Gopher, Re: "I started writing a long response then I realized the gulf between our viewpoints was insurmountable."
I think you've misunderstood me. I don't agree with Intel sending the message that megahertz is the best measurement. On the other hand, I do think that the target audience will feel that way. Intel does do a very good job with marketing, and it seems that they've finally decided to debunk AMD's model number myth.
Of course, I'm sure you realize what's happening. Both companies are trying to perpetuate their own myth towards performance, and neither one of them is addressing the real concern, which is how we measure real performance?
I agree that Intel missed the mark. Instead of debunking AMD's model numbers with a true measurement of performance, they've withdrawn farther into their own myth. I think Andreas has it right that both companies need to work together towards a common effort, but like I responded, that kind of collaboration is not without its problems.
I just wanted to make sure you realized that I was not promoting megahertz for performance, nor was I endorsing their method of rhetoric. I only looked at the goal of the publication, which was to debunk AMD's own model numbering scheme, and thought that they had done a good job getting that message out. Neither Intel nor AMD is doing anything evil by promoting their own performance standard; however, both companies seem to be ignoring the greater problem by defending their own methods. I'd like to see it work itself out in the end, but in the mean time, AMD is doing no service to the industry by promoting QuantiSpeed. And after all, megahertz was indeed here, first.
But please don't forget to relax. It's not the end of the world. :-)
wbmw |
