AMD moves goalposts in chip war

Overall performance more important than speed, says processor giant

AMD has launched the first range of processors based on its True Performance Initiative (TPI), which focuses on overall processor performance rather than speed.

Last week the company launched the 1800+, 1600+ and 1500+ range of Athlon MP chips aimed at multi-processor servers and workstations.

In line with the TPI, processor speeds, which the company claims are no longer a good measure of overall performance, do not appear in the model name.

The strategy is designed to provide an alternative benchmark to processor speed when defining a chip's capabilities. The company claims it will help customers understand the benefits of PC performance.

AMD and competitor Intel have been locked in a battle over clock speeds, with each company trying to build the fastest processor. In the speed stakes Intel is ahead, boasting a Pentium 4 chip at 2GHz, compared with AMD's fastest, the new 1800+, which runs at 1.53GHz.

However, AMD claimed that its overall chip performance has improved to such an extent that speed is now an insufficient measure of its chips' capabilities.

"Our performance per megahertz has improved and there is now no way we can use megahertz alone as an accurate measure," said Richard Baker, marketing manager at AMD.

Baker added that the new method of labelling products is going down well among original equipment manufacturers and system builder partners. "We are already putting a lot of effort into promoting this new method of measurement, with advertising and face-to-face training," he said.

An Intel representative explained that, although the chip giant recognised that there are ways of measuring chip performance other than speed, it had no plans to change its categorisation, and will continue to use gigahertz as a measure.

"If you look at any kind of marketing programme identifying performance, it is important to consider whether it is designed to clarify and educate, or just confuse users," he said.

"We support anything that educates customers but, while we do not comment on other companies, we would have to question its objectives. We think it is best if a third party assesses products, not the vendor."