Grrrr....Vendors are dropping GHz from XP ads...

[Scott99999]

Well, as I look around the Web and Pricewatch, I'm seeing vendors dropping GHz information from ads and listings of the XP 1500 and 1800 models...

That's totally misleading and frustrating when you're trying to figure out what an "XP 1500" compares to in GHz...that an 1800 XP is a 1.53 GHz Athlon and not 1.8 GHz Athlon...

Totally aimed at the uniformed Joe-consumer that is already confused between Intel performance and AMD perfomance when it comes to clock speeds.

IMHO, AMD is confusing more people than anything else.

Sales ploys are bad for "pro"sumers like most people here.

[Sephiroth]

It's confusing to Joe Consumer, and that's exactly what AMD wants. I was talking to a friend just yesterday who thought that the 1800 was clocked at 1.8 GHz. That's a good thing, because he would have bought that 1800 over a Pentium 4 1.8 GHz because it was so much cheaper. He would have been buying a faster CPU too. He isn't just a typical consumer though, he does understand that clock speed isn't everything, but it would have worked on him. There's nothing ethically wrong with it either, because AMD never says that the number is it's clock speed. At least they didn't do the Giggahertz thing (abbreviated GHz ) like that joke on BBSpot was talking about. That would have been even worse.

And for all of the "pro"sumers, it's not like we don't have enough sources to find out what the real clocks speeds are anyway.

[Scott99999]

There's nothing ethically wrong with it either, because AMD never says that the number is it's clock speed.

Well, I disagree, since they did purposefully to confuse people into thinking it IS the clock speed. Maybe nothing legally wrong...but ethically...well... Now, we all know why they did it...but does that mean Apple should drop GHz and MHz references and come up with their own interpretation of what PC speed their processors are equivalent to? So you'd buy a Mac 1100, 1333 or 1530, which really runs at 667 MHz? Again, I think that just confuses everything more...since companies routinely rate products higher than reality to promote them.

If EVERY single manufacturer used one Winbench/Sysmark/3D mark-type number as a standard, it would be different...but they don't. They're promoting a product and making it seem like something else, rather than spend the time actually informing consumers of what they're getting. That's a bad road, IMHO.

And for all of the "pro"sumers, it's not like we don't have enough sources to find out what the real clocks speeds are anyway.

I agree...but only in part. It just took me 10 minutes to search around to find the translations for all the clock speeds, and not everyone would realize that right off the bat. Most of us read the news every day, but not everyone.

I'm all-for having standards. I'm not for companies trying to casually mislead average consumers to keep themselves competitive.

You could argue that actual benchmark perfomance justifies it, but then it's just a stupid PR game they're playing, rather than reality.

And before I get massively flamed, I LOVE AMD.

I just don't love what they did in this scenario.

[PEZ_B0y]

But do you remember Intel purposly confusing people by saying that their Pentium 3 would make the "Internet" faster? All it did was make your browser faster not the internet this is false advertising and its even worse than what AMD is doing.

[Sephiroth]

A standard would rock. The trick would be getting Intel to agree to the standards, because right now they have a huge clock speed lead, but they don't have a performance lead. Why would they agree? If the market leader doesn't agree, then a standard rating system would be worthless.

Intel definitely does the same thing. There was the P3 thing, and then there's the fact that the P4 core is called the NetBurst architecture. What's the deal with that? The NetBurst has nothing to do with any sort of "net" at all, they're blatantly misleading the consumer. That's a few hundred times worse than AMD's performance ratings.

I don't see anything wrong it, ethically or legally. If people buy an 1800 because they thought it was 1800 mhz, then they failed to their research. I think the best thing that can happen is someone sees it's an 1800, researches it, finds out it's a 1533 mhz, then sees the benchmarks that show the 1800 toasting a P4 at 2.0 ghz. The consumer would learn something from it, and AMD would still sell that CPU.

[lonewolfz28]

Scott, my only question is how is this different from Intel misleading the average consumers for the past year about the performance of their chips? Intel has capitalized on the past belief that MHz was everything for performance. Have they ever admitted the fact that their faster speed chips perform inferior to lower speed AMD's? That's misleading people.

AMD had to do something to get the point across to the average person that their lower speed processors match or beat Intels in performance. They definitely weren't going to out advertise Intel and none of the major media jumped on the issue to publicize it.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that this may backfire on AMD. I'm sure Intel is busy pointing out to every media person they know what AMD is doing. The media loves a good stink. Especially, when someone powerful makes a big deal out of it and they can distort the truth to show that somehow the public is being defrauded.

[mlip129]

So what? Its not like Average Bob goes to pricewatch alot to buy a new processor. Before I buy anything for my computer i reaserch it.

[Scott99999]

I didn't say Intel was better...

Of course, two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't like it when Apple says the G4 "crushes" Pentiums...even though I have used and liked Macs.

These companies should do what's right...not what they can get away with because the other company is being misleading also.

IMHO, AMD *can* "do something to get the point across to the average person that their lower speed processors match or beat Intels in performance. "

Just say THAT. Advertise some benchmarks and prices. Turn the pressure up on Intel.

Saying it's the "XP 1800" to make it seem like it's 1.8 GHz isn't the way to do it. Then the consumer is going to get it home and eventually find out it's not what they thought. There's a better chance they'll feel betrayed than realize what the benchmarks say. In fact, having that PR work is dependant on MINIMIZING or hiding the actual clock speed numbers.

That's playing catch-up....saying Intel has the PR lead and we need to do something desperate to compete.

Instead, explain to the consumers that you're just as fast for less money. Imagine...people actually understanding that GHz isn't everything!

IMHO, it's do-able. I don't think it's too hard to get people to understand the truth. People are idiots, but not complete idiots. I'm sure AMD has sophisticated enough PR people to formulate a successful ad.

"Doing MORE with LESS." "Doing more FOR less."

There. I just came up with their whole ad campaign. Intel would run like chickens.

[BullDog]

Its the vendors that will or are misleading the consumer. I just got back from a local computer show, and a company by the name of Nova Computers had and was selling the athlon xp as ghz. So the uneducated people that thought they where getting a 1800mhz system ended up walking away with a 1.5 ghz system and unless something serious happens they may never know the difference.

From everything I have read in regards to the Athlon xp, AMD has been honest and told everybody that the numbers dont represent mhz. Its the vendors/retailers that will be making amd look bad.


Its up to us to educate our friends and famil...

[mdzcpa]

I encourage everyone who is interested in AMD's PR marketing model to read this article at Van's Hardware:
In Defence of AMD's Model Rating System

The AMD PR system does not appear so unethical now does it? The truth of the matter is that Intel produced a CPU which is MUCH SLOWER than the PIII clock for clock. They did this on purpose to beat AMD in the MHZ War. That, my friends, is pulling one over on the customer.

[Scott99999]

If you skip ahead to the end of that article...it unfortunately doesn't say anything different than what's been said here.

The article basically says "Intel did something bad, which made AMD do something bad." How about somebody doing something right???

Since megahertz mean nothing, consumers need a quick and easy number to summarize relative performance characteristics of competing processors. It would be nice if this means was produced by a dispassionate outside source, but since is not forthcoming, AMD has introduced its own system.

"it's own system?"

Which is basically saying, "AMD and Intel are just basically conducting a PR war." The numbers aren't measuring the relative performance characteristics of "competing" processors if there isn't a cohesive standard to which they are being held. He's also saying "competing" processors...but at the same time saying that Athlons are only being graded against Athlons.

....that is normalized to the clock speed performance of the older Athlon "Thunderbird" architecture (despite rumors to the contrary, the rating system is not based on the Pentium 4)....

Well, which is it?

Does this mean a 1500 XP is like a 1.5 GHz Thunderbird, but nothing like a 1.5 GHz Intel? Or is it? (Of course, clock speed is meaningless, right?)

Confusing, huh?

Make some noise, people. Don't put up with bullsh*t from two different companies, whether you like one better than the other or not.

We need to tell them to stop playing games and start coming up with an accurate measurement of comparing all the different processors out there.

They have a responsibility to accurately market their product. It's our responsibility as consumers to make informed decisions. These things are both necessities. From where I stand, we're doing the right thing. I don't see where they are.

[Goobee]

Originally posted by PEZ_B0y
But do you remember Intel purposly confusing people by saying that their Pentium 3 would make the "Internet" faster? All it did was make your browser faster not the internet this is false advertising and its even worse than what AMD is doing.

That's an Intel joke at it's worse. Before I came in out of the dark, I had a P3 700, 750 and 800. It never made my browser faster. There will never be an Intel under my hood again.

[cjh6386]

it can only help AMD... I like it. It will make people who think that mhz is everything finally look into amd.

[Goobee]

Intel is hell bent on retaining their speed crown. Even though the T-Bird was kicking the P4's A$$ all year long, newbies and casual users were convinced that a 1.7 P4 was better and faster than a 1.4 T-Bird.

Granted, the 2 Gig P4 has some balls but not much over the 1.4 T-Bird. If you take away the rambust bandwidth advantage, it will lose just about every benchmark to the slower mhz T-Bird.

Consumers are stupid, plain and simple. All you need is for one mainstream media source to accuse AMD of false advertising and they will believe it. AMD needs to educate the masses, not try to use crutches (ie: PR ratings) to market their goods.

{steps off soapbox}