AMD to give up P-Rating - X2 6000+ coming in Q1 2007

Once P-Rating is a very successful marketing tactic for AMD, making consumers to compare the PR of AMD's processors to the clock speed of Intel's processors. Until now, most of AMD's processors still adopted the PR scheme for customer's reference.

Nonetheless, the PR figures are no longer useful for comparison as dual core has become common; sometimes it is quite confusing, especially since the launch of Core architecture. Sources reported that AMD plans to discard the PR scheme starting from the next-generation Stars processor.

News source: Warp2Search
Original News source: HKEPC

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

AMD to Partners: Produce your Own-Designed High-End products

Next Story

Creative Labs Applications Software Available

19 Comments

thanks god...
Will be less confusing now and people will stop to think that the 5000+ X2 equal a 5GHz Core2Duo (I have really got this comment from a customer)

Btw: Typo in the source site name

Once P-Rating is a very successful marketing tactic for AMD, making consumers to compare the PR of AMD's processors to the clock speed of Intel's processors.

You fail english ? that's unpossible !

I may be mistaken but the rating wasn't intended to compare to Intel processors, though for a while it worked out rather well. The comparison was to an earlier version of the Athlon I believe. That may have only been their "official" line on the matter though. Interesting they do this now that Intel is ahead of them in performance.

I thought the comparison was to the pre + era of althons, thunderbird specifically. So a 5000+ would be the equivalent of a 5GHz thunderbird. However, I'm pretty sure that a 5000+ would win. Also, even though its not a good comparison to intel, it still served well as a general measuring device. Intel's model numbers seem much more confusing. Its easy to compare CPUs only within a family, but then how do you compare a P4 to a Core 2?

I hope their new system is as simple as this one. I hate Intel's cryptic code numbers, half of the time I'm not even sure how their own CPU's compare against each other, let alone with the competition. At least AMD's was smple, you knew a 3400+ was slower than a 4000+, dual core or not.

They should just add another number to indicate the number of cores or something, like 2x3000+.

I liked that it was more-or-less proportional. You had at least a celing figure of how much more performance the next speed grade bought you just by looking at the model number.

Dual Core: 4600+(2400MHz) vs. 3800+(2000MHz) -- 121% the rating, 120% the speed

Single Core: 3800+ (2400MHz) vs. 3200+ (2000MHz) -- 118.8% the rating, 120% the speed

Of course, the FX and Opteron screwed that line up.

In comparison with the Core 2 duo

E6600 (2400MHz) vs. E6300 (1866MHz) -- 104.8% the rating, 129% the speed.

Or the Pentium 4/Pentium D

960 (3600MHz) vs. 915 (2800MHz) -- 104.9% the rating, 128.5% the speed.

i think we need a new system of measurement? so to efficiently benchmark or rate processor performances? just like we need to use SI units instead of what, the binary prefix, unless its a commercial strategy, which leads me to my rage about consumerism..

The problem is neither measurement nor branding. The problem is marketing. All review sites, sales sites, advertizements, print media etc should also mention the flops instead of just the model no. Its high time they start making flops as popular as hertz.

The P-rating system is a big flop-show that hertz the average joe.

i always quote my X2 4200+ as a 8.4 Ghz processor to my less technically minded friends. Especially when their laptop has a 1.4Ghz Celeron m that could out-perform my old 2500+

The naming scheme has become quite confusing. I agree that a change needs to be made, but a standardized scheme would be most appropriate for both AMD and Intel.

I agree, but who decides the 'standard'? And we all know just clock speed alone doesn't have all that much meaning in today's real-world conditions. There are loads of factors which determine a processors value on certain platforms and for certain applications/environments. I don't think there's going to be any middle-ground where a processor can be named or numbered to directly compete with another brands chip.

Commenting is disabled on this article.