Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

who runs AMD's marketing?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 6, 2003 6:47:06 PM

Athlon 3200+ barton for 470 bucks? WTF?!?
this thing runs at 2.12ghz

Intel p4 3.06giz actually running at 3.06ghz will run you 378 bucks.

Who would buy a 3200 athlon? AMD is smoking crack and we are talking about the GOOD $hit!

Care to share AMD?
p.s. give me my damn 400fsb bartons NOW!

"sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick"
*grabs a stick and places it into the flames; mmmm, smores*
%Think before you act would be a good motto%

More about : runs amd marketing

May 6, 2003 11:41:44 PM

i hear ya bro
May 6, 2003 11:53:19 PM

The problem with your reasoning is the AMD 3200+ at 2.12gighz is faster than the 3.06Gighz Pee4 and should in theory be equilivent to the 3.2Gighz Pee4.
AREA_51

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'
Related resources
May 6, 2003 11:59:15 PM

should be=doesn't in this case. Intel's latest and greatest cpu blows amd's lastest and greatest cpu out of the water. amd shouldn't mark their cpus as 3200 if its NOT able to stick up with a 3.2ghz. That's nearly a ghz increase. You are telling me that intels extra ghz of performance doesn't make a difference?...lol, no and i wasn't even really campairing that, because i'm an AMD fan all the way, i was questing why it was priced so badly when a 2500 can reach 3200 and the 2500 sells for 130 retail.

So my original statement stands, AMD is smoking the GOOD $hit and not sharing it with its loyal customers....shame on them!

"sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick"
*grabs a stick and places it into the flames; mmmm, smores*
%Think before you act would be a good motto%
May 7, 2003 1:48:51 AM

Quote:
Athlon 3200+ barton for 470 bucks? WTF?!?
this thing runs at 2.12ghz

Intel p4 3.06giz actually running at 3.06ghz will run you 378 bucks.

Who would buy a 3200 athlon? AMD is smoking crack and we are talking about the GOOD $hit!

Care to share AMD?
p.s. give me my damn 400fsb bartons NOW!



Umm your reasoning makes no sense at all. How is 470 bucks seem outrageous for a beginning price when the 3.06 debuted at 600-800 bucks depending which site you went to. And how much do those cost now? Exactly.
May 7, 2003 1:49:33 AM

It's all about the architecture. MHz for MHz nothing touches the Athlon.

To start press any key. Where's the "any" key? --Homer Simpson.
May 7, 2003 4:12:52 AM

any risc base will kill any X86 from the past ot future on Int even worse when when come to FPU.

And no 3200+ will be equal to a 2.8C with I875 (P4C800)

[-peep-] french
May 7, 2003 4:50:39 AM

Ok why is a P4 3.06Gighz Priced so badly when a 2.4C with HT can easily reach 3.2Gighz?
AREA_51

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'
a b à CPUs
May 7, 2003 5:10:22 AM

Yes, and aparently model numbers mean little these days, as the 3200+ on nForce2 should be neck and neck with a P4. 3.06 on 875P.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
May 7, 2003 5:56:24 AM

Crashman you made my day =) My friend is defecting to Intel but Im glad i can still have the last laugh.

But as for the topic of this post, I can agree, it IS a bit steep for a 3200, my oced 2500 was only 130 =)

Athlon XP 2500+ @ 2.2GHz (12.5x177), Volcano 7 w/Smart Fan2, A7N8X, Kingston HyperX PC3000 512MB @177MHz, Radeon 9700Pro, SB Live 5.1
a b à CPUs
May 7, 2003 7:41:43 AM

Yes, the dollars and model numbers make little sense, what you pay for is an AMD CPU that can compete with a P4 3.2GHz (yet unreleased), but what you GET is an AMD CPU that can only compete with a P4 3.06. So the extra $100 gets you...nothing.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
May 7, 2003 12:54:22 PM

What they really needed in a 3200+ is something like 2.3-2.4Ghz on a 400MhzFSB... That would probably Outperform a P4 3.2... or at least be somewhere around it, performance-wise. I am dissapointed at AMD's continually just stretching out the PR rating to give the illusion they can match anything Intel do. It seems they are having difficulty scaling their chips up too high reliably. Considering that the A64 is still based around the same architecture, I don't feel this bodes too well for the future.

---
:smile: :tongue: :smile:
May 7, 2003 4:59:59 PM

Calm down. AMD's CPU prices generally fall faster than Intel's prices. There is also another strategy in marketing that goes along the lines of if you price a product to low, people will think its cheap. So just wait a couple months, and it will fall well below the intel 3.06
May 8, 2003 2:51:01 AM

Quote:
Yes, and aparently model numbers mean little these days, as the 3200+ on nForce2 should be neck and neck with a P4. 3.06 on 875P.

It's funny. The only way one can quantify a CPU's level of peformance is by measuring MHz. This had been true until the Athlon XP's came out. Now, so the laymen can understand a bit better, AMD came out with their own numbering system that would mirror the MHz measuring system still employed by Intel. When the garbage can Willies came out Intel was shoving MHz down our throats assuming that everyone was still counting MHz. Now AMD has skewed their numbering system to the point where it is inaccurate comparison with Intel's MHz system. IMO it's a deceptive practice. The 3200+ should be neck and neck with a P4 3.2.

To start press any key. Where's the "any" key? --Homer Simpson.
May 8, 2003 4:15:29 AM

Sure its deceptive, but i think what Intel has done with all of thier Mhz brainwashing (not to mention false advertising, anyone else see that P3 commercial with them claiming it makes your internet connection faster?) is just as bad
May 8, 2003 4:44:07 AM

So the fact that Intel does it makes it.......ok? Deceptive is deceptive.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
May 8, 2003 5:07:25 AM

that IS what he was saying lol!

-------

<A HREF="http://www.xgr.com" target="_new">XGR-Game Reviews</A>

"You change the channel, and you change our minds..." - System of a Down
a b à CPUs
May 8, 2003 7:24:00 AM

Intel isn't doing anything deceptive by calling their P4 by MHz, even if it isn't as effective as the PIII was, clock for clock. You don't see anyone screeming that VIA C3 chips are deceptively rated, you only see them saying hos slow they are. There is no deception.

The XP rating system can't be accurate, because as soon as they set it one way, some hardware changes come allong that make it way off again. I still think AMD would have done well to simply name the CPU by it's MHz and start a public add campaign telling people how much faster they were than competing processors.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
May 8, 2003 7:46:48 AM

People are stupid though and they think MHz is everthing. That would be the right thing to do though.

<font color=green>Everyone should be like the Dutch. They're perfect.</font color=green>
May 17, 2003 1:28:00 PM

Quote:
The XP rating system can't be accurate, because as soon as they set it one way, some hardware changes come allong that make it way off again. I still think AMD would have done well to simply name the CPU by it's MHz and start a public add campaign telling people how much faster they were than competing processors.

Great idea. That is exactly what AMD should've done. Hopefully something could change their mind so that the Athlon 64 could become a more honorably marketed product.


My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ CPU / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Maxtor 80Gb ATA-133 / Hercules GTXP SC /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
May 17, 2003 1:45:00 PM

Intel doesn´t do any "Mhz brainwashing" because they don´t need to. Sure, they do have their share of ugliness, but it´s not quite brainwashing.

Besides, someone here said it´s all about architecture. Well, yes. But it´s not all "clock-to-clock" (IPC) comparisons. I think it´s pretty obvious: IPC doesn´t mean anything alone, and Mhz (Ghz) doesn´t mean anything alone either!!! The only thing that matters is net performance, which is the rather obvious combination of those two.
May 18, 2003 3:54:21 AM

3200+ = P4 2.8C.

AMD is embarassing themselves.


<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:
May 18, 2003 4:05:20 AM

I think someone else used this analogy, so I apologize for the plagiarism, but if you had a 100mhz Athlon that ran as fast as a 1 ghz P4, (but the Athlon could run no faster than 100 Mhz) would you rather have that, or a 3.0 GHZ P4? Well, according to some people's logic, you should prefer the 100 MHZ Athlon, because of the uber IPC. Forget about the fact that it doesn't perform as well. It's all about IPC!

It's like saying a 305 V8 carbureted Chevy engine is better than a 3.8L Supercharged Multiport Injected V6 GM because it does more work per RPM. But, in reality, the Supercharged V6 will get from here to there MUCH faster...



<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:
a b à CPUs
May 18, 2003 5:08:41 AM

I'm thinking of pulling the 4.3 from my Astro and installing a 400 (or 350). "Stroker" 350's with 400 cranks are kind of lame to me, when you can actually own a 400 block and get more.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
May 18, 2003 2:07:56 PM

Quote:
Besides, someone here said it´s all about architecture. Well, yes. But it´s not all "clock-to-clock" (IPC) comparisons. I think it´s pretty obvious: IPC doesn´t mean anything alone, and Mhz (Ghz) doesn´t mean anything alone either!!! The only thing that matters is net performance, which is the rather obvious combination of those two.

That's it! Stubborn AMD fans (like I used to be) always argue that AMD CPU's can do more IPC per MHz than Intel CPU's can. But since Intel CPU's does more MHz than AMD CPU's does, effectively compensating the IPC with more MHz, leading to a similar result, then what's the big deal if a CPU has more IPC, or if it has more MHz, as long as it's performing equally or better than the other? There is no deal at all. No way, no how.


My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ CPU / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Maxtor 80Gb ATA-133 / Hercules GTXP SC /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by sabbath1 on 05/18/03 10:10 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 18, 2003 2:13:56 PM

Stroker thats what I did with my Harley. I took out 80 CI an had a 106 CI built. No way that 80 CI can compete with MY 106.
May 18, 2003 2:39:15 PM

Yes! That´s what I meant. E-x-a-c-t-l-y.

(Just glad people understand what I meant, that´s all. :smile: I think I told that to a Mr. Stubborn around the forums as well... Geez...)
May 18, 2003 4:09:30 PM

I used to be stubborn as well. Fortunately got educated enough to drop my old stupid judgement calls.

My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ CPU / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Maxtor 80Gb ATA-133 / Hercules GTXP SC /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
May 18, 2003 8:46:11 PM

All things go in cycles. Amd used to claim to be 17% better ghz-to-ghz by calling it an xp2000 but delivering 1.67g. But they weren't just 17% better, 25% was more like it. Now amd has overdone it a little by calling it a 3200+ while delivering 2.20g, a difference of 31% yet reality is closer to the original 25%. Seems like the problem is an overestimation of the barton cache and the 133-166 fsb bump. I still like the 2400+ against the 2.4 p4, but this 3200+ rating was a mistake.

To their credit, the 1700+ tbred b makes no claim to be better than the 1700+ palomino. Nice of them not to factor in oc potential. I can see an oc number coming next. They rename the 1700 to a 1700-2600. Please, no.

So they started out too conservative and now have cycled to overaggressive. They are still the better deal.

<i>Reason the only absolute. Irrationality the only enemy. </i>
a b à CPUs
May 18, 2003 11:02:32 PM

What I was saying is that I find it extremely lame to "stroke" a 350 with a 400 crank. Intead of calling it a "stroked" 350, you might as well call it a "debored" 400. If someone wants a 400 crank they might as well pick up the 400 block as well, and get the larger bore that way. A built 400 will usually outperform a built 377CI stroked 350.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
May 19, 2003 2:29:30 PM

You're a godsend, you are! :smile:

Ah if more people were this open-minded.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
May 19, 2003 2:35:02 PM

And what is surprising is that the Pentium 4 IS NOT created with the philosophy "Less IPC= Higher clock speeds"! It was a stroke of bad luck by rush of product release due to competition which caused a whole CPU structure be castrated.

The Pentium 4 could at anytime have its IPC shot in steroids to the AthlonXP Barton 400MT levels, and keep scaling as much good as it is now. The only problem, which CREATES the need for such philosophy is that the heat generated then, becomes too great.

That's where you also got the 20 stage pipeline which makes the work done in each stage, much smaller, which in turn equals less heat generated in each. Overall that makes the Pentium 4 less hot, and I do think Intel can up the IPC considerably anytime they want and not lose so much. 0.09m Pentium 4s will rock.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
May 19, 2003 5:04:15 PM

Thanks! :smile:

My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ CPU / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Maxtor 80Gb ATA-133 / Hercules GTXP SC /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
May 19, 2003 5:16:52 PM

I know what you where saying. I was using 80 CI AMD XP3200+ being as fast as Intel 3.0c 106 CI
!