Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[chipguy]

For instance, here is the auditor's report for 2800+:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_756_3734^3746,00.html

Whatever happened to Arthur Anderson? Maybe QuackHertz was too sleazy even for them. ;^)

You can see the actual tests run. Elsewhere the tests are defined in general, I don't have that page at my fingertips, but this list is in this report.

And how does this dog's breakfast get converted into the 2800+ number? If the process is
so "scientific" there must be a clear formula right? So tell me why:

1) If QuackHertz is methodically based on performance how come it always has two zeros
as least significant digits? Go to the SPEC web site and see how many CPU2K scores end
in two zeros. The answer is obvious, the number was picked out of thin air.

2) If this scheme was based on relative performance compared to a 1 GHz Tbird as AMD once
claimed why isn't an Athlon 2800+ not rated a 2.80+? Or a 280+? Have you notice that with the
SPEC92 -> SPEC95 and SPEC95->SPEC2k transition the scaling factors were changed to
avoid confusion? In this case it appears that AMD deliberately chose its scaling factor to *cause*
confusion with real clock rates. Just like the Rolecks watches and guchi handbags sold by
back alley street vendors in Hong Kong.

The Athlon is a fine product and it is too bad AMD feels it must resort to deception to sell it. BTW
I wonder how AMD designers and engineers feel about the end result of their hard work being
sullied by association with such sleazy tactics. I know I wouldn't feel very good about it.