sgolds - Well, I got my response. Not good. Anyone have the e-mail addresses for de Ruiz and Meyer? I have posted the full e-mail text, as well as my response to Ruth Cotten's response.
Paul
Ruth,
This is unacceptable. Deny it all you want, the fact is that anyone who really matters, whether it's the end user, the OEMs or the hardware reviewers and press, compare the AMD chips by model number to the numerically equivalent(in frequency) Pentium 4. To deny this is to deny reality and will ensure the discrediting and demise of the model number system. I certainly hope this will be corrected with ensuing releases. The current degradation of the model number system does not at all bode well for AMD. Many are watching now, willing to give AMD the benefit of the doubt on this release because the model number has been accurate and conservative in the past, but if this degradation continues, all support for the model number system will be lost.
I would sincerely appreciate it if you would forward this e-mail to the appropriate corporate executives, since the website is not very friendly as far as contact information. They need to know how AMD is being perceived in the real world, not in the minds of AMD's marketing staff.
Paul Flynn
AMD Stockholder
ruth.cotter@amd.com wrote:
>Hi Paul,
>
>All of the benchmarks that AMD used to both arrive at and substantiate the decision to launch this processor at a 3200+ model number rating have gone through extensive technical examination as well as legal approval from our legal benchmarking expert.
>
>Additionally, AMD has always reiterated that our model numbers and increases in those numbers refer to the performance within the AMD Athlon XP family of processors and are strictly NOT comparable in any way to megahertz or to the products offered by the competition.
>
>Thank you,
>INvestor Relations
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jjjpflynn@netscape.net [mailto:jjjpflynn@netscape.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:55 AM
>To: Relations, Investor
>Subject: 3200+ Quantispeed rating
>
>
>Dear Sir or Madam,
> I have been a supporter of the decision to institute the Quantispeed rating system, knowing the reality of the situation with actual performance vs. actual Megahertz that exists with Intel's Pentium 4, and AMD's XP model's far greater performance per clock cycle. However, the release of the latest model, the 3200+(as well as, to a lesser degree, the 3000+), is unacceptable. They ought to have been clocked at least 100MHz higher, or rated lower.
> The only way the Quantispeed(QS) system can survive as a legitimate rating
>is if it is a very conservative rating, leaving no real room for criticism in comparison to similar Pentium 4 frequency. This is not the case with the last 2 releases, but particularly the 3200+. There are far too many "benchmarks", which are commonly accepted, in which the 3200+ is beaten by the 3.0C and the 3.06 GHz Pentium 4s.
> Obviously, there are some benchmarks which will always be the victor's domain for the Pentium 4, but what is important for the QS system is that on the great majority of common benchmarks, the QS rated AMD processor is at least as powerful as the frequency equivalent Intel processor. This must be true for not only the benchmarks you use for establishing the rating, but also on most of the ones used by review sites and considered by those in the PC press who have influence. Otherwise the QS sytem will fall into disrepute, and you will have wasted the respect for your implementation of the QS system that had been established. If this happens, with the huge disparity in frequency between the XP and the Pentium 4, you can't expect the average PC buyer to know enough about PC components to understand that the lower frequency XP performs like a much higher clocked Pentium 4. They will assume the Pentium 4 is faster. This would be disastrous for AMD.
>
>Paul Flynn
>AMD stockholder
