If you were following the industry a few years ago when the legacy Pentium was king of the hill, you may recall the PR rating. It was a product naming method used by companies like Cyrix to denote the relative performance of their processors to what Intel was offering. The logic was that customers needed to be aware that even though the clock speed of a Cyrix processor was lower than a competing Intel processor, its performance might be equal or higher. As such the "Cyrix 6x86 P166+" and similarly named processors hit the market to the lukewarm reception of buyers who began to worry that they were being taken advantage of. It seemed, at the time, while they were correct in their assertion that their processors performed better than identically-clocked Intel processors, exactly where the performance feel in comparison to a competing Pentium processor was being determined by marketing reps.

It was a bold experiment, and it did not end well for Cyrix, which is now a not-often (nor loudly) heard from subsidiary of VIA Technologies. AMD, which also tried jumping on the PR bandwagon back at the same time, obviously walked away from the ordeal with less war wounds. And they've gone on to produce some the most impressively-performing processors on the market, still proving their processors are faster than similarly-clocked Intel processors, but doing it without the PR rating... until now.

For here we are, and here they at AMD are, once again struggling with the issue of wanting to demonstrate to Joe Consumer that their 1.4GHz processor is faster than Intel's 1.4GHz processor; indeed, faster than Intel's 1.7GHz processor in most benchmarks and real-world applications. And how have they chosen to do it? Well, they're not calling it a 'PR' rating this time around... in fact, their explanation of the new model-naming scheme states that it is not meant to compare performance to similarly-named Intel processors (rather to legacy Athlon speeds at the same clock speeds). But if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, and... well you know how the saying goes.

Well in some ways, AMD has created a fairer naming convention than the PR ratings of yore. But unfortunately, they've also come up with one that is going to do more to confuse the average consumer than to educate him/her. At first glance, one would likely assume that a name of "Athlon XP 1800+" would mean that it claims superior performance to a 1.8GHz Intel P4. After all, that's what it meant the last time we saw these kinds of processor names. But AMD had previously made it clear that their new model naming scheme was meant to compare the performance of an Athlon XP processor not to an Intel processor, but to a legacy AMD Athlon. In other words, an AMD Athlon XP 1500+, while clocked at 1.33GHz, will deliver equivalent performance to what the Athlon Thunderbird would have had at 1.5GHz. From there, you should then know that since a 1.4GHz AMD Athlon Thunderbird processor was already matching the performance of a 1.7GHz Intel P4, now it's being matched by a 1.33GHz processor... still with me?

But then, in contrast to this seeming clarification, a FAQ on AMD's web site says that "The AMD Athlon XP 1900+ will outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 1.9GHz on a broad array of end-user applications," leaving us with that older and more familiar scheme that PR ratings used. Beyond that problem is also the fact that if the model name is meant to demonstrate its superiority to the Intel architecture, then what will the average consumer take away from the fact that even with the new naming scheme, they're still seemingly behind Intel's fastest processors? Basically the average consumer will see them as saying "our top-of-the-line AMD Athlon XP 1900+ is as fast, or faster, than Intel's 1.9GHz," when Intel has had a 2GHz processor available for months and is expected to release a 2.2GHz processor in the near future.

So the average consumer, who one must assume AMD is targeting with this new model naming convention since enthusiasts are already well aware of the great performance of AMD Athlon processors and would expect nothing less from AMD Athlon XP processors, is likely going to end up with more misconceptions about the whole issue than he/she did before the new model naming scheme. Not only will such consumers be unsure as to whether they're buying 1.53GHz processors or 1.8GHz ones when they choose the AMD Athlon XP 1800+; but, even more importantly, many are going to see this as a sign that AMD is a follower, not a leader. Intel, after all, set the standard by which AMD will appear to measuring their processors (though as I earlier noted, the multiple explanations and clarifications on this matter have left that unclear) and still behind in the race despite the new names.