Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

About XP ratings...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
June 25, 2003 3:36:26 AM

I was being TOO generous when I said the XP3200+ compared to the P4 2.8C, it actually compares better to the P4 2.6C, and even then the 2.6C wins more benchmarks, by a larger margin. In many ways it compares to the 2.53...but then it would actually WIN overall!

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

More about : ratings

June 25, 2003 4:06:32 AM

Whew..glad I bought a 3.0c which compares pretty damn well to the 3.0c. :) 

--Xenius
-non computer guru
a b à CPUs
June 25, 2003 4:40:03 AM

Hmm, too much cash for me!

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
Related resources
June 25, 2003 4:57:57 AM

Indeed high end XP are truley pathetic, however the middle of the pack are decently priced. On this note what is the best bang for the buck with higher end chips, 2.8?
June 25, 2003 5:15:20 AM

It is too bad that Anandtech put that one losey Winstone benchie in. But just be glad that for a second time in a row Intel was able to win its own benchies. What really amazed me was how well the 2.4b did. When it was first up against the xp 2200 it was the clear looser,in these self same tests. Now just by adding 33 mhz to the fsb it is compeating well against the xp2800. For sure if the fsb were 200 it would beat the xp3200.LOL.
June 25, 2003 7:55:11 AM

If i didnt know how to turn a £50 processor into a £360 one I would surely have gone the P4 2.8C route. I wonder how AMD will rate the new 64 processor. If they give it a realistic rating, say for example a top processor they release actually matches a p4 3.2ghz and they call it a 3200, what about the current 3200???? Looks like AMD will have to either keep giving their processors stupid ratings or name them like the opteron, unless the new 64bit proc is as fast as a 3.4ghz P4, which I cant see happening but who knows till later in the year...

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=945569" target="_new"> MY RIG </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)
June 25, 2003 12:10:26 PM

You could always go with the 2.8c and with a few mhz increase of the fsb you'd have the 3.0c. Hopefully I'll turn my $402 3.0c into a $700 3.2c.

--Xenius
-non computer guru
June 25, 2003 1:07:15 PM

And then there are people like me that putter along just fine on a K6-III 400.

AMD is having a slight problem with market segmentation. The proper way to segment a market, with regards to cost, is to provide a premium product at a premium price and use the premium price as a forcing factor to drive customer confidence upwards towards the premium product ("if I pay more, I get more"). Conversely, the company must provide lower cost alternatives to those unable, or unwilling, to pay the premium price, such that they still make a profit whenever a customer buys a lower cost alternative (Microsoft, Kraft).

The problem with AMD is that they no longer have a premium product in regard to their chief competitor. Still, AMD must make it appear to the general public that they have a premium product that is comparable to Intel's premium product (PR ratings), but then, they throw segmentation theory out the window and sell this product for much lower cost. Admittedly, they have to charge less, because the product performs less. AMD is mired in a vicious circle. Until they have a premium product that is on par with Intel’s, performance-wise, and are willing to charge more, they will continue to dwindle towards niche status (Apple).

I would suggest to AMD to forgo desktop market dominance in favor of the more lucrative mobile and handheld market. It’s just going to get bigger.


Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
a b à CPUs
June 26, 2003 2:59:37 AM

AMD said they didn't WANT to compete with Intel at the top end anymore! When was that, 2001 or 2002?

They said they would focus on the more lucrative midrange market. The only reason they offer a 3200+ is to fill the product line.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
June 26, 2003 3:08:52 AM

So what does AMD say is midrange Xp2500 Barton? SO if midrange is more lucrative as AMD says. Then the price of A64 should be less than $400.
a b à CPUs
June 26, 2003 3:44:34 AM

I'd say anything from 3 model numbers to 8 model numbers below Intel's latest would be what AMD aims for. You see, Intel blamed AMD for the drop in sales, claiming the MHz and Price wars caused people to buy processors early on that they had no reason to upgrade later on. Many of AMD's investers agreed, hence the move. And the midrange sector is where AMD was already getting most of their sales from anyway.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
June 26, 2003 8:36:25 AM

I guess technically speaking the AMD CPUs are faster clock for clock but the superior bandwidth technology behind Intel's chipsets have made this comparison pointless now.

My suggestion to AMD is yes we respect you make a great CPU but start developing a chipset to complement it instead of relying on companies like VIA and SiS who frankly don't give a F**K!
a b à CPUs
June 26, 2003 7:29:27 PM

Clock for Clock went out the window when AMD came up with their XP model number system. For instance, when you buy an XP 3200+, you pay for 3200MHz of performance, even if all you get is 2200MHz. So you can only go by model numbers and prices any more.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
June 27, 2003 1:08:15 AM

Quote:
AMD said they didn't WANT to compete with Intel at the top end anymore!


If you can get documentation on that, I'd be keenly interested in that, serioulsy. Of course, I could do it myself, but you may have a leg up on where to start looking.

I'm skeptical that AMD would say that because high end exposure trickles down and usually leads to increased to mid and low range sales. Additionally, margins are higher on the top end parts, the only thing more "lucrative" about mid-range is volume.

It is apparant to me, now, that AMD offers a 3200+ model to protect and/or maintain public perception. I do not like the fact that the PR numbers are not realistic, but I do understand the need to do so. Value is completely derived from the benefit of owning an item-- it does not matter whether the benefit is real or imaginary. Thus, AMD markets a 3200+ processor to maintain market share, which is more important than margin, in the long run. Just ask Apple.

If it was ealier in the day, I owuld be more coherent.

Regards,

Dave

Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
a b à CPUs
June 27, 2003 5:01:28 AM

I follow the business stories on msnbc.com. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to find anything in their archives. I'd appreciate it if you would take a stab at it, because I had someone else request proof recently as well.

It seems like well known facts are well forgotten by people who love a certain company!

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
a b à CPUs
June 27, 2003 5:02:38 AM

Oh, you might do well to find the story where Intel blamed AMD for the recession first (actually they might have just blamed them for weak CPU sales, but one thing leads to another).

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
June 30, 2003 1:23:19 PM

Quote:
It seems like well known facts are well forgotten by people who love a certain company!

Huh? Who? What?



Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
June 30, 2003 1:42:39 PM

Quote:
AMD said they didn't WANT to compete with Intel at the top end anymore! When was that, 2001 or 2002?

They said they would focus on the more lucrative midrange market. The only reason they offer a 3200+ is to fill the product line.


We ask for documentation because that statement is not logical.

After reading articles like <A HREF="http://www.redherring.com/mag/issue60/intel.html" target="_new">this one</A>, <A HREF="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983901.html" target="_new">this one</A>, and <A HREF="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983542.html?tag=nl" target="_new">this one</A>, it is apparant that AMD always intended on competing with Intel at all price points, especially the high end. Really, if that were true (not wanting to compete) why would they be spending the R&D dollars on Opteron (which, they would have been when they made such a statement)

And <A HREF="http://hardware.earthweb.com/chips/print.php/1585171" target="_new">this</A>, too.

Dave

Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
June 30, 2003 1:44:25 PM

Quote:
Oh, you might do well to find the story where Intel blamed AMD for the recession first (actually they might have just blamed them for weak CPU sales, but one thing leads to another).

That makes no sense eitther.

Regards,

Dave


Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2003 9:26:13 PM

Do you have any idea how hard it is to find old news? I get my news mainly from MSNBC.com, and their archives are a nightmare!

You might search these forums for the date I first made these statements, which would likely have links to the original articles, which then might be cross-referenced with the archives.

At any rate <A HREF="http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2001/10/..." target="_new">Here's a link</A> which contains part of the information that was involved with these decisions. Here is a rundown of what happened, all from news history which I have commited to memory:

1.) AMD and Intel announce sluggish sales
2.) Intel blames AMD for sluggish sales, claiming price wars and MHz race have flooded the market.
3.) AMD drops out of MHz race
4.) AMD promises to raise average profit per unit by focusing on midrange market.

Now, none of those might sound exactly like what I said, but a summary of those stories is that Intle blames AMD for weak sales, AMD changes sales strategy to focus on midrange market.

I've found an easy to navigate news site, I'll try to bring you more links, but...I have several thousand headlines to look through.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
June 30, 2003 9:42:29 PM

Don't you mean AMD blames Intel for weak sales?

Still, it doesn't make sense for any company to say, "we're not intending to compete." Obviously, they intended to compete. I do recall that AMD's agreement with UMC put the kibosh on AMD's roadmap circa 4Q 2002. Also do not forget that 4Q 2001 was Worldcom, Enron, Tyco and whatnot. Lots of stinky, smelly fans then.

Dave

Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
a b à CPUs
July 1, 2003 12:15:07 AM

When AMD dropped from the MHz race and stated that they were going to focus on the midrange, they gave some details. One of them was that they were focussing on the more lucrative midrange market. This means they are turning focus away from the high end and budget markets.

I never said they weren't competing, I said they were no longer trying to compete at the top. They've focused on a different market. They are trying to outclass Celerons at Celeron prices. Their PR rating, which is supposed to be based on the T-Bird core, is actually scaled toward the P4. What they are trying to accomplish here is similar to P4 performance at similar to Celeron prices, which puts them in the midrange PC market, as they originally stated they were shooting for.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
July 1, 2003 1:23:34 AM

Well how appreciable is the volume that the top speed grade ever sell in given
the typical big rise in price between the fastest and second fastest?

Once an Intel type explained the benefit of the top speed grade device with what
he called the triple cheeseburger principle. A burger chain might introduce a
triple cheeseburger even though it might sell only in modest quantities. Why?
Because it will significantly raise the sales of double cheeseburgers. People
don't think of the double cheeseburger as as excessive if they can rationalize
it by the fact they didn't buy a triple cheeseburger. People are funny animals. ;-)

The value of a 3.4 GHz Northwood in a competitively tight environment isn't
necessarily due to its direct sales volumes as much as it has a drag-on
effect on 3.0 and 3.2 GHz devices

That explain the need of high-end stuff need for AMD competif or not

[-peep-] french
July 1, 2003 1:50:42 AM

Quote:
I never said they weren't competing

Do not misconstrue me. I was not intending to put words in your mouth, by no means. You can follow my logic that it seems very unreasonable for any company (whose goal is to make more money now and in the future) to admit the phrase "We do not intend to compete . . . blah, blah, blah." (I can't but help think of Apple during instances such as these. They did make statements like that, and meant them. Idiots.)

You know and I know they did not voluntarily drop out of the MHz race. They must say they did to save face. Spin, spin, and spin. It follows that they did not intend NOT to compete with Intel at the high end, but they might have to SAY they did to save face.

Shame on AMD. AMD, shame on you! I thought Jonah taught you better! What a way to bolster consumer confidence (translates to percieved value, which impacts sales) in your product.

I'd sure like to sources of those statements for my scrapbook. I'll keep looking now that I know more of what to look for. Heck, maybe I can call AMD and ask.

Regards,

Dave

Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
July 1, 2003 1:55:16 AM

That just makes brilliant sense to me...

How many people are actually looking at the 3.2Ghz and 3.0Ghz and are actually saying "GREAT! I'll go with a 2.8Ghz with 800Mhz!!!". This really happens.

It's just like when you see how Opteron 1.8Ghz is overpowering a Xeon and then decide to get an Opteron 1.4Ghz, ignoring the fact that it has a considerably lower clock and might just not be that good an alternative as you were actually thinking. (you're tempted to say "hey, it's still Opteron!)

It's a bug in our brains! Let's go back to that AI thread...
July 1, 2003 6:13:12 AM

Quote:
XP 3200+, you pay for 3200MHz of performance


Man, this site is about the worst intel fansite I have ever visited. It seems like the editors and reviewers cator to the needs of the people who post in this forum, because the fanoyism betwen the 2 is remarkable.


The PR system on the XP cpu's is based against a <b>THUNDERBIRD</b> at the same speed.

Get your facts straight people.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Harris1111 on 07/01/03 02:13 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 1, 2003 6:45:33 AM

Quote:
The PR system on the XP cpu's is based against a THUNDERBIRD at the same speed.

Get your facts straight people.

Crashman just said that.

We all know that that's what it's <i>supposed</i> to be based on, but that's beside the point.
July 1, 2003 9:27:07 AM

This place couldn't possibly be an Intel fansite. There has been lots of AMD fanboys here. I used to be one of them myself :p 

Officially, the Athlon XP may be based against Thunderbird, but Inofficially, you can bet that it's based on the P4. Just look at some rating numbers, eg. now they have a 3200+ even though it's nowhere near the perf of the P4 3.2. The 3000+ vs. 2800+ is an even better example, the 3000+ runs at 2.16 GHz, and the 2800+ runs at 2.08 GHz, yet the cpu's are exactly the same with the only exception being the mhz. You tell me how 80 Mhz could ever make 200 extra pr points.


My system: Intel Pentium 4 2.8, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI 875P Neo / Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
July 1, 2003 11:01:23 AM

Quote:
. You tell me how 80 Mhz could ever make 200 extra pr points.

AMD's Marketing department have a special calculator for working these things out. :wink:

---
$hit Happens. I just wish it would happen to someone else for a change.
July 1, 2003 11:53:25 AM

*lol* that's it ;)  Sad but true...

My system: Intel Pentium 4 2.8, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI 875P Neo / Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
July 1, 2003 1:16:42 PM

Quote:
AMD's Marketing department have a special calculator for working these things out.


I think they call it a dartboard.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
July 1, 2003 3:37:44 PM

Quote:
People don't think of the double cheeseburger as as excessive if they can rationalize
it by the fact they didn't buy a triple cheeseburger.

See? That is what I was talking about when I was explaining using perceived value as a forcing factor to achieve market segmentation. This type of market segmentation really works when a company has a well-known brand (Intel, Kellogg, and Pfizer) and also manufactures "generic" brands. The real beauty of this type of market segmentation is that a company can sell the same product at different prices.

I cannot afford this (name brand product made by company A), but this (other product, also made by company A, but distributed under a different brand) looks the same and is cheaper. I will buy that.

OR

I trust company (or brand) A. I am willing to pay a price premium to have company A's products.

As one can see, Company A makes money whatever the customer buys.

It seems logical to assume that it does not cost Intel any more to manufacture P4C than P4B or Celeron. They are essentially selling the same product at different prices (also with i875 and i865). Same goes for AMD, except at a smaller scale since they have the two fabs, and the 3 (or 4?) different architectures.

Class dismissed.


__________________________________________________
<b><font color=red>Three great virtues of a programmer are: laziness, impatience, and hubris.</font color=red><b>
July 1, 2003 5:16:30 PM

Then again it all comes down to how much cpu do you really need....I sold my water cooled p4 system about a month ago with a radeon 9700 pro (also water cooled), when I realized it was overkill....I pocketed about 600 bucks and purchased a epox nforce2 mobo and a xp2500+ cpu and a geforce4 4200 and I cant tell a difference in gaming or other processes at all...
maybe it has come to a point where it really doesnt pay to focus on high end systems when a much much cheaper solution will do the job...but then again AMD will need to keep their cpu's much cheaper at the same time in order for this to work for them

<A HREF="http://dnadesignz.kicks-ass.net" target="_new"><b><font color=green>MY SYSTEM</b></font color=green></A>
July 1, 2003 5:47:51 PM

Quote:
Then again it all comes down to how much cpu do you really need....

Value (and, in turn, selling price) is (should be) determined by the benefit of having a particular product. But, your plain, English statement also works.

Keep in mind that some costumers derive additional benefit from having more than they reasonably need. To revisit the thread topic, that is the reason for AMD PR ratings-- to drive perception of value. The PR ratings do not have to coincide with reality in order to work.

__________________________________________________
<b><font color=red>Three great virtues of a programmer are: laziness, impatience, and hubris.</font color=red><b>
!