I don't know about the rest of you, but I am becoming more and more confused with what the designation given to a particular chip means in practical terms. When things were 100MHZ or 1000MHZ, it was easy. But now we have things like Pentium 4, Pentium Duo 2, AMD64FX etc.
I would like to be able to know what speed a processor runs at withoput having to decipher a load of gobbledygook first. I understand why things were changed but now, its got beyond a joke. I think that there is a very strong argument for making things simple again. A processor runs at a given speed, and that's the speed which MUST be quoted. Other speeds, for example, the speed which an AMD appears to run at may also be given, but the ACTUAL speed MUST ALWAYS be quoted.
I agree with what you say to a certain degree, it certainly is confusing now. But, isn't there always a but. If you compare say an Athlon XP 3500+ with an Intel 3.5ghz processor the Athlon would beat the Intel equivalent but if you quoted speeds only it would look like the Intel was faster as the Athlon only runs at 2.21 ghz and the Intel runs at 3.5 ghz.
What has caused this is the belief that "speed is king" and that the faster the processor the better it must be. Joe Average with little computer knowledge, buying a computer at PCW, is going to believe that a 3.5GHz must be better than a 2.1GHz and so buy that.
AMD's only method of countering this was to give their processors numbers which corresponded to the comparable speed of the Intel processor.
Is it therefore of any value to say "ACTUAL speed MUST ALWAYS be quoted" - this is only going to confuse the average purchaser.