AMD To Hide MHz Rating From Consumers

pezpunk writes: "Tom's Hardware is reporting here that AMD's next-generation Athlons will be identified by model number rather than Mhz rating. This means that an Athlon will be designated an "Athlon 1600" even though it's only a 1.4Ghz part. The true clock speed of the chip will NOT be shown either on the chip itself or even in the BIOS. Apparently, they're desperate to compete with higher-clocked Pentiums in the minds of consumers -- proof that even the underdog can pull dirty marketing tricks =("

Go for it, AMD!

[supabeast!]

AMD should go for this all they way! After all, we all know how well trying to hide a chip's REAL speed rating worked for Cyrix! oh, wait....

My research

[Hard_Code]

I also did some scientific research. I wrote a similar program, and printed it out from both a 1 GHz Pentium III and a 500 Mhz G4. I then threw both copies of the printed program out a window. I was surprised to find that they landed at approximately the same time. This just goes to show that Intel is obviously counting its clocks TWICE instead of ONCE. I think this is backed up even further by the fact that the copy of the program printed out from the Pentium machine, fluttered as it fell a lot more than the G4 copy.

Re:Thoughts on the Hz Myth

[neier]

Okay, so why is the Mac faster at the operations you used in your tests? It's a different architecture! You are comparing apples (pardon the pun) to grapefruit here.

Grapefruit?? Don't you mean lemons? :-)

Re:Makes sense to me...

[grammar fascist]

Heck, since when did MHz mean something?

No kidding. I've got a 66MHz 486DX, and I can swear that it runs just as fast as my friend's 1.4GHz Athlon DDR system.

The thing that bothers me the most is these stupid software companies that keep making bloatware. I mean come on, since when was a freaking web browser supposed to load up in over five minutes??

*ducks*

What's dirty about it?

[Moofie]

The clock speed DOESN'T have any direct bearing on the system's performance. What's dishonest about this? I mean, the Mustang 5.0 always had a 4.7 liter engine...what's the big deal?