Talk:Performance Rating

Isn't the title of this article redundant? If PR means "Performance Rating", then the title of this article is "Performance Rating rating."

I agree, and I took the liberty of moving the page, and correcting the lines saying "PR rating". Hope everybody agrees with this...--Vittau (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that there are a lot of assumptions made about the consumer, particularly concerning these statements:

...Intel advertised the Pentium 4 using clock speed to distinguish between the performances of their different processor models.
Consumers quickly adopted this system because comparing quantitative clock speeds was much easier to do than comparing qualitative microprocessor features.

I don't think that this began in 2000, and even if it was particularly noticeable then, it certainly wasn't a "new" system; I was comparing clock speeds in 1995, when I had a 133Mhz Pentium and then my grandma got a 166Mhz Pentium. 134.250.72.173 18:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article suffers from acute myopia and narrow-mindedness

You can measure the "Performance Rating" of tennis players, golfers, baseball pitchers, ballerinas, sailboat skippers and crews, sailboats, boxers, thoroughbred horses, bottle-filling machinery, fighter jets, pig farms, car salesmen, Formula I teams, wall painters, astronauts, brokers, prostitutes, chemical plants, Whiskey distilleries ....and even of beauty pageant contestants. To reduce the term to the narrow-minded meaning invented by AMD is preposterous, or worse yet, ridiculous. --AVM (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So write a general article, or a DAB and articles on other meanings, and move this one to Performance Rating (computing). The article is about one specific type of rating because that is the one that has an agreed-upon meaning that is used with some frequency, and is thus the one that people found to be worth writing about. — Aluvus t/c 23:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you are asking is to embark on a complex task involving Mathematics, Statistics, Industrial Engineering, Cost Accounting and general Sports savvy, among many other fields. That would require the efforts of an inter-disciplinary team, working hard for several days. Sorry, I politely decline: I have neither the time nor the qualifications. In the specific sense concerning your suggested name Performance Rating (computing), you are quite right --the article would have to involve or apply to quite a wide spectrum of computing machinery, far beyond AMD's minuscule scope. About the existing article having "an agreed-upon meaning", I respectfully disagree. Hence, that meaning is not fully "agreed upon". [Pardon me, what's a "DAB", a disambiguation page?] --Regards, AVM (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A single competent person could write a general description of what a "performance rating" is in the course of an afternoon. You yourself could probably have already done it by now. There is no real reason to have a deep examination of every possible sort of performance rating. It is perhaps worthwhile to have an article briefly describing the general concept of a performance rating (a long-ish stub, really), one on the AMD PR system, and articles on any other meanings of note. Or it might be best to simply move this article to some other title (until a year ago it was at the somewhat redundant PR rating) and call it a day.

If you, who seem so unhappy with the status quo, are unwilling to implement a solution, it is doubtful that anyone else will. Your complaint about this article is a common and solvable one, but only gets solved if someone that cares does something about it or at least suggests a realistic solution. Having an article that describes every form of performance rating ever used by anyone for any purpose is... not realistic.

I think you have misinterpreted my statement about "agreed-upon" meaning, unless you seriously dispute that what is described in this article is the Performance Rating system used by AMD. And DAB is a common-on-Wikipedia (though non-obvious) abbreviation for disambiguation, yes. — Aluvus t/c 02:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P-rating on BIOS POST screens

As part of its marketing, AMD even made sure that motherboard manufacturers conspicuously showed the PR number of the microprocessor in the motherboards' POST and not include the processors' clock speeds anywhere except within the BIOS.

Maybe this is true for AMD-chipsets, but not for other Athlon XP compatible chipsets. I know that many Socket A Motherboards with chipsets form VIA or NVIDIA show both at POST, although some (e.g. the Epox 8RDA+ I once had) even show an estimated higher P-rating in addition to the clock speed if you overclock the CPU. --MrBurns (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Performance Rating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110610015431/http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25426C_WP_FINAL.pdf to http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25426C_WP_FINAL.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of True Performance Index into Performance Rating

One small paragraph is not enough for an article. Can easily fit in "Performance Rating". -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]