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