Should AMD use model ratings?

[Dputiger]

I'm taking a poll here--should AMD use model ratings to compare their chips to Intel's? ie--using a Model 1600 designation on a 1.4 Ghz chip to say it compares to a P4 1.6 Ghz.

Thoughts?

[Ironforge]

I do not think they should use PR ratings.. was it nexgen or cyrix that used to do a PR rating type of chip? It was to compete against the original pentium and I do not think it did very well..

then again it could have been the performance of the chip rather than the actual PR rating scheme that was it's downfall..

I just think it is misleading..

[RobRich]

Sadly, I would have to answer "yes" for the retail channels. Intel is winning purely on MHz ratings, regardless of how the processors actually perform in most desktop applications.

Though, I personally hope AMD doesn't move forward with PR ratings. I believe I posted somthing about this in the processor forum several months ago, though I hoped it would never actually progress further than being a rumor.

AMD lacks marketing hype in the mainstream media, so it definitely needs something to bolster attention to the Athlon product series. I am not sure PR ratings are the right idea, as everyone likely remembers Cyrix.

Even VIA does not PR rate its processors after purchasing Cyrix, though that might produce negative ratings anyway. Atleast that's the case for my C3 733 box....

Robert Richmond

[Fingers]

http://www.sysopt.com/forum/Forum3/HTML/012371.html

[Neon]

AMD should not use PR ratings.
It acknowledges that Intel products are the "yardstick" for comparison, and the market leaders. It also means AMD has to hit a moving target. Suppose Intel's response is to begin labelling their processors with only model numbers? It could become a silly cat and mouse game.
There is also the aforementioned Cyrix (ab)use of PR ratings, which still leaves a bad aftertaste.

Is this not what benchmarks were invented for? From a consumer point of view, what is needed is a set of (perhaps 4 or 5) independant standard performance benchmarks that indicate how fast each processor handles business apps, graphics, mutimedia, multitasking, etc. AMD can put that on its advertising and packaging. Then, the consumer can compare any given processor to the benchmarks he is interested in.

The consumer wants performance. If Hz does not measure performance accurately, change the measurement method.

[saint999]

AMD should not use PR thing.
AMD is doing studest thing ever, i hate the PR thing. i was planning to get Palomino 1.5mhz, but if it change to something
model 2000+ ?
i would rather to get P4 2ghz, because its the real speed , rather to get stupid PR rating...

AMD is trying cheat the consumers????

[darrelld]

AMD will have to do something, trying to educate the general public that more than Mhz matters will be hard if not impossible to do, yet I do feel they need to launch some kind of advertising campaign. If they don't do what they can, including PR ratings, I feel they will be forced to produce an inferior product that runs at a higher frequency, just like intel does. i would rather to get P4 2ghz, because its the real speed , rather to get stupid PR rating...This is what AMD has to contend with, it doesn't matter that that 2gig will run the same as a 1.6AMD, By God it says it's 2gig and that's what it runs at!
This is the attitude that AMD is trying to counteract, I wish them luck.

[This message has been edited by darrelld (edited 08-31-2001).]

[oldhermit]

When two professional boxers enter the ring, they both earn a lot of money, regardless who wins.

Since AMD has positioned itself as the only real competition, how they advertise is probably of little concern. They are in the ring and winning, regardless.

Performance will tell the story, and so will salesmen, buyers, and anyone walking down the road...

[blubomber]

I to belive that AMD should not go with the PR rating. I think that they need to try to come up with some add campaign that will convince the uneducated user that AMD gets more done per clock cycle and that is what matters.

How about that commercial that AMD put out a few years back, the train one putting the AMD agains the PIII of equal clock speed. There has to be someone out there that can come up with an add that will convince users that faster, in this case, is not better.

$.02

[Hellmund]

Yeh I think it's best for them to go with model ratings, sure it'll get annoying with newbies complaining Sandra or some other benchmark says their model 1600 is only running at 1.4ghz but if AMD doesn't have enough money coming they may have to raise their prices.

[NDC]

I agree with RobRich. Sadly yes! Intel may have the higer numbers as far as clock speed. However, I think anyone that has been doing their studies on processor performance will clearly know that AMD does outperform Intel Pentium 4 in every area. The reality is that there is no application that supports Pentium 4 to fully utilize its features as of now. However, Intel DOES have its advantages in the 1Ghz and under processors comparing to AMD T-Bird.

[radio1_mike]

I am against PR ratings; but I do think for retail channels it could help.

1) They'd have to explain it very clearly.

Remember, they'll lose customers anyways just because of Intel's higher clock speed. So they could put up some info benchmarks for comparative purposes, to explain AMD's stengths-- not their weaknesses. You know why a chip 400-600MHz slower performs better.


2) They have to display clock speed first and PR rating second.

This way the customers who buy a Dell, HP, or Gateway computer won't feel misled about their 1.4 being a 1.4, not a 1.8. Cyrix messed up because it advertised it's PR rating like a clock speed and because it did not have the performance to back it up. AMD won't have these problems.


We here at sysopt and other places like anandtech, will buy whatever has a good price/performance/tech ratio. It was not so long ago, when on these boards, overclocking Celerons like mad was all the rage. But then AMD came out with a more competitive product. AMD will always live off these kinds of customers, namely us, but it would be better for them if they can expand their retail base.




[This message has been edited by radio1_mike (edited 09-04-2001).]

[otheos]

From Van Smith's site (http://www.vanshardware.com)

Industry sources, moles, and various others
[ed: could that be us?] have rumored the fact that AMD is MUCH closer to completion of its Hammer series of MPUs than the chipmaker lets on.* The Hammer,
AMD's next generation line of 64-bit processors, is perhaps
sampling already and could be ready to sell in Q1 of next year. *AMD's
public line on these chips is that they won't be ready until the second half of
next year.
Some articles and reports suggest that a 2.0
GHz Sledgehammer will be equivalent to three 1 GHz Athlons. *If this is so and
if the Athlon was the basis for AMD’s upcoming “Model” rating system, then we
could infer that a 2.0 GHz Sledgehammer’s "Model" rating would be 3000+.* But
the Athlon is not the basis for AMD’s upcoming “Model” nomenclature -- the Intel
Pentium 4 is.*
I believe the whole reason for AMD's, at
first glance, apparently ludicrous return to a “PR”-type naming system is that,
when compared to the P4, this 2 GHz Hammer would carry around a 3500+ rating.*
And this may be at a time when Intel Pentium 4 line tops out at 2.2 GHz. *[ed:
Could this be why Intel demoed the 3.5 GHz P4 at IDF last week?]
The AMD Model rating system may not look
healthy now when the scheme is being applied to Palomino Athlons, but when
consumers realize they are getting a 2.0 GHz chip that can perform roughly at
equivalent levels with nonexistent 3.5 GHz Intel Pentium 4s, they will indeed be
surprised.*
And consumers WILL take notice.
Look for a significant amount of AMD's
marketing budget -- large sums of money -- to be spent on “hammering” home this
exact point sometime in the near future.

While I think a PR rating understates a product and the customer will feel he bought the cheap alternative rather than the real thing, if the above is true then AMD might actually come on top of the situation.

[SPEEDO]

I agree with Neon about the Cyrix thing, It's kind of like deceiving the public.
A PR166 is a 133MHz. what's up with that?
I always wondered about the logic behind it, Do they think people are that naive?

SPEEDO

[Potlicker]

I am against it also, but the sad thing is the general public is stupid. I don't know how many times I have been in a Best Buy, Circuit City etc... and seen someone buy a computer, monitor, videocard, etc... off the recommendation off some kid who was selling hamburgers last week.

[Voldar8u]

I don't think PR ratings should be used by AMD because it's decieving and AMD has always, in my opinion, been forthcoming with their processors. That is one thing AMD used to put the fire in Intel's ****, honesty with no deception. Agree with several opinions that the general public could benefit from an ad campaign, but Jeez, it would raise the prices. Those not knowing are gonna buy Emachines anyway. lol Oop, no thought about it, maybe AMD should use those decieving ratings, fight fire with fire?

[This message has been edited by Voldar8u (edited 09-06-2001).]