The AMD rating sytem - hmmmm

[Kumagoro]

I read that the new sempron ratings will be inline with the celeron D
i.e. a sempron 2600 is equivalent to a celeron d 2600 MHz

But a 2500 Barton XP will still perform better...

I thought (from reading other threads) that AMD claimed their rating system was based on the original athlon and not directly to intel chips.

Reading all the system test etc i have never trusted AMDs rating for the XPs anyway. They always seemed about 200 points over rated from tests.

I dont think much of the new intel one either its just meaning less to me.

[Kezzer]

Remember that 2500 is not the CPU speed, it's just the name of the CPU. i.e. a 3200+ operates at 2.2GHz.

Just to make sure

[Zak33]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh

tricky subject

The original XP chips were definately compared to the original Thunderbird chips, but who knows HOW they are now done? Mystery.

It's all relative. Like my Mum...she's a relative (weird woman) and you can only compare my Mum to me or my Dad...not to someone elses Mum, who does thing differently.

Does that make sense?

No?

Nor do AMD's ratings However....a Sempron WILL at least COMPETE with a Celery, so we gotta go with it.

For me there is only ONE way to compare.

Price....simple as that. Is it WORTH the dough in the users opinion. No other way to compare really.

[Captain Fizz]

AMD originally advised that it was what speed a Thunderbird core would need to run at to give the same performance.

So the XP1600 would be the equivalent of a Thunderbird core running at 1600MHz. (They topped out at 1400MHz)
XP3200 - Thunderbird core at 3200MHz.

But everyone knows it was just to attract the "first time buyer"/PC Builder who was looking for a PC and Intel had a faster clock speed, therefore a higher number to the end user, so they would go for the bigger number. AMD needed to do something to show that their CPU's do indeed crunch more per MHz than Intels do.

What would interest me is what a Barton core running at 2400~2500MHz would be equal to. Tom's Hardware had the formula that AMD used but that was a few years ago that it was up. Might be in the archives.

[Leo]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh

tricky subject

The original XP chips were definately compared to the original Thunderbird chips, but who knows HOW they are now done? Mystery.

It's all relative. Like my Mum...she's a relative (weird woman) and you can only compare my Mum to me or my Dad...not to someone elses Mum, who does thing differently.

Does that make sense?

No?

Nor do AMD's ratings However....a Sempron WILL at least COMPETE with a Celery, so we gotta go with it.

For me there is only ONE way to compare.

Price....simple as that. Is it WORTH the dough in the users opinion. No other way to compare really.

Well said, though Intel havent made it any easier as well. All this naming based on BMW 3/5/7 series is enough to do anyone's head in.