A Real Pr Rateing System

[NookieN]

ex. intel 3.2 ghz gets a bench of 13,000. 13,000 divided by 4000 = 3.4 pr rating

AMD at 1.5Ghz gets a bench also of 13,000. it gets a pr rating of 3,4 as well.

what do you all think of this system?

I think it doesn't work if it tells people that a 1.5Ghz Athlon is equivalent to a 3.2Ghz P4...

 

[modenaf1]

I think it doesn't work if it tells people that a 1.5Ghz Athlon is equivalent to a 3.2Ghz P4...

well, that was an example, i just made it all up. but if it was under real benchmark testing, then it would work. I think.

 

[texp4]

ahh dis be true but still people look at 3200+ and think it must be faster than a 3.2ghz p4 when in reality if it was based on comparison with a p4 it would be a revised 2800+. so really amd is playing the same game with joe blow as intel is when they jacked up the mhz but dropped the ipc.

Good point. I am wondering this for a long time to

IS Athlon XP3200+ equivalent and as fast ( or faster ) than P4 3.2Ghz given both runs at stock speed. ????

My guess is NO but never know the truth

 

[gamefoo21]

no it isn't most of the bench's i have seen a 3200+ can just give a 2.8 a run for its money with the 2.8 still winning in some spots.

 

[NookieN]

well, that was an example, i just made it all up. but if it was under real benchmark testing, then it would work. I think.

In theory it should work just fine. But in practice, I think it would be nearly impossible to find a benchmark (or suite of benchmarks) that fairly compares chips of different architectures and gives you one absolute metric of performance. Some benchmarks are AMD-biased, some are Intel-biased, and some are just crappy benchmarks.

Plus, everytime a new benchmark revision comes out, all test on all chips must be re-run, or some scaling factor must be determined. Finding such a scaling factor would be no easy task. It would probably be somewhat arbitrary and would inevitably lead to giving certain chip architectures a handicap.

 

[ninthebin]

modenaf1, as nookien says, you can make what your going to do with the numbers work, its getting the numbers thats the problem.

I think one company running clockspeed, and the other using a marketing ploy is just fine.

 

[allen337]

i think toms hardware says it best about amd vs. intel. ~~~ http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/index.html

 

[dropadrop]

I find it hard to believe that tom would say it best...

 

[imgod2u]

As software is constantly changing, there is no real way to make a "definitive benchmark". The "ultimate benchmark" from 5 years ago is vastly different from the "ultimate benchmark" of today, if such a thing even exists. The question isn't whether a benchmark is "fair" or not, merely that it's relevent. That is, a lot of people actually depend on performance in such application. Does it matter whether Sandra gives you a better score? Are you going to spend most of your time running Sandra? Does it matter more than, say, your UT2003 scores are better? Your video encoding times are better? Definitely.
That's really the only way to determine "which is the superior processor" in terms of performance. Take commonly used software, test it on both platforms. That's what most sites do and that's where we draw conclusions. Are all consumers going to look at them? No. Is there a way to dumb down all that information to something that would capture the consumer's limited attention span without loosing information? Absolutely not.
Computers are complex things and performance is a complex thing. You can't make it simple without making hasty generalizations. Hence, this "educating the average Joe" thing is a lost cause.

 

[Lithan]

Bear in mind it's an intel user saying tom's says it best.

 

[Gautam]

Comparing AMD's to Intel's is like comparing apples to oranges. You aren't going to be able to come up with a strict PR rating system that could work even 50% of the time; it simply isn't possible to generalize overall system performance from each. The PR rating system is based on the original Athlon, and this is about the best that can be done. You could go further by taking into account that AMD's perfom 1.28 more int calculations per clock cycle than Intel, but then you also have to keep in mind that Intels have earth-shattering memory bandwidth in comparison to AMD, not to mention SSE2. It just inevitably falls apart. AMD's PR rating system does what its meant to do; give the average Joe a rough idea of where AMD processors stand in relationship to their Intel counterparts.