How reliable is AMDs XP + ranking system?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron Cliborn
  • Start date Start date
R

Ron Cliborn

I'm an AMD fan. My best mate is an Intel fan. He says that AMD's use
of the XP + ranking, as in a CPU that is 2.4 ghz but 4600 +, is pure
bunk. And I have no way to prove this or disprove this.
Thoughts?

R
o
n
 
Ron Cliborn said:
I'm an AMD fan. My best mate is an Intel fan. He says that AMD's use
of the XP + ranking, as in a CPU that is 2.4 ghz but 4600 +, is pure
bunk. And I have no way to prove this or disprove this.
Thoughts?

R
o
n
Click to expand...

In general, the speed ratings given to AMD processors are real in the sense
that AMD processors usually are faster than similar Intel procs. For
example, a 2400 AMD chip would be faster than a 2.4GHz Intel chip, in spite
of the AMD chip having a lower real clock speed.

But that changed with Core Duo. Now the roles are reversed. With the
latest round of Intel chips, lower clock speed Intel chips are kicking the
crap out of even the most expensive AMD chips with much higher speed
ratings.

I've always thought that the whole Intel/AMD debate was kind of silly
anyway. They both make good chips. At any particular point, one brand
might offer better bang/buck than the other. So it's kind of silly to
debate which is better.

I've built many AMD systems, and many Intel systems. I will probably build
many systems with both brands of processors in the future, also.

But right now, Intel has the performance and value lead, and it aint even
close. -Dave
 
Mike T. said:
In general, the speed ratings given to AMD processors are real in the sense
that AMD processors usually are faster than similar Intel procs. For
example, a 2400 AMD chip would be faster than a 2.4GHz Intel chip, in spite
of the AMD chip having a lower real clock speed.

But that changed with Core Duo. Now the roles are reversed. With the
latest round of Intel chips, lower clock speed Intel chips are kicking the
crap out of even the most expensive AMD chips with much higher speed
ratings.

I've always thought that the whole Intel/AMD debate was kind of silly
anyway. They both make good chips. At any particular point, one brand
might offer better bang/buck than the other. So it's kind of silly to
debate which is better.

I've built many AMD systems, and many Intel systems. I will probably build
many systems with both brands of processors in the future, also.

But right now, Intel has the performance and value lead, and it aint even
close. -Dave
Click to expand...
Not a good explanation. Just look at it this way.AMD's PR rating is DAMN
close to comparing raw speed with Intel CPU's.
I know how confusing it is,believe me. My new CPUn is a 4000+ AMD64 w1MB
L2cache
The actual speed in mhz is 2.4ghz. Now,the Intel 4000(uh,what intel 4000?)
Intel dropped the 4ghz w/2mb l2. So now what to compare.Nothing huh?Thought
I was on to something.LOL!!!!
 
Ron Cliborn said:
I'm an AMD fan. My best mate is an Intel fan. He says that AMD's use
of the XP + ranking, as in a CPU that is 2.4 ghz but 4600 +, is pure
bunk. And I have no way to prove this or disprove this.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Not quite pure bunk, they're 90% bunk. And in any case,
with the release of Conroe these AMD ratings are now
100% pure bunk.
 
Back
Top