Replies to post #40773 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[upc]

The only difference is that Celeron D is now called a "335", rather than a "2.8GHz",

This is not true, practically speaking.

NewEgg: " Intel Celeron D 335 2.8 GHz, 533MHz FSB, 256K L2 Cache Processor - Retail"

HP: "Processor
Intel® Celeron D processors up to 335‡ (2.8GHz)"

So you see, OEMs and direct retailers prominently display the GHz, in addition to Intel's new (bewildering) model numbers.

Does that answer your question?

As I said before, I am not sure why AMD did not ALSO label their parts with the Intel model numbers. I suspect there may be a legal issue or risk. What do you think?

upc

[sgolds]

wbmw, I agree with you fully!

Sempron model numbers are "rated fairly" relative to Celeron megahertz,

The only difference is that Celeron D is now called a "335", rather than a "2.8GHz", which means that the entire rating scale (eg. "2800+") is positioned against a red herring.
...
Intel has finally managed to get past megahertz marketing, so why can't AMD?

Considering that AMD led the way with Opteron model branding, this is embarrassing!

[j3pflynn]

wbmw - So you're unhappy with AMD's choice not to adopt Intel's Celeron rating scheme? Considering that, just as with AMD's PR system, Intel chips will continue to be sold with clock speed referenced, I think it's perfectly acceptable for AMD to do what they're doing. Especially since Intel's model # is even more arbitrary than AMD's ever was.
At least AMD's was related to a explicit, quantifiable spec - clock speed(even if that wasn't a good indicator of performance). Intel's has no relation to anything definable as far as I can see. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
Paul