From hardware.earthweb.com:
We start off with an Athlon XP 1500+ running at 1.33GHz and end with an XP 2000+ running at 1.67GHz. Sounds about right, with a 333MHz core speed increase alongside a 500-point jump in the model numbers. If you compare the actual megahertz per PR score for each processor, however, things get weird -- the higher the model number, the exponentially faster the performance rating.
This is due to starting the 1.33GHz Athlon XP off at a relatively high 1500+ rating (88MHz per 100 PR points), then using a totally different 66MHz per 100 points for the following models. A different way to look at it is to take imaginary steps down the scale, to find that a theoretical Athlon XP 1000+ would actually run at 1.0GHz, while any lower-speed processors would feature clock rates in excess of their performance ratings.
....
Intel seems bound and determined to jeer and resist any proposed move to a performance-ratings solution, probably because it enjoys a substantial clock-speed advantage in the current market. This strikes me as a bit ironic, because with the introduction of the Pentium 4 Northwood, Intel might actually benefit from some sort of performance rating comparison.
That's because the Northwood's 0.13-micron-process design and larger L2 cache deliver a higher level of performance per clock speed than the older Pentium 4. Sound familiar? The Northwood is an impressive processor, but its marketing puts Intel between a rock and hard place: If you're Joe Consumer, which would you buy, a Pentium 4/2.0A Northwood or slightly cheaper Pentium 4/2.0? According to Intel's conventional wisdom, 2.0GHz is 2.0GHz, so you're safe to save a few bucks with the older model.
Originally posted by uncleel
which means *ntel is losing market share & is worried.
From theregister:
We understand that this will have a lower clock speed than P4 mobiles, yet deliver better performance. Will there be more PR ratings on the cards?
Maybe not, but Intel´s choice of one little letter represents a small, very small, victory, we think, for AMD in the Megahertz Madness war.
Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation
MISSION: To establish, maintain, and endorse a standardized set of relevant benchmarks and metrics for performance evaluation of modern computer systems
AMD saw Commerical Growth In 2001
by Julio @ 9:47 PM - [Comments]
http://www.3dspotlight.com/
AMD today announced significant year over year market share growth in 2001 based on shipments for both the commercial and consumer desktop PC markets worldwide, according to Gartner Dataquest.
Overall, AMD's worldwide market share increased from 18 percent in 2000 to 22 percent in 2001 for Windows®-based desktop shipments, according to Gartner Dataquest.
AMD posted gains in several U.S. commercial desktop market segments. From Q4 2000 to Q4 2001, market share in the U.S. small business desktop sector rose from 20 percent to 37 percent and in the U.S. medium business desktop market share increased from 11 percent to 28 percent. For the same quarters, the U.S. desktop education market share grew from 12 percent to 17 percent and growth in the U.S. desktop government sector doubled to 32 percent. In other regions of the world, AMD processor-based desktop PCs accounted for 42 percent of PCs shipped to the Japanese home desktop PC market in 2001. AMD ended 2001 with 41 percent market share of home desktop PCs in Western Europe and 28 percent market share of home desktop PCs in Eastern Europe. All figures reflect Windows®-based desktop market segments.
an alleged Intel marketing brochure is now making the rounds of the Internet, getting in a few jabs about how AMD saw no need for model numbers when it had the lead in megahertz, and accusing the Athlon XP team of underhandedly confusing consumers.
Intel may insist that clock speed is the best metric, but if so, what in heck is the difference between the 2.0GHz and 2.0AGHz Pentium 4s? Which pot is calling which kettle black.
Intel knows that the Athlon XP ratings are quite fair, and in many ways even understate comparative performance. What AMD's strange math means is that its processors below the XP 2000+ are actually a bit faster than their performance ratings would attest.
The Athlon XP 1500+ would beat the 1.5GHz Pentium 4 more soundly than the XP 2000+ ever could the 2.0GHz Pentium 4. This extra bang for buck from the lower-speed Athlon XPs is something Intel would probably not like consumers to know -- nor, maybe, would AMD, since those value-priced CPUs' profit margins are likely lower.
AMD dented Intel market share http://www.theinquirer.net/18030209.htmOriginally posted by uncleel
which means *ntel is losing market share & is worried.
"aggressive moves" by AMD last year meant its share of X86 processors grew to 20 per cent worldwide.
