It seems to me that a processor that is 4.8% slower (78 on the benchmark vs. 82 for the Athlon) yet is over 20% cheaper ($107 vs. $135) meets the criteria of the “value chip”. Knocking a lower-cost alternative to the Athlon for not being an Athlon doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
On the other hand, AMD asks for this by using those “2800+”-type monikers for its chips. Why don’t they just call it what it is? Or at least use the same benchmarking system to rate all of its processors.