Advanced Micro Devices, the world’s second largest producer of x86 microprocessors is considering to cease using current model numbers, which are sometimes called as “performance rating” (PR) to mark its desktop microprocessors, according to a media report. Instead, AMD’s next-generation chips will use a new model numbering scheme.
For years AMD used performance ratings to differentiate various AMD Athlon XP microprocessors and to show their relative performance in comparison with AMD Athlon “Thunderbird” processors. When AMD64 desktop chips were introduced, AMD decided to drop “performance rating” name and started to use “model number” term instead. Both types of numbers allowed AMD to compare its chips to Intel’s microprocessors that were marked with their clock-speeds.
AMD’s official position is that “AMD Athlon 64 processors are identified by a 4 digit model number”. The AMD model numbers are “based on industry-standard benchmarks on a wide range of popular software, are a simple, accurate representation of relative AMD processor performance”.
However, with introduction of dual-core and quad-core microprocessors those model numbers can hardly explain end-users relative performance, which is why, according to HKEPC web-site, the company is considering different ways of marking its next-generation desktop processors that are named after stars and are presumably based on the micro-architecture code-named K8L.
The company does not use PR to differentiate its mobile, server and high-end desktop chips, hence, the new marking will bring desktop central processing units (CPUs) in line with other products.
Comments currently: 1
Discussion started: 12/25/06 06:07:17 PM
Latest comment: 12/25/06 06:07:17 PM
[1-1]
1.
And hell freezes over.
seems they are confident enough and feel confusing consumers would benefit them.
AFAIK current A64 naming is the best on the market.
Hence, the level of inteligence required for a guy to have a clue which model is better/faster is the lowest for this model-numbering system.
Try explaining to some BFU that the X6800 is better than QX6700, o even CeleronD 346 is better than 350 ?
[Posted by: mino | Date: 12/25/06 06:07:17 PM]
[1-1]
You must log in to add comments.
Unfortunately, the old registrations do not work anymore. Please register again. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Forgot password? Registration