AMD explains bizarre Barton 3000+ PR rating

PRESS REPS at AMD have returned with an answer to a question we posed last week.

That was in response to a roadmap we pixellated last week about future Barton core speeds, and which you can find here.

We wanted to know why the "Barton 3000+" microprocessor was originally slated to launch at 2.25GHz, but was instead released at 2.17GHz.

Said AMD: "One of the advantages of model numbers is that when cores change you don't have the age-old discussions about guessing how much faster the core improvements make the new products. For instance: 'Is a P4 20% or 30% slower that a PIII, clock for clock?'"

In other words - our words these - AMD didn't need, in its own eyes to introduce a higher frequency for the Barton because it believes that the 2.17GHz chip can outperform an Intel 3.06GHz Pentium 4.

The same source pointed out that it's impossible to pick up copies of SPECint and SPECfp at PC World (UK) or Fry's (US).

AMD claims that it has attempted to use applications that real people use everyday, and that's a variety of different applications.

But let's take this a little bit further. Does this mean that if AMD introduces the Athlon64 in September, after Microvole has finished tweaking its famous X86-64 operating system, a lowly clocked 64-bit chip, even if it runs at 1.8GHz, say, will outperform a Pentium 4 3.20GHz?

Apparently, the answer to that is yes. And there's another thing. This is probably the reason that AMD will have to wait for the Microsoft OS.

Because, as far as we remember, those real world applications are all Windows based ones. So it won't be able to pull the PR gig without a proper WinOS to base them on.

We never tire of quoting Jerry Sanders III on this one: "With Intel and Microsoft we are the holy trinity".

Although the "real men have fabs" one is proving to be somewhat of an embarrassment, what? µ

See Also
Intel hits back at AMD desktop performance claims
AMD Barton reviews spring up everywhere
PC Advisor/Inquirer Barton 3000+ review