Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

quadfather review = super disappointing

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 12, 2007 7:00:54 PM

Quote:
quadfather review = super disappointing

That's kinda like saying "water=super wet" :tongue:
June 12, 2007 7:05:25 PM

Quote:
makes me sad

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/06/12/vigor_force_reco...

oh great green god, spare us the despair of your latest and greatest being a flop!! let yer k10 shine bright 4ever!!


Those benchmarks were, to say the most positive thing you could you could say about them, abysmal. On the other hand, the $7200 price tag of the Intel based Dell system is, in a word, retarded.
Related resources
June 12, 2007 7:15:30 PM

Quote:
makes me sad

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/06/12/vigor_force_reco...

oh great green god, spare us the despair of your latest and greatest being a flop!! let yer k10 shine bright 4ever!!


they were super abysmal considering all of us that ragged on the Dell XPS for not having been compared with a "real" high end build.

all I could think while reading was..., the motherboard looks purdy....
June 12, 2007 7:16:19 PM

I agree, you could easily build a unit with similar specs for less than 3000, especially with the upcoming quad price drops. The quadfather is, simply put, a turd.
June 12, 2007 7:18:29 PM

Quote:
The quadfather is, simply put, a turd.


A quad turd :wink:

Funny that this is what the PR department at AMD touted as "the ultimate enthusiast" system
June 12, 2007 7:22:23 PM

Quote:
makes me sad

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/06/12/vigor_force_reco...

oh great green god, spare us the despair of your latest and greatest being a flop!! let yer k10 shine bright 4ever!!


Those benchmarks were, to say the most positive thing you could you could say about them, abysmal. On the other hand, the $7200 price tag of the Intel based Dell system is, in a word, retarded.

Well they did say part of the cost was the ~$600 Dell monitor and the Quadfather didn't have one.
June 12, 2007 7:26:14 PM

Quote:
makes me sad

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/06/12/vigor_force_reco...

oh great green god, spare us the despair of your latest and greatest being a flop!! let yer k10 shine bright 4ever!!


Those benchmarks were, to say the most positive thing you could you could say about them, abysmal. On the other hand, the $7200 price tag of the Intel based Dell system is, in a word, retarded.

Well they did say part of the cost was the ~$600 Dell monitor and the Quadfather didn't have one.

Even @ $6600 the price is retarded. Still significantly cheaper to build your own. :wink:
June 12, 2007 7:27:07 PM

The review was meh, but the discussion is priceless!

"abysmal"
"retarded"
"turd"

The quadfather is an abysmal retarded turd.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Oh how the mighty have fallen. :cry: 
June 12, 2007 7:28:20 PM

Well hell, it's a dell.
June 12, 2007 7:31:18 PM

Anyone dropping $5k+ for EITHER of those systems deserves to be shot.

Build it yourself for 1/3 the price :roll:
June 12, 2007 7:33:28 PM

Quote:
The review was meh, but the discussion is priceless!

"abysmal"
"retarded"
"turd"

The quadfather is an abysmal retarded turd.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Oh how the mighty have fallen. :cry: 


That said, it does have the potential to mature into something spectactular...after K10 arrives and itself gets sorted out. However, from 4x4s inception to the current date, the above description is not unwarrented.
June 12, 2007 7:42:24 PM

True, but that's assuming that AMD can get its yields straight, which it looks like they're having serious problems doing. A month from launch and the best silicon that's been seen is only running at 1.6, with rumors of a 2Ghz floating around. The projections at 2.6Ghz, based on internal AMD simulations mind you, still showed only a relatively slim lead over conroe, and furthermore were based on a fairly irrelevant benchmark to begin with (SPEC). So whatever, I'll believe it when I see it. I seriously hope AMD has SOMETHING that can compete, cause the last thing any of us want is Intel dominating and prices going through the roof.
June 12, 2007 7:51:47 PM

Anyway you look at it IF your going to buy a pre built system and want the best then go for a Falcon.

Then again for that much money you could buy a new car.
June 12, 2007 7:52:18 PM

Quote:
True, but that's assuming that AMD can get its yields straight, which it looks like they're having serious problems doing. A month from launch and the best silicon that's been seen is only running at 1.6, with rumors of a 2Ghz floating around. The projections at 2.6Ghz, based on internal AMD simulations mind you, still showed only a relatively slim lead over conroe, and furthermore were based on a fairly irrelevant benchmark to begin with (SPEC). So whatever, I'll believe it when I see it. I seriously hope AMD has SOMETHING that can compete, cause the last thing any of us want is Intel dominating and prices going through the roof.


Agreed
June 12, 2007 8:05:25 PM

Quote:
The quadfather is, simply put, a turd.


A quad turd :wink:

Funny that this is what the PR department at AMD touted as "the ultimate enthusiast" system
It's not a quad turd in my eyes... maybe a 2X2 turd... but not a quad.
June 12, 2007 8:14:59 PM

Yeah... it should be a 2x2 or 2x4 (2 cards x 4 cores). If someone offers you the quadfather, is it an offer you would refuse?
June 12, 2007 8:24:25 PM

Quote:
The quadfather is, simply put, a turd.


A quad turd :wink:

Funny that this is what the PR department at AMD touted as "the ultimate enthusiast" system
It's not a quad turd in my eyes... maybe a 2X2 turd... but not a quad.

:lol:  :lol: 

Still, as solutions go, with AMD crying "glued core" over MCM, the MCM seems a far more elegant solution to achieving a quad core CPU than the "glued mobo"
June 12, 2007 8:25:01 PM

Quote:
makes me sad

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/06/12/vigor_force_reco...

oh great green god, spare us the despair of your latest and greatest being a flop!! let yer k10 shine bright 4ever!!



God you guys....... How could anyone in their right mind ( including AMD) have thought that if X2 can't beat C2D somehow QFX would beat C2Q?

There were a lot of tests that Anand ran that they didn't like BluRay stress tests where you would play a movie and then run benches. QFX did MUCH better in those scenarios. That what the platform was for, running lots of things at once, not improving the speed of the chip.


I still may go for it after the DX10 stuff shapes up. But I think I want Agena. The other key point is that the Vigor machine was $2000 less than the Dell and though it didn't win those tests, only Oblivion had bad frame rates.
That's why I say benchmarks mean less than before as now every game gets more than playable frame rates with nearly any X2 or Core 2.

I mean Doom3 at 125fps 2048x1536 is more than enough. AMD has enough things to deal with being under Intel's heel (they are actually competing with a non-profit organization - that's low) without peole hollaring how they would have done this and AMD was being complacent, etc.

What you should all do is go to electrical engineering school and become CPU designers. That way you can have chips when you want them.

Oh you mean Fab cost billions to build and chip designs take two years so you wouldn't be in any better shape.

That's what I thought.

Let the company be. There are only TWO X86 CPU companies and people act like Via overtook them along with Transmeta and Cyrix and now AMD is bringing up the rear in 5th place.

I think that those beautiful HD2600 and HD2400s are going to mae AMD a lot of dough as Computex reported that AMD has 60% of OEM orders and climbing with those 65nm chips.
Now with WalMart and Sam's Club carrying AMD, that's a bit more share along with Toshiba who says they will be at least 20% AMD. If they sell 5 million laptops, that's 1 million AMD chips sold.

I think that Barcelona will be what they said and with the minimal benches around it's easy to believe.

Forgive my rant.
June 12, 2007 8:30:27 PM

Quote:
The review was meh, but the discussion is priceless!

"abysmal"
"retarded"
"turd"

The quadfather is an abysmal retarded turd.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Oh how the mighty have fallen. :cry: 


That said, it does have the potential to mature into something spectactular...after K10 arrives and itself gets sorted out. However, from 4x4s inception to the current date, the above description is not unwarrented.

Can someone explain to me why Phenom will be better suited for this. I mean it's the same thing with a faster HT. Won't single threaded apps still have the same problems?

I mean I was thinking about slapping two 2.2GHz Opterons into one of those boards just so I don't need to check my wiring.

But either of those systems will be a power hog. I think it's a great platform except for the power. I think it would be even better if there were more mobos and chipsets for it.

It's a shame that 790G boards will be more useful for Agena than Windsor.
June 12, 2007 8:34:59 PM

Quote:


I still may go for it after the DX10 stuff shapes up. But I think I want Agena.


Yeah Turpit mentioned earlier the platform may be very nice with a couple of k10 chips in there. Still *sigh* waiting on benchies, but if AMD can get their steppings tightened up with higher clocks it may even become the enthusiast platform it was originally touted as.

Shame about the current perfomance though. I bet someone somewhere will buy it anyway.
June 12, 2007 8:35:49 PM

Quote:
True, but that's assuming that AMD can get its yields straight, which it looks like they're having serious problems doing. A month from launch and the best silicon that's been seen is only running at 1.6, with rumors of a 2Ghz floating around. The projections at 2.6Ghz, based on internal AMD simulations mind you, still showed only a relatively slim lead over conroe, and furthermore were based on a fairly irrelevant benchmark to begin with (SPEC). So whatever, I'll believe it when I see it. I seriously hope AMD has SOMETHING that can compete, cause the last thing any of us want is Intel dominating and prices going through the roof.


According to all sources there are higher clocks but the rev had some problems. You mean Intel would just raise prices and screw everyone? Heaven forbid.

And SPEC is far from irrelevant as it actually runs real applications. The last comparisons between Penryn and Barcelona show that clock for clock they are about even.

AM2 sucked all the way up until release and that came out great (latency issues notwithstanding).

AMD is now selling GPUs like hotcakes so the funds should pick back up going into Q3. I still think that they should be trying to release Agena ASAP to get some footing back on the desktop.
June 12, 2007 8:44:32 PM

You mean that they're selling video cards that are about as useful as hotcakes, right? Well, that's a tad unfair, the HD2900 isn't really a bad card, though their leaving out UVD is absolutely inexcusable IMO.

SPEC should just be avoided, you know how much controversy it generates. You want real benchmarks? Here's K10 lagging a xeon by 8% clock for clock:
http://www.dailytech.com/Quick+and+Dirty+AMD+K10+Cinebe...

They obviously need to do something, head should roll, there's no excuse for their performance this last year, and apparently, beyond.
June 12, 2007 8:47:48 PM

And yes, I know that if the K10 had been clocked up to 2.4Ghz like the Xeon, the IMC would be clocked higher too and probably close the gap. But still, lookin kinda weak.
June 12, 2007 9:05:45 PM

Quote:
makes me sad

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/06/12/vigor_force_reco...

oh great green god, spare us the despair of your latest and greatest being a flop!! let yer k10 shine bright 4ever!!



God you guys....... How could anyone in their right mind ( including AMD) have thought that if X2 can't beat C2D somehow QFX would beat C2Q?

The benchmarks speak for themselves. The "Ultimate Enthusiast" system is anything but ultimate, when compared to the competitions top system. Unless you consider power demands and waste heat production. Nothing more can be said, and there is no way to twist the benchmarks when comparing the best available to the best available.

Quote:

There were a lot of tests that Anand ran that they didn't like BluRay stress tests where you would play a movie and then run benches. QFX did MUCH better in those scenarios. That what the platform was for, running lots of things at once, not improving the speed of the chip.



As far as anandtech, if you are refering to the review here:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=287...

First, note the date. I would hope AMD actually managed some improvement since Nov 6. Also note, that while QFX does indeed scale better in BluRay + Cinebench, it only does so by 8% releative to the reference system. In the 3 other BluRay benchmarks, C2Q beats QFX by as little as 4.4% to a maximum of 13.9%. To be precise, BluRay performance is not better with Blue Ray, but in fact Cinebench.

So I am not seeing the "...a lot of tests that Anand ran that they didn't like BluRay stress tests where you would play a movie and then run benches. QFX did MUCH better in those scenarios....", so I may very well be refering incorrectly to a different set of tests. Would you be so kind as to link to the test to which you are refering so I may review the results?






Quote:

I still may go for it after the DX10 stuff shapes up. But I think I want Agena. The other key point is that the Vigor machine was $2000 less than the Dell and though it didn't win those tests, only Oblivion had bad frame rates.
That's why I say benchmarks mean less than before as now every game gets more than playable frame rates with nearly any X2 or Core 2.

I mean Doom3 at 125fps 2048x1536 is more than enough. AMD has enough things to deal with being under Intel's heel (they are actually competing with a non-profit organization - that's low) without peole hollaring how they would have done this and AMD was being complacent, etc.

That is a valid point, however, these are "ulitimate enthusiast" systems, not geared towards those concious or caring of the price-performance comparison. Theses are for people who care about "e-penis" size, not how many FPS they can get for the lowest price...just how many FPS they can get. Regardless of whether is "good enough" or not. That is, the best vs best.

Quote:

What you should all do is go to electrical engineering school and become CPU designers. That way you can have chips when you want them.

Oh you mean Fab cost billions to build and chip designs take two years so you wouldn't be in any better shape.

That's what I thought.


That is a combative comment, and as such, not worth rebutting.

Quote:

Let the company be. There are only TWO X86 CPU companies and people act like Via overtook them along with Transmeta and Cyrix and now AMD is bringing up the rear in 5th place.

I think that those beautiful HD2600 and HD2400s are going to mae AMD a lot of dough as Computex reported that AMD has 60% of OEM orders and climbing with those 65nm chips.

The HD2600 and 2400s are apparently not shaping up to hopes. If rumours are correct, and the R600s were intended for 65/45nm production, then producing them @ 80nm was quite possibly a large mistake, unless ATI wanted to solidify the Uarch before transitioning to the new node. In any event, we will have to wait to see actual performance numbers, but if the rumours floating out of comptuex are to be beileved, then there is not much to be excited about.

Quote:

Now with WalMart and Sam's Club carrying AMD, that's a bit more share along with Toshiba who says they will be at least 20% AMD. If they sell 5 million laptops, that's 1 million AMD chips sold.

I think that Barcelona will be what they said and with the minimal benches around it's easy to believe.

Forgive my rant.


We will see when the EOQ numbers are posted, but IMO, personally, I dont think Walmart sales will have that big an impact on AMDs marketshare.

edit spelling errors
June 12, 2007 9:29:25 PM

Quote:


We will see when the EOQ numbers are posted, but IMO, personally, I dont think Walmart sales will have that big an impact on AMDs marketshare.


Any new systems being sold means more share. Of course you have to sell a lot for even 1% share but I think WalMart does as does Toshiba and since they weren't selling them before share will increase by that much.
June 12, 2007 10:32:09 PM

Quote:


We will see when the EOQ numbers are posted, but IMO, personally, I dont think Walmart sales will have that big an impact on AMDs marketshare.


Any new systems being sold means more share. Of course you have to sell a lot for even 1% share but I think WalMart does as does Toshiba and since they weren't selling them before share will increase by that much.

That statement is incorrect. "Any new system being sold " does not mean more market share. The fact that AMD has posted sales for both Q406 and Q107 and only held or lost marketshare (respectively) as they did, clearly disproves that. That comment presumes that the market only ever expands (i.e. no systems are ever replaced and discarded) and expands only based on sales of one manufacturers component.

Even if AMD were selling at a 1 to 1 ratio, with all existing AMD systems being replaced with new AMD systems, as has not been the case in reality, AMD would have lost market share as the market is continuing to expand, but not at a 1 to 1 rate compared to the number of operable systems.

While I have long been an advocate that AMD should attack the largest untapped market -low income - and WalMart is an avenue to that market, that does not mean the gambit will succeed. In order to be succcesful, the Dell systems must be cheap enough to afford, relaible enough to establish a good reputation, and perform well enough to make them more attractive than the Xboxs and PS2/3s they will be sitting next to..and those are very likely to be their competitors. I dont think you will find the majority of WalMart Dell shoppers looking for bargains on systems that will run 3DSmax, AutoCad or Photoshop/paint etc. Email, websurfing, games, and the childrens school work will probably be their interests, and not nessicarily limited to those functions, or in that priority. Additionally, one must question the validity of any applications/desires requiring internet connectivity, such as email and websurfing. Walmart is quite popular where I live, while HS internet access is not. For that fact of the matter, even landline telephones are not that popular with much of the local populus. Pregnancy, cellphones, Xbox and the "package" store are a few of the indiginous populations higher priorities. i.e "cheap" entertainement. Recuring access/usage bills (even cell phones) are not popular.

While I favor expansion into the low income market, I suspect Walmart and Dell, while the most obvious inroad, will not be the most effective and in fact, depending on the execution, could very well be counter productive.

Time will tell.
June 12, 2007 10:50:34 PM

Hahahaha, you're not from WV are you? Because the picture you paint of the local populace sounds very familiar to me as a former resident of that abysmal hell-hole. But seriously, I can't see this move being counter-productive, though I agree its total worth is questionable over the long run. AMD may very well be able to make some inroads, especially among low-income families trying to provide computers not for themselves, but for their school-age children. That could wind up being a semi-lucrative low-end market segment if properly cultivated. In the end, I really can't see it being more than a 1 or possibly 2 percent boost in sales in the short term that will do nothing to alleviate the bleeding being done as Intel continues to make inroads into the lower segments of the market with highly superior products (E4 and E2 series C2D/Pentiums).
Quote:

You mean Intel would just raise prices and screw everyone? Heaven forbid.


And for the record BM, any company will increase profits in the absence of competition, don't try to twist my statement into some sort of demonization of Intel, because AMD would behave no differently if the roles were reversed.
June 12, 2007 11:05:52 PM

Quote:
While I have long been an advocate that AMD should attack the largest untapped market -low income - and WalMart is an avenue to that market, that does not mean the gambit will succeed.


Agree. I'm not really seeing how Dell getting into Walmart will necessarily increase AMD sales any. My local Walmart here was already selling cheap AMD systems from other vendors, like HP for example. So if Dell+Walmart+AMD sales end up just replacing those, then it doesn't really help any.
June 12, 2007 11:05:58 PM

Quote:
Hahahaha, you're not from WV are you? Because the picture you paint of the local populace sounds very familiar to me as a former resident of that abysmal hell-hole. But seriously, I can't see this move being counter-productive, though I agree its total worth is questionable over the long run. AMD may very well be able to make some inroads, especially among low-income families trying to provide computers not for themselves, but for their school-age children. That could wind up being a semi-lucrative low-end market segment if properly cultivated. In the end, I really can't see it being more than a 1 or possibly 2 percent boost in sales in the short term that will do nothing to alleviate the bleeding being done as Intel continues to make inroads into the lower segments of the market with highly superior products (E4 and E2 series C2D/Pentiums).

You mean Intel would just raise prices and screw everyone? Heaven forbid.


And for the record BM, any company will increase profits in the absence of competition, don't try to twist my statement into some sort of demonization of Intel, because AMD would behave no differently if the roles were reversed.


It depends. If Dell peforms like they have been the past few years, and delivers crap to Walmart, and thus the WalMart purchasing demographic, they could very well put that segment off computers. I worry about that. Dell would not have been my first choice for such an endevor, and I fear they will go in looking to make as fast a profit as feasible without looking to long term ramifications.

If Dell wants to go in and make a global statement of product quality, and is willing to forego squeezing every penny of profit they can, they may pull it off in spectacular fashion. Regardless, the market is there, its just a matter of who wants to attack it first and is willing to shift to a volume profit mentality vs margin profit mentality. If Dell/Walmart screw the pooch on this one, they very well may injur the market or worse, lay a foundation for Intel to swoop in and steal the market.
June 13, 2007 5:43:04 AM

Quote:
quadfather review = super disappointing

Mind if I disagree?
IMHO the review was right on the mark. It's the chip(s) that are disapointing. No reason to shoot the messenger, when he is so very right.
I think it's one of the best reviews I've seen @ Tom's, in a while.
June 13, 2007 5:54:28 AM

Quote:
quadfather review = super disappointing

Mind if I disagree?
IMHO the review was right on the mark. It's the chip(s) that are disapointing. No reason to shoot the messenger, when he is so very right.
I think it's one of the best reviews I've seen @ Tom's, in a while.

I dont think he was refering to the quality of the review itself, rather the results of the QFX in the performance benchmarking. :wink:
June 13, 2007 6:13:50 AM

Yes. I know. I was just trying to drag the thread back to the article.
For those who do not know, the piece was written by an old time forum member. His handle is" crashman". He was the backbone of the forum for many years.
June 13, 2007 6:31:05 AM

Quote:
quadfather review = super disappointing

Mind if I disagree?
IMHO the review was right on the mark. It's the chip(s) that are disapointing. No reason to shoot the messenger, when he is so very right.
I think it's one of the best reviews I've seen @ Tom's, in a while.

I dont think he was refering to the quality of the review itself, rather the results of the QFX in the performance benchmarking. :wink:

The OP should have wrote "Quadfather PC = super disappointing". The thread title is misleading; I honestly thought that the OP was attacking the review instead of the computer.
June 13, 2007 7:23:06 AM

Quote:
Quote:
The other key point is that the Vigor machine was $2000 less than the Dell and though it didn't win those tests, only Oblivion had bad frame rates.

Quote:
only Oblivion had bad frame rates


I disagree.
It only had LESS frame rates.

In real life NOBODYS eye can see it and for $2000 less you would have to be blind...or foolish...or stupid...or just not give a rat's ass...or a combo of all of these to buy the Dell if all you look at is a benchmark.

For that saved $2000 I could buy three or four cars from the police auction each week and resale them in under a month for twice what I paid (and I do).
Free ad in the newspaper.
No OC'ing needed.

Face it $2000 USD is alot of money.

Price vs what you get and what you can TELL you are getting.
Given that real life viewpoint the AMD system is a clear winner this round for a shoppers wallet.

Unless they are rich yet foolish....if so they should pass up BOTH systems and buy a Falcon.
At least they will get the worlds best pre-built machine that way requardless of the CPU in it if that is what they seek.
June 13, 2007 8:18:53 AM

2000$ is a lot of money. To you. But that´s not what this article is about.
June 13, 2007 9:33:32 AM

Quote:
2000$ is a lot of money. To you. But that´s not what this article is about.


Yeah lol. 5000 is a lot of money too. Why buy either of these PC's. They both suck, you are just paying for a badge.

If people are going to be picky something for 3000 could easily keep up with the quadfather and you have 2000 left.

For that saved $2000 I could buy three or four cars from the police auction...
June 13, 2007 10:40:53 AM

Looking at the specs of the intel system, this is overclocked to 3.7Ghz whereas the AMD system is at 3Ghz. Thats a 23% difference in Clock alone + the fact that core2 have much better IPC.

Drop the frequency of the intel back to standard (2.93Ghz) i.e. 26%
According to the article the intel system is 54% faster. Subtract the 26%,
that leaves 28% better performance of the core2 system. No suprises there.
But looking at the difference in price you are spending a vast amount of money ($2000) on cooling and monitor, for the overclock.

Now that sounds like alot of money to me for a cooling solution.
June 13, 2007 11:12:05 AM

Quote:
Looking at the specs of the intel system, this is overclocked to 3.7Ghz whereas the AMD system is at 3Ghz. Thats a 23% difference in Clock alone + the fact that core2 have much better IPC.

Drop the frequency of the intel back to standard (2.93Ghz) i.e. 26%
According to the article the intel system is 54% faster. Subtract the 26%,
that leaves 28% better performance of the core2 system. No suprises there.
But looking at the difference in price you are spending a vast amount of money ($2000) on cooling and monitor, for the overclock.

Now that sounds like alot of money to me for a cooling solution.


So it's Intels fault that the AMD processors don't overclock? This is extreme computing not pansy its not fair computing.
You are comparing two different companies anyway. Dell will make a huge profit because they are a well known company. I can't even remember what the company who made the AMD machine is called. Just another alienware clone which sells rubbish at rip off prices.

I'd rather buy a mac, and mac's are a total rip off.
June 13, 2007 11:32:36 AM

OMFGOD!
Some fasist forum admin just deleated 6-8 posts in this thread as I was making a last reply to them.

SCREW YOU whoever did this you Statest pig.

Those of you in the thread who already posted know what I am talking about.

Z
EDIT:
May as well lock this thread as some bonehead is deleating posts.
So much for freedom of speach/press in this forum.
I hope you get fired...prick.

Z
aka Zorro
June 13, 2007 11:56:47 AM

I am really pissed about all the posts that got deleated....I can't find a contact link/email to the people in charge of this forum.

I want to file a complaint against the person who did this with his employer.
If anyone can provide it contact me at http://tkc-comminity.net
I am ZOldDude one of the admin.

aka Zorro
aka Bartender from 1980's BBS called Radio Free Venice.
PS: I hate Statest and Facist minded people more than anything on earth. I'm 73 and I earned that RIGHT!
June 13, 2007 12:08:49 PM

Quote:
What?


Some forum admin prick just deleat a tuckload of posts.
Bad enough for you young guys but I am an old GI who really dislikes this sort of thing....and I am pissed off.
I want contact info to the owners of this forum so they can deal with this commie prick.
a b à CPUs
June 13, 2007 12:33:27 PM

PETEvsDRM is right, this discussion is priceless. Priceless because this thread stinks of the ignorance and lack of vision that has come to permeate these forums. Priceless because so called "technology enthusiasts" can't see past their own bias. Priceless because we've got a bunch of benchmark whores who anchor their logic on whether a system is "good" or "bad" based solely on numbers on a graph.

+1 post for me!
June 13, 2007 12:38:12 PM

Quote:
What?


Some forum admin prick just deleat a tuckload of posts.
Bad enough for you young guys but I am an old GI who really dislikes this sort of thing....and I am pissed off.
I want contact info to the owners of this forum so they can deal with this commie prick.

A who. Obviously someone that knows nothing about fascism or communism.
June 13, 2007 12:55:29 PM

Quote:
That statement is incorrect. "Any new system being sold " does not mean more market share. The fact that AMD has posted sales for both Q406 and Q107 and only held or lost marketshare (respectively) as they did, clearly disproves that. That comment presumes that the market only ever expands (i.e. no systems are ever replaced and discarded) and expands only based on sales of one manufacturers component.


I'm accounting for growth over the year. Laptops are supposed to grow a lot this year, so if there's 12% growth in the market and this constitutes more than 20% of the growth, AMD now has more share.

If it doesn't account for more than 20% then they don't increase share.
June 13, 2007 12:59:18 PM

They could have easily compared the Quadfather to iBuyPower's $5500 system they reviewed earlier and that still beats Quadfather.
June 13, 2007 1:53:20 PM

Yeeeah... this thread slightly scares me.
June 13, 2007 4:43:18 PM

Quote:
That statement is incorrect. "Any new system being sold " does not mean more market share. The fact that AMD has posted sales for both Q406 and Q107 and only held or lost marketshare (respectively) as they did, clearly disproves that. That comment presumes that the market only ever expands (i.e. no systems are ever replaced and discarded) and expands only based on sales of one manufacturers component.


I'm accounting for growth over the year. Laptops are supposed to grow a lot this year, so if there's 12% growth in the market and this constitutes more than 20% of the growth, AMD now has more share.

If it doesn't account for more than 20% then they don't increase share.

Growth over a year does not translate to more market share. Again, the market is growing, so at a minimum, to sustain market share, both companies sales must grow to fill the ever increasing demand, regardless of the time period. Again sales, whether it be laptop, DT, or server segment do not equate to increased market share. That said, obviously, sales and market share are not mutually exclusive but interdependant as market share cannot increase without sales.

Furthmore, the original statement, made no such assertions, it simply said
Quote:
Any new systems being sold means more share. Of course you have to sell a lot for even 1% share but I think WalMart does as does Toshiba and since they weren't selling them before share will increase by that much.
June 13, 2007 5:38:08 PM

Quote:
PETEvsDRM is right, this discussion is priceless. Priceless because this thread stinks of the ignorance and lack of vision that has come to permeate these forums. Priceless because so called "technology enthusiasts" can't see past their own bias. Priceless because we've got a bunch of benchmark whores who anchor their logic on whether a system is "good" or "bad" based solely on numbers on a graph.

+1 post for me!


We should buy computers because they are "pretty" and they make the flowers grow, and dolphins swim, right?

And racing enthusiasts shouldnt watch races, because who cares who wins, it doesnt demonstrate whose the better team, right?
And Red Sox fans, or Yankees fans, or Steelers fans or Bulls fans shouldnt watch the world series or the super bowl or the playoffs, because who cares who wins, it has nothing to do with who performs better, right?

Its not about who performs. its about being pretty, or being morally upstanding, or environmentally concerned, or watching TV or planting a tree, or anything but performance :roll:

If you dont like the THG forums, well, its a free internet, no ones forcing you to come here, so go elsewhere, and while youre there, see if you can figure a better way to easily demonstrate relative performance, other than benchmarks.
!