Contradiction in AMD's PR tactics revealed?
We were leaked documents from Intel in which the performance rating of AMD is critically examined. Among other things, it is about various pro and contra statements on the part of AMD regarding this naming from the past few years.
When AMD introduced the performance rating in 1996 with the K5 and named the processors accordingly (e.g. AMD-K5-PR166, although the actual clock frequency was 116.5 MHz), this was justified in a press release of October 7, 1996 with the following words: “Performance ratings provide the PC industry with a simple, meaningful measured value for the actual processor performance. ”In mid-1998, about a year before the Athlon was introduced, it was abolished. The quote from “Semiconductor Pages of Electronic News” of June 8, 1998 reads as follows: “We used to use performance ratings, but abandoned them because they were too confusing for consumers.” With the introduction of the Athlon, especially the With the 1GHz model at the beginning of 2000, to which Intel was unable to produce an equivalent in corresponding quantities at that time, AMD itself promoted the processor clock. According to Intel, the reintroduction of a PR rating with the Athlon XP is obviously in stark contradiction to the previous actions by AMD.
On the one hand, AMD has said that PR ratings confuse customers , from today's perspective, done a disservice. So Intel is at least partially right here. On the other hand, you have to protect AMD a little, since today's rivals Intel Pentium 4 and AMD Athlon XP, although they are very far apart in terms of clock frequency, do not take anything away from each other in terms of performance - in contrast to Intel's Pentium and AMD's K5. Thus, the PR rating seems appropriate today to show the customer the true performance of a CPU, especially since it can be assumed that the differencewill continue to increase in real time in the future. The architectures of the Pentium 4 and the Athlon XP are very different in this respect and, as we were recently confirmed at CeBit, AMD will continue to try to get as much out of the processors as possible with a low clock rate instead of Intel To change strategy.
Furthermore, Intel states in the documents that the difference between the product name and the actual clock rate at Athlon XP gets bigger from model to model. With the Athlon XP 1500+ this is 167, with the XP 2000+ it is double with 333MHz. According to Intel, this leads to a 'false perception' on the part of the buyer. Another statement to be found reads: 'MHz is a factual and uniform measure of processor performance.' Some processor comparisons, including our recently published Review of the fastest possible platforms , proven. As can be seen from this, the performance rating from AMD can currently reflect the performance of the Athlon XP in comparison to a Pentium 4 and actually help uninformed buyers to assess the processor speed. Because, contrary to Intel's claim, the MHz number cannot do this, at least in the current situation. On the other hand, a PR rating is a shaky affair and can easily be used for manipulation, but as long as AMD doesn't do this, Intel has no reason to act against it.