1.3GHz Duron Arrives

zebadee writes: "Tom's Hardware has the news that AMD have released a 1.3GHz Duron to the "mainstream PC market" that has been optimised for use with WindowsXP. The article also asks 'why haven't AMD gone with the MHz doesn't equal performance as they have done with the new XP/MP chips, as it would be assumed the market for these will be consumers who don't generally look at benchmark figures?' More information can be found at the AMD website."

Comments

AMD's Duron numbers

[Nathan Brazil]

Maybe AMD calls their Durons by their MHz value because they feel the performance numbers are reflected in the clock frequency. If the Duron at 1.3GHz runs as well as a Celeron at 1.3GHz then, they'd, in theory, call the Duron a "1300+" Duron, even though that's the same number as the clock frequency.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe AMD is honest about their intentions with this numbering system?

Am I the only one who doesn't understand...

[Uttles]

... this guy's logic?

I know I haven't griped about this in a while, but if AMD switched to its new "MHz doesn't equal performance" naming scheme for its higher end Athlons (where one would assume that the users probably look at benchmarks) why is it sticking with GHz for "mainstream PC" chips (where you would imagine that users are less likely to look at benchmarks)?

Well, the reason they're naming their mainstream processors by clock rate is precisely because the users are less likely to look at benchmarks. The effect the clock rate has on the overall speed of a computer is minimal, but if you ask the everyday person, even your average best buy or gateway store worker, they'll tell you that high clock = fast. So, if you want people who don't know anything about benchmarks to buy your chip, just say it's got a high clock rate, and they'll think it's fast.

Re:What?!

[ncc74656]

Really how hard would it be for Microsoft include a couple of kernels each optimized for the processor its running on(Maybe they do this and I just don't know it? Please reply and let me know :)).

Given that NT shipped with single-processor and multiprocessor kernels, I wouldn't think it'd be hard at all for kernels to be shipped that are optimized for different processors or groups of processors.

Re:"Optimized" for WinXP??

[haruharaharu]

do you optimize a chip for an operating system, anyway?

You profile it and then make the commonly used code paths go faster.

What probably actually happened is that AMD profiled a bunch of code and used it to optimize their CPU. since XP probably has similar code paths, you just don't mention that it's also optimized for the bulk of x86 code

is Slashdot some sort of tomshardware affiliate?

[tandr]

I do not get it. Why slashdot all of sudden interested in AMD (or Intel) chips that they crank out every month or so with new Hz and nothing new inside? Just to get "imagine beowulf claster of clasters of these"? Is it "stuff that matters"?

Beside tomshardware there are a lot more sites with nice covering of whatever you want (http://xbit-labs.com for example).

Yeah, right, toms is heavy loaded with ads (I think I never saw any site that has more per page ads), so may be slashdot decided to have 10% of revenue from it for just redirecting bunch of "cool folks" :) ?

Couple years ago slashdot was much more "ahead of time", I used to find "things" there first, and after couple days notice same references or articles on other sites. Now it is opposite -- you find cool thing, and completely not sure if you will ever see discussion of this on slashdot (slashdot is famous for comments, not for articles).

If 2 years is "lifetime" of modern PC, and you upgrade it, may be it is a time for slashers to upgrade to something cool or at least to be up to date? It is not a MTV, it should get better year to year...

tandr.

deceptive

[AntiNorm]

'why haven't AMD gone with the MHz doesn't equal performance as they have done with the new XP/MP chips

Because it's deceptive marketing. I'm an AMD user myself (TBird 1.2 GHz), but it really annoys me that they would be willing to mark a processor as something that it is not. Please don't try to tell me that 'performance rating...blah blah...equivalent speed in old architecture.' They are marking the new processors as speeds that they do not run at, period.