AMD drops performance ratings

[Favu]

From the FRONTPAGE

I think that this could get really confusing, just as when Intel went from Ghz ratings to the 6xx ratings for it's P4 chips. With conroe it wasn't so bad because we only knew them by their model numbers. I'm not really sure if this will gain AMD all that much really.

What do you think?

[Toastmaster]

That's going to be pretty confusing for a while. I still don't understand the Core 2 Duo naming scheme

I guess it's better in the long run though, they were getting close to having the same numbers as nVidia GFX cards.

[Daniel ~]

If you can't keep up, declare the race as won! I wish it seemed otherwise to me.

[funnyperson1]

Seems like AMD is getting desperate, searching for anything that might give them the smallest boost. It also seems like that is quite a fruitless search.

I personally kind of liked the Performance Ratings, it was a nice way of knowing where the chips stood in relation to each other without really having to look up what the model numbers meant.

I am more interested in the chips themselves though, 45W Brisbanes sound appealing, I wonder if they oc better than the current 65W ones.

[Wolf2000me]

I don't know if the move is out of desperation. They essensially don't really have anything to compare their PR rating on. It used to be based on the actual clockspeed needed for an athlon T'bird CPU to equal the performance of their performance rated CPU.
What they are going to do is a good question, we'll just have to wait it out.

[Áedán]

As Wolf2000me points out, PR ratings are only any good when you know what the reference platform is. Whilst it would be good to have some method of telling performance between different chips, I can also understand that it depends on the environment the chip is being used in.

[Favu]

I think it would have been better of AMD if they had introduced the new rating scheme with a new CPU family, rather than just renaming current-gen chips to make them sound like something new and shiny.