Joe, my rating scheme would apply to the SYSTEM, not the processor. Much like PC Magazine compares actual systems (as opposed to processors like AnandTech or Tom's Hardware), the rating scheme would and should only be used to judge overall system performance. That will bring the battle down to the Dells, Compaqs, Toshibas, etc. Intel and AMD's role would be to supply the processors that will help the OEMs improve the performance ratings of their systems.
Of course, my scheme is highly idealistic. Cheating would be rampant, and there would be no way to keep all the OEMs honest, especially the small screwdriver shops. Also, with the many, many uses of PCs these days, even my rating scheme may not be representative of the tasks a majority of people care about. Finally, there is the issue of keeping the benchmarks up-to-date. That means the rating changes from one year to the next, which makes it all the more confusing.
My point in all of this (and I do have one, believe it or not) is that the performance picture is very complicated. No one should believe that there can be one or two numbers that can accurately sum up system performance.
Tenchusatsu |
