http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/changed.jpg
:lol:
Printable View
sure as hell confuses me
I find athlon XP less confusing than P4, P4c, P4EE, P4 prescott etc. they keep changing the pin count and that is real annoying!
amd has stayed pretty consistent, Athlon, then Athlon XP just changing the FSB basically.
of course they're gonna say model numbers are confusing, because Intel wants people to believe that megahertz are a direct measure of power. the only direct measure of power is benchmarking and "real life" use.
both Intel and AMD's marketing strategies are confusing. there's no way around it, because the average customer doesn't want to look at a bunch of charts & graphs in order to figure out which is the better chip.
Yep.Quote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@2 April 2004 - 22:18
of course they're gonna say model numbers are confusing, because Intel wants people to believe that megahertz are a direct measure of power. the only direct measure of power is benchmarking and "real life" use.
both Intel and AMD's marketing strategies are confusing. there's no way around it, because the average customer doesn't want to look at a bunch of charts & graphs in order to figure out which is the better chip.
there should be a standard that every company abides by. based on a standard set of benchmarks.
I agree.Quote:
Originally posted by Pitbul@3 April 2004 - 19:59
there should be a standard that every company abides by. based on a standard set of benchmarks.
Please let us know when you have persuaded all the manufacturers to use the same benchmarks. ;)
There's an idea! Make a benchmarking program, could be made by any company non biased toward any of the cpu manfufacturers. Then teh company will name their product after their benchmark score!Quote:
Originally posted by lynx@3 April 2004 - 15:08
Please let us know when you have persuaded all the manufacturers to use the same benchmarks. ;)
i can see it now, the new AMD 64bit 43,578 lol
The only problem with using benchmark scores for CPU product rating is that there are so many other factors to a system that can affect a benchmark score like the chipset used, for example. Those 2 companies certainly won't be using the same chipset.
You know I do like AMD . Keeping the prices down but I do find it confusing, bring you calculater when computer shopping.For the new shopper its bloody tuff. I tell my buddies FORD or CHEVY is the only way they understand. :D
the problem with benchmark tests is that they are predictions of how processors will handle real-world applications... and they're not necessarily accurate predictions. a chip can score well on a benchmark test that's designed to use certain things the chip does well... and the same chip can still completely suck at running a whole variety of popular programs.
the best you can do is run the processor through a sample of bench tests and popular programs, and get a rough estimate of how it performs.
Intel is gonna have a model number? like what Intel Pentium 4 Model 5?
The only thing I'm confused about with my Athlon is just how much it kicks Intel's ass? :rolleyes:
Bleh. The public want to easily differentiate between processor power by a basic number, i.e. Ghz, and assume more is better, which is just not the case. If anything, intel is confusing PC customers by putting high Ghz ratings on slower chips.
"All New! More Circles Per Second, Less Work Per Cycle!"Quote:
Originally posted by RGX@4 April 2004 - 15:47
Bleh. The public want to easily differentiate between processor power by a basic number, i.e. Ghz, and assume more is better, which is just not the case. If anything, intel is confusing PC customers by putting high Ghz ratings on slower chips.
speaking of AMD athlons
what is the difference between the standard 2500+ and the overclocked 2500+ @ 3200 because ive OC and i cant see any difference...
sure, iv dont a few benchmarks (3d mark, aquamark etc) but i dont see a big enough difference to see why it costs a hell of alot more that the 2500+
or does the standard 3200+ perform better than OC 2500 @ 3200
it might depend on which tests you run. some tests are much more dependent on the graphics card than on the CPU, and they won't show much of a difference.
i think 3DMark 2003 is very much limited by the graphics card, but 3D Mark 2001 will prolly show improved scores with an overclocked CPU. regarding games that you might wanna use as tests, i think Quake 3 is more dependent on the graphics card, while Unreal Tournament and games using the Unreal engine are greatly affected by the CPU speed.
Sisoft Sandra should also be worth trying.
Yeah, run sisoft sandras CPU multimedia benchmark.
My score went up a TON from the 2500 to the 3200.
Aquamark3 will also show more of an improvment due to better CPUs.
http://www.amd.com/DAM/data/cordacharts/70649.jpg
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Rofl.... better without HT than with it?
Lmao talk about confusion :lol:
That data was released by AMD; therefore it should not be taken seriously. It would be a much better idea to take a look at, say, benchmarks from Anandtech.Quote:
Originally posted by DWk@5 April 2004 - 08:43
Rofl.... better without HT than with it?
Lmao talk about confusion :lol:
All the hype and B.S with numbers why sir its all done with smoke and mirrors just
to confuse you the whole speed thing is stupid a advert ploy
Hyperthreading is only of any use if you are using multi-threaded software or more than one processor intensive program.
With muti-processor systems the scheduler has to assign processes to a particular processor and that takes time and resources. The same is true of a hyperthreaded processor. So even with two processors you could never get double the workload. And if you are only using one piece of software the performance can drop below 100%, as shown in those benchmarks.