gulogo.gif  
 
1. Hiatus
2. RIP, Satoru Iwata
3. Let there be Robot Battles
4. Regarding pixel art!
5. 16-bit Star Wars
6. Goodbye, Spock.
7. James Randi Retires
8. More Star Wars on GOG
9. Archive.org gives you DOS Games
10. Ralph Baer, RIP.
1. Quickie: Impressions June 2014
2. Quickie: Penny Arcade Episode 3
3. Quickie: The Amazing Spider-Man
4. Quickie: Transformers: Fall of Cybertron
5. Quickie: Prototype 2
6. Quickie: Microsoft Kinect
7. Quickie: X-Men Destiny
8. Spider-Man: Edge of Time
9. Quickie: Transformers Dark of the Moon
10. Quickie: Borderlands GOTY
1. Musings 45: Penny Arcade and The Gripping Hand
2. Movie Review: Pacific Rim
3. Movie Review: Wreck-It Ralph
4. Glide Wrapper Repository
5. Movie Review: Winnie The Pooh
6. Musings 44: PC Gaming? Maybe it's on Life Support
7. Video Games Live 2009
8. Movie Review: District 9
9. Musings: Stardock, DRM, and Gamers' Rights
10. Musings: How DRM Hurts PC Gaming
Main Menu

Affiliates
X-bit labs
The Tech Zone
Twin Galaxies

Login






 Log in Problems?
 New User? Sign Up!


 Mar 04, 2005 - 09:00 AM - by Michael
* Problems with AMD's performance marks?

Printer-friendly page Print this story   Email this to a friend
PC Games/Hardware/Microsoft
Sudhian's got an editorial today saying that AMD should dump the performance ratings because they're hurting more than helping.

Something of a point there, as they go through the three types - AthlonXP, Sempron, and Athlon64 - and find out that a "3200+" rating on each doesn't equate into the same performance across the board.

Far too much emphasis has been placed on asking whether or not AMD?s individual ratings on any given product are ?fair?; I?m not contesting these points. Whether or not a Sempron 3000+ is equal in performance to a non-existence Celeron 3000+ (or whether the ratings hold up once you step outside of the narrow benchmark range AMD has specified) is not the issue.

The bigger issue here is that the precepts on which the model rating system was built no longer hold true. The model rating system as it stands today no longer clarifies performance, it obscures it. In attempting to break down a huge variety of platforms, FSB frequencies, and clockspeeds into a single-number metric, AMD only obscures real information that consumers may need to know. The entire need for a comparative metric is called into question by Intel?s abandonment of MHz as a formal rating system.
While it's true that it might need some reform, we still need a reliable system - and I disagree with Sudhian, because I've found the Athlon markings to be at least a reliable predictor of performance as Intel's old clockspeed quoting, especially when Intel deliberately reduced their chips' per-cycle performance in favor of meaningless clockspeed ramp-ups.
 

Home :: Share Your Story
Site contents copyright Glide Underground.
Want to syndicate our news? Hook in to our RSS Feed.