Hmmm
I will attempt to be polite with my reply however if I offend you; I am sorry but at the same time not
now....
Yes......Intel controls the majority of shares of the market in almost every field.
Yes......Intel currently hold the speed crown with their latest P4 2.5Ghz CPU
Yes......The PR rating that AMD is using is confusing (even to me)
However, I find a problem with your statement:
"Dont blame intel, cause intel set most of the mhz standard until AMD came along with the t-bird and added an extra .5 ipc to each clock. now you think who messed up the entire mhz speed rating. "
If anyone screwed up the Mhz rating, it would be Intel... Reasoning:
Among the Computer engineer community, it is a well known fact that Processor speed (measured in Mhz) is a very inaccurate way of describing how "fast" a CPU is. A CPU's true processing power is rated at how many MIPS (Million Instructions Per Second) the CPU can do in a single second NOT how many clock cycles it runs at per second.
The AMD CPU OBVIOUSLY has a higher MIPS rating that the P4 at an equal "Clock Rate" becuase if you were to take an Athlon 1Ghz (100FSB) and compare it to a P4 1Ghz (100x4FSB), the Athlon "would most likely" pound on the P4 and then ask for more! ***NOTE: I say "would most likely" becuase there has never actally been an actual bench test of this nature. Wonder why?
Now what you are saying is that AMD screwed up the Mhz standard by making their CPUs more effecient than just ramping up "clock speeds" like everyone else? The only reason WHY AMD HAD to go with a PR rating was becuase the majority of the customers only look at the "clock rate" and automatically means faster performace. Well OK............. Lets compare a Celeron 1Ghz (66FSB) to a PIII 733Mhz (133FSB). The average user would automatically assume the Celeron was the faster processor when the PIII clocked WAY lower would cremate the Celeron; not because the Celeron is slower but becasue the PIII has a better design and other advantages in order to bring its MIPS count way up. (Granted if the customer could also see the FSB rating, it may change their opinion; most likely not because most customers dont even know what FSB their CPU is running at, let alone what a FSB is.
Intel is counting on the "un-educated" buyer seeing a very high "clock speed" number and seeing the name INTEL INSIDE on the box an thinking that the $2000 they are spending is well worth their money. Sad, becuase you could get an AMD system that is faster for about $1000 (Based on the old I850 boards, Dual RIMMS, and high price tags of the P4)
PLEASE correct me if I am wrong in this department.........
Long and short of it..............Intel Screwed Up the Mhz rating before the Athlon XP PR rating did (not including the old 586 battles w/ IBM and Cyrix in the picture)
YES AMD never should have reverted back to the PR rating, BUT Intel forced them to do something in order to make their products "appear" on the ball with Intel to the "un-educated" consumer.
(........now how much flak am I going to get ...............