The 4000+ rating would mean that it is faster than the 3700+. That's not really meaningless at all. It's sticking to a convention they've been using for years.
The point is that most people keep a CPU for more than a few months, generally for several years. A 64-bit OS is coming. So, why would AMD spend time developing another 32-bit architecture, then have to switch to 64-bit when the software is made? It makes more sense to get there first, so that when the software comes, you've got a proven, trusted technology.
Also, the Athalon64 and AthalonFX chips blow the old XP chips out of the water, so it's not equivalent at all.
False advertising? It's called marketing. They never said "Our 3200+ is equivalent to Intel's P4 3.2C". Find that on the AMD site and you are making sense.
Also, compare a duron chip to a celeron chip that are "rated the same". There is no comparison, but then, neither company specifically said "these two chips are the same speed", so you can't really complain. You can't blindly trust a number to tell you how well a processor will perform, there's a lot more to it than MHz and GHz.
As for Tom's Hardware, I would look at who pays their bills before counting on their "benchmarks" too closely.
Slashdot Mirror
It might in fact be more like placing a scanner and a DVD-Burner in a library. Not quite free, but closer than paying $0.10 a page.
The 4000+ rating would mean that it is faster than the 3700+. That's not really meaningless at all. It's sticking to a convention they've been using for years.
The point is that most people keep a CPU for more than a few months, generally for several years. A 64-bit OS is coming. So, why would AMD spend time developing another 32-bit architecture, then have to switch to 64-bit when the software is made? It makes more sense to get there first, so that when the software comes, you've got a proven, trusted technology.
Also, the Athalon64 and AthalonFX chips blow the old XP chips out of the water, so it's not equivalent at all.
False advertising? It's called marketing. They never said "Our 3200+ is equivalent to Intel's P4 3.2C". Find that on the AMD site and you are making sense. Also, compare a duron chip to a celeron chip that are "rated the same". There is no comparison, but then, neither company specifically said "these two chips are the same speed", so you can't really complain. You can't blindly trust a number to tell you how well a processor will perform, there's a lot more to it than MHz and GHz. As for Tom's Hardware, I would look at who pays their bills before counting on their "benchmarks" too closely.