god toms a moron.

[eh?]

This was at the end of toms new review of the 3200+

We also need a better perspective on model numbers, hence we at THG call on AMD to correct the model numbering for the new Athlon XP. Otherwise, customers will end up losing their faith in AMD if what they are buying does not live up to the marketing-speak on the box.

my god hes stupid.

 

[Tw00sh]

Well, he has a point. Most users that get AMD's are not as smart as the forum posters.

They see the 3200+ and expect it to perform as a P4 3.2 gigs. his point is that even though it is in relation to the T-Bird speeds, the users do not all know that and expect 3.2 Gig performance.

Looking over the reviews, it is obvious the 3200+ is not quit up to the 3.2 Gigs performance.

Hence, this is why he is claiming they should change their rating to something that the average user can relate to.

 

[Captain Slug]

I think what drdingo21 is saying is that "average users" don't buy AMD products and probably don't even know that AMD exists.

 

[JoT]

I think what drdingo21 is saying is that "average users" don't buy AMD products and probably don't even know that AMD exists.

this is true, but Tom's right too; anyone who isn't as knowledgable as one of us and does buy an AMD may be severely dissapointed when they expect the huge speed that's advertised

 

[Pinky]

I'll agree with Tom too (*gasp*).

AMD is playing a PR game (public relations and performance rating, nice double pun, huh? ). They need to stop sometime, clear the slate, and start marking them at actual mhz/clock frequency.

 

[JML]

I think he is wrong, and that AMD's Performance Ratings are almost right on with the latest processors. (my source for this is MaximumPC however, so I don't have too strong of an argument at the moment)

 

[CrystalMethod]

I think he's semi wrong/right. Bear with me. When AMD released the XP's with their PR rating, you could easily go to the website and find out exactly how fast the CPU was supposed to run at. This was really nice for techs because no one had any clue how fast they were supposed to run at, unless you had been following their development. Take the 2500+ for instance. Runs at 1.833Ghz, right? I know that, and you know that (...and if you didn't you do now). Now take the guy that comes into my shop and wants one of the predefined AMD systems that we sell. Basically a complete package, but the buyer chooses the CPU he wants, and the price is adjusted accordingly. Now try explaining to this guy that the 2500+ he's picked out doesn't run at 2.5Ghz. Further more, try explaining to him that it doesn't even run at 2Ghz. Now try explaining to him why it says 2500 but doesn't run at that speed, and to get an AMD that runs at 2Ghz, he's got to buy the 2800+ . By this point in time we've wasted 1/2 hour of my time, and his time, just because of the printing on a package. This is where it just becomes easier to sell him an Intel P4.

-"Does it run at 2.4 Ghz?"
"Yes" (I don't have to mention that Intel sped up the clock speed to get to 2.4, because any system info will report CPU speed as 2.4Ghz)
-"It doesn't run at 1.854351435252 Ghz, but at 2.4 right?"
"Yes sir it runs at 2.4Ghz."

AMD can call the CPU whatever the hell they like, but at least print on the package...

"AMD 2500+ 1.833Ghz processor with QuantiSpeed™ architecture."

If they did that, I'd end up selling a whole lot more AMD systems.

 

[cack01]

I think what drdingo21 is saying is that "average users" don't buy AMD products and probably don't even know that AMD exists.

I got in an argument last night with a MAC person and when I brought up AMD they had no clue what I was talking about.


I think Tom is right, AMD is a little too generous with their PR ratings. Especially when they went to the Barton core.

 

[JigPu]

Well, I don't think the PR numbers are inherently bad (they're kinda nice for the person who dosen't want to see what chip to buy to get 2.5GHz performance), however two things are begining to go bad for the AMD.

First is AMD's 'optimism' in their chips. As we can see from multiple reviews, the Barton chips would be better rated 100 or 200MHz below their current rating. The Athlon64s also have an abnormally high PR rating. AMD needs to lower the ratings to match reality on their chips....

Second is the differing architectures (especially with Athlon64). As we go on, AMD and Intel's chips are becoming more and more diffrent and harder and harder to compare with one single number. The PR system could work here if there were multiple PRs (a memory PR, CPU instruction PR, ect), but that get's unweildy with anything beyond the one PR rating we have now.

In short, AMD is forcing us to go back to looking at benchmarks to see how their chips perform. We can't trust their PR ratings completely any longer, and so their 'ease of use' factor in my mind is dropping. Why search on the net to find out how well a 2500+ performs when I can get a 2.5GHz chip, or one that I trust AMD to have labeled correctly as 2500+ (Palimino, T-Bred are pretty good I think)?

JigPu

 

[minoukat]

this is true, but Tom's right too; anyone who isn't as knowledgable as one of us and does buy an AMD may be severely dissapointed when they expect the huge speed that's advertised

No offense meant, but can you really see the difference between a 3.1GHz and a 3.2GHz P4 ? I don't think you can, and you are pretty experianced with computers. Now, how could a normal user see this difference, if even we can't ?

I'm not backing up AMD, just telling there's not gonna be "a huge speed difference".

 

[JoT]

3000+ and 3 GHz is quite a speed difference

 

[JML]

Not necessarily. While you are comparing an 2.16GHz processor to 3GHz processor, you say it as though they both will be the same speed per Mhz, which they are not. The AMD chip will be faster per MHz. Assuming that AMD's PR's are 200Mhz too high, its more like comparing a 2.8GHz processor to a 3GHz processor, which is NOT quite a speed difference

 

[sirtoby]

well, does the average consumer even know what the PR rating is?

 

[JML]

I would say, no. The average consumer doesn't know crap.

 

[Pinky]

I would say, no. The average consumer doesn't know crap.

That's why AMD did it, if they list their clock frequencies on the Compaq on the shelf at Best Buy, neither AMD, Best Buy, or Compaq make a sale. IMO, it's good business sense... but businesses will lie (exagerration counts as lying ) all the time for a few more sales.

Of course, WE know they're damn fine processors, but WE're the exception to the rule.

 

[ninthebin]

I thought it was a decent review up until this line in the summary.

To be fair, though, the Athlon does have to make do with half the FSB bandwidth

 

[metra]

I dont want to get in the current arguement, but id like to add something. Tom is not stupid/a moron/an idiot. He didnt build the most popular (notice i didnt say best) hardware review site off stupidity. Even if you didnt know jack about Tom, you can infer that he's not stupid because of the popularity of his site. He may post things that seem stupid to you (in general), but its probably not that stupid. Sure the truth may be bent or omitted sometimes (although not often), but thats not stupidity (this sentence doesnt apply to the current situation).

I hope this somewhat dissuades people from thinking that Tom's is full of inferior idiots that dont know jack about computers and that Tom himself is the biggest idiot of them all and that he doesnt even come close to the knowledge of computers that you possess.

 

[JML]

Ok, so we'll rephrase it. Tom's not an idiot, he's a liar.

Pinky- they only exagerated like what, 200Mhz higher? We can let 'em off for that

 

[Burning Phoenix]

Many reviews sites have realized AMD PR scheme is out of line these days. The 3200 should be a 2800.
I think it should read XP3200-400 !