Feeds

AMD reportedly revising CPU performance ratings

New numbering scheme for 'star' processors?

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

Is AMD about to ditch or radically revise its relative-performance related processor number schemes? That's what some sources cited by a Far Eastern website claim, stating the chip maker will move to an alternative approach when it ships its 65nm quad-core chips mid-2007.

As yet there's nothing whatsoever to corroborate the Chinese-language HKEPC story which doesn't offer any details as to how AMD may alter its numbering scheme.

Certainly some changes will eventually be necessary. Where does it go after releasing the Athlon 9999+, for instance? Up to 10,000 or on some other, unrelated number? But whatever it does, we have say there's a certain attractive simplicity about a 'the higher the number, the more powerful the processor' approach that would be a shame to lose.

Intel eventually followed AMD's lead and took a similar approach, but neither chip maker has adopted the scheme as logically as they might. Both have muddied the waters by introducing parallel numbering schemes for different processor families, for example. Neither companies' naming schemes are consistent across notebook, desktop and server lines, or between high-end, mainstream and budget desktop chips, for instance.

Contrary to HKEPC's argument, the numbering scheme can be multi-core friendly, as AMD's Opteron 1/2/8xxx nomenclature, where the second digit is the number of cores, shows. But we'd argue that that's irrelevant. One, two, four, eight or more cores, the CPU is a box that delivers performance. How it delivers that performance is irrelevant so long as compatibility is maintained. By all means brand processors according to their core complement, but also provide a metric that allows ordinary consumers a simple way to gauge relative performance.

In an ideal world, there would a universal numbering scheme, ideally with an energy consumption rating included, but the pulls of rivalry and competitiveness will ensure chip companies will probably never come together and agree to such a scheme.

That leaves us looking forward to what AMD may or may not come up with when 'Antares', 'Arcturus', 'Spica', 'Kuma' and co. ship. ®

Related reviews

Intel vs AMD - integrated graphics shoot-out
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 quad-core CPU

Intelligent flash storage arrays

More from The Register

next story
Chipmaker FTDI bricking counterfeit kit
USB-serial imitators whacked by driver update
Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
The Fourth Amendment... and it IS better
DOUBLE BONK: Testy fanbois catch Apple Pay picking pockets
Users wail as tapcash transactions are duplicated
Microsoft to enter the STRUGGLE of the HUMAN WRIST
It's not just a thumb war, it's total digit war
Google Glassholes are UNDATEABLE – HP exec
You need an emotional connection, says touchy-feely MD... We can do that
prev story

Whitepapers

Choosing cloud Backup services
Demystify how you can address your data protection needs in your small- to medium-sized business and select the best online backup service to meet your needs.
Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.