and this person would only get confused and would not learn anything, mainly because he doesn't want to learn, and he's not interested to learn.

It will be quite difficult for AMD to "educate" people.
 

·
<B><font color="lightyellow" size = "1">A BIG BAD
Joined
·
6,550 Posts
One of the precepts of the design of the P4 core was 'speed sells', because as we know the average clueless end-user gauges the machines performance by how much Mhz it chucks.. Intel knew this and they are trying to capitalize on it with high speed P4 cores. AMD was never really good at marketing their processor. For whatever reason, they don't seem to think that letting the general public know that they exist matters.. :eyes:. Right now, they are trying to make up with the modified PR rating system (they call the model system) in order to remain competative with the P4 cores. And to the clueless end user as long as the thing has 1900+ or 1.9Ghz marked on it, its good enough for them. Of course we as 'educated' people know the real deal, but to the average user it really doesn't matter.

> Is AMD's model number system doomed to fail and is there any point in trying to standardize it?

Well, i guess AMD will have to stick with the new model system they've implemented in order to be competitive with Intel. I don't think its doomed to fail either, they could do better with their marketing strategies, but manufacturers actually like the new 'PR' or model system. As we know AMD is also trying to work out an independent entity that will establish a system much more reliable that the Mhz system that we have today. If intel has its say (which they have, most of the time) then there won't be any standardized 'PR' rating or model or xxx system that will be shared by CPU manufacturers. They aren't going to help in the effort either, they are doing well enough as it is with the 'high speed' = 'high performance' P4 hype.

> Even Microsoft's new OS, Windows XP displays the clock speed in its system properties.

AMD needs to work something out with Microsoft in order to limit displaying the actual speed of the CPU on WinXP. Not doing so would be grave incosistency. But I'm pretty sure microsoft isn't going to be happy about releasing a patch for the O/S just because of this either. :eek:

.. okay i stop here.. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
708 Posts
Yeah, you maybe right, AMD's new rating system doesn't work completely. And they are suckers in the marketing bussiness.

But, Hey, AMD managed to take Intel's processors market in no time. Celeron starting to lose it's low end market (2000 - 27%, 2001 -20%) and now, even Pentium 4 PC system is cheaper than a Celeron PC system. - go Duron!

Guess what, Bad Rating ideas, and suck marketing strategies, but the King in Processor market? heh heh heh
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top