I'm not sure there is much truth in what you just wrote about AMD naming schemes frankly.

I had a Socket A 3200+ Barton (the real deal, not an overclocked 2500+) about the time graphics cards transitioned to PCI-e. I was still pretty happy with the performance it and my 6800 GT gave, so, I purchased an Athlon 64 3200+ (socket 939) and an Asrock m/b with both AGP and PCI-e slots. The Athlon 64 3200+ was a dog compared to the K7 3200+, a slow turd. It wasn't until I replaced it with a 3800+ that I noticed any meaningful improvement over the K7.

As for the P4's, that is pretty deep in intels past now and they have well and truly made up for it with the core series, while AMD continues to mislead with processor labeling. One thing I will say is Pentium D (dual core budget P4) is still usable nowadays with tolerable performance -- something no Socket 754 Athlon 64 or any Socket 939 Athlon 64 below the 3800+ can claim (I still have the 3800+ and 3200+ 939 chips plus my ABIT KN* nForce 4 SLI board - the above statement *ISN'T* a guess).

The image is showing up in your quote just fine BTW.

i actually had to past the image link in my browser to make it work
http://s2.postimage.org/53a40aci2/sleep ... 601628.jpg

That's weird - don't usually have a problem with postimage.org Could be some weird encoding of the jpg or something, don't know I just saved it from where I found it and re-upped it.

This is way back. It may be impossible to find an article saying it the way i said it, all put together like so, but I can share some info on this, when athlon xp hit people were actually confused by the naming. AMD had a 1.5ghz cpu that would outperform intels 2ghz cpu. AMD was trying to come up with a naming scheme that would be a quick way for consumers to know general performance of the cpus based on the name. PPL were just going by mhz back then and AMD had confused ppl with a cpu call 1800+ but ran at 1500mhz. Anyway there was much more to this, look from here,

http://pcworld.about.net/magazine/1912p024id65171.htm

-"they're labeled according to a rating system that, AMD says, more accurately reflects the chips' performance. The new scheme is part of AMD's fierce battle to end the megahertz myth--namely, "The more the megahertz, the better the PC."

-"AMD is using Andersen Consulting to audit its ratings, which are based on performance in 14 tests."

-"Moreover, this is a temporary metric: AMD plans to unveil a new rating system with industry partners, perhaps in 2002.

-"Other performance-rating efforts, from vendors such as Cyrix, have failed--in part due to lack of credibility, as companies played fast and loose with the equivalencies. AMD, however, plans to use an independent firm to support its claims. And it can back up its rating system with a solid product, Krewell says. "

As my memory serves, and i am sure its valid, AMD was serious about this rating and naming to mean something. They pushed for ratings by an independent partner and intel declined. The raring wouldve been based on multiple benchmarks (14+) and it wouldve given a naming scheme that was actually meaningful. Since no one would agree to a third party rating system that would be used to market CPUs, amds naming lost relevance to any measure. You dont have to believe me, there is more on this somewhere out there if you chose to challenge me. It was a long time ago and all, i would be seriously surprised if i was wrong! I actually would love to be proved wrong here, seriously i might be slipping in my old age, lol



LOL, Although the Pentium is the same in the names, the pentuim out in the athlon xp days is a far far cry from the Pentiums sold in the budget PCs today. the latter is based of the core technology and i dont really understand why you combined them when they vary so greatly. I get the feeling your defending intel when its much more than apparent AMD hasnt been doing well in a long time as far as performance compared to intel. When you bring up a Pentium budget dual core of today though your are speaking of the same core technology that sealed the position AMD well under intel so many yrs ago. its like saying wolfdale is still usable today. Not so impressive that way

I know all about the AMD ratings scheme and what they hoped to achieve with it. I've been building and selling PC's since the days of the AMD 5x86 and the K%. I've seen several of their naming schemes come and go (both AM5x86 and K5 had their own PR scheme, then the XP K7's and the Athlon 64's). And, no, I'm not confusing Pentium 4's with Core based pentiums. The last of the P4's were marketed as Pentium D's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_D
You can still use a Pentium D in a low end machine today and get some productive work done. Not true IMO for socket 754 Athlon64 (we had a server at work based on a 3500+ Skt 754) or any single core Athlon64 less than 3800+. I still find my old Socket A 3200+ be be usable though, which is telling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_5x86

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K5

Well if you knew all about it then why did you say this????



I dont get it? even, frankly

Because most of the time, AMD's PR speed names don't tell the truth. They mislead. That is why they never got industry wide adoption.

we never got industry wide adoption because the rest of the industry wouldnt go for it. The first athlon xp's where named by a third party rating basded on performance of 14 benchmarks. So the 1800+ as it would be called would perform like or better that a cpu that ran 1800mhz. You claim to know all about this (i even gave you a link) but by your posts it appears you don. On to of that your just repeating yourself and then i repeat. Repeating is a great way of not getting anywhere and a great diversion after all.

The original athlon XP names were based on performance and amd stood by those speed ratings that were based on a third party. you claim to know all about it but......

gstanford hates AMD; you guys all just need to get over it and move on.

I used to love AMD products, and today I find them to be just ok. For someone like gstanford who has probably always hated AMD, it has probably become easier and easier to hate them move as time has gone on.

Back to the main topic...

...it's hard to tell what's going on right now with Bulldozer. There are conflicting reports coming out along with tons of rumours. My gut instinct is telling me it's not going to be a very good gaming platform. Even the current hexacores don't do much better than quad cores in games.

I have my fingers crossed for AMD, but Bulldozer is way too late to the party for me to be excited about it at this point. You can't be a year late to the party in the semiconductor business. The shareholders must be having a bird at this point.

Grstanford for years used to give the *exact* same arguments you do before he turned trai ... switched sides