Can it BE????

grstanford · **Joined:** Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:19 am **Posts:** 5186

apoppin wrote:

Ocre wrote:

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......

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

No, actually I did not. Post links to me praising up AMD's PR naming scheme or retract your statement!

The Athlon XP PR ratings were never really accurate. AMD had to revise them part way through the lifetime of the Athlon XP because of improvements with Pentium 4 and that caused controversy other the PR ratings at the time.

apoppin · Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:14 pm

No strawman please .. i never mentioned praising anything.

Over on Anandtech forums in CPU forum; i remember you defending AMD. And i really don't want to read through hundreds of pages of threads to find your apologies for them. You were always one of the staunch AMD defenders. OtOH, i was consistently for Intel.

grstanford · **Joined:** Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:19 am **Posts:** 5186

apoppin wrote:

No strawman please .. i never mentioned praising anything.

Over on Anandtech forums in CPU forum; i remember you defending AMD.

Link please, showing me defending the PR ratings, not just defending AMD.....

apoppin · Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:17 pm

Again ...Over on Anandtech forums in CPU forum; i remember you defending AMD over and over again. And i really don't want to read through hundreds of pages of threads to find your apologies for them. You were always one of the staunch AMD defenders. OtOH, i was consistently for Intel CPUs even during the Pentium days.

apoppin · Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:24 pm

BtW, i just looked .. their search appears to be broken

Searching ALL topics and from the earliest date .. there are only two threads with your user name left
This is you, right?
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1964520
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1963359

that is all search turns up on your name.

Or did you spell your name with no 'd'
:scratch:

grstanford · **Joined:** Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:19 am **Posts:** 5186

I hardly ever posted in the CPU forum of anandtech.

All you have to do is search for "gstanfor" in the cpu subforum of anandtech and link to the posts that backup your claim -- either that or retract it if you are not going to back it up.

edit:
There should be way more than two threads, try gstanfor not Gstanfor. I can't search because I'm not a member there and I'm not about to join up to do your research for you.

grstanford · **Joined:** Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:19 am **Posts:** 5186

http://www.anandtech.com/show/835

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1221

Quote:

One nagging problem that AMD has always had to face since the dawn of the Intel Pentium 4 is the numbers game. With the Pentium 4, Intel has sacrificed IPC (Instructions Per Clock) to go with a CPU pipeline which allows them to clock the processor much higher.

To the uneducated consumer masses, it sounds like the Pentium 4's are much faster then Athlon processors, but that couldn't be farther from the truth. A P4 usually needs about 500 MHz "clock" advantage to perform on par with a lower clocked AthlonXP. Both Intel and AMD know that it's GHz that sell and so the performance rating was born.

The AthlonXP PR numbers are based on how fast the older Thunderbird Athlon would have to run. For instance, (taking an AthlonXP 1500+ as the example processor) it would take a regular Athlon to run at 1.50 GHz to equal the performance of an AthlonXP running at 1.33 GHz. As the actual clock speed is raised 66 MHz, the PR numbers is raised 100 (MHz). While this works at lower speeds, the higher you go the larger the gap is.

To address this, AMD has revised their XP rating system a bit. Their previous top end processor the XP2200+ has a clock speed of 1.8 GHz, so using the old system the test XP2400+ should only be running at 1.93 GHz, however the test sample runs at 2 GHz. It's a good step, but AMD will probably need to revise their PR system yet again in the future.

I remember the Athlon XP PR rating debate rather well, since I had a Duron 700, Athlon Thunderbird 1.1ghz, Athlon XP 1800+ and an Athlon XP 2400+ that caused the controversy as well as my Athlon XP 3200+ (the only one I still have).

apoppin · Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:41 pm

Well, i guess it was Gstanfor and i only found a very few topics.
This one IS interesting:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1580454

Quote:

Gstanfor
Sounds like AMD's rating system has become worthless then, as I feared it eventually would over time.

Yep, you *used* to defend it :tease:

- has become worthless over time, huh?

grstanford · **Joined:** Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:19 am **Posts:** 5186

Quote:

Sounds like AMD's rating system has become worthless then, as I feared it eventually would over time.

How does that show me defending it?! It shows me saying it is useless, just like I always thought it was.

And, yes there ***IS*** a huge difference in gaming performance between K7 3200+ and K8 3200+ -- NOT in the k8's favor!

apoppin · Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:48 pm

Quote:

**has become** worthless then, as I feared it eventually would over time

There is more than the implication that it was once not worthless and that it became useless - after time passed (and you stopped defending them)

i still get it and my memory is good
:tease:

Can it BE????

Who is online