Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD64 Finally Makes Sense

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 30, 2003 11:59:25 PM

From main page:
Quote:
Yup, AMD64 might just have found a niche where Intel can't touch it: we see the light.

First of all, what advantage would 64-bit computing have over 32-bit in the DDC market? A 2k x 2k image, that's only 64 MB for floating-point color, and well within 4 GB. And even if it got close to that limit there still wouldn't be a problem if every image is allocated in its own virtual space. You can then access it just as efficiently by re-mapping pages. The only problem is you need OS support. But in the worst case you just use <A HREF="http://www.bridgespublishing.com/articles/issues/0204/U..." target="_new">file mapping</A>. The bottom line is: it can be done.

Secondly, why would Intel not be able to touch it? We have had 64-bit Itanium DCC workstations for years. The only advantage AMD has here is that you can easily convert programs from x86-32 to x86-64. But recently Intel also has an x86 emulator for Itanium (working more like a JIT-compiler actually).
Quote:
So, there you have it, AMD has a big, I repeat big, step up over Intel in the 64-bit arena here.

I'm no Intel fanboy, and I wish AMD all the luck, but I'm just trying to be critical here...
July 31, 2003 12:27:16 AM

i bet people said that even when we switched from 8bit to 16 bit...there will eventually be a need...but i think it is too early......

3 386DX-25's...12 volts...glue some ln2 and a wicked amount of overclocking and you get a willamantee minus 36 pins, 33.75 million transistors and a couple hundred mhz... :cool:
July 31, 2003 12:30:45 AM

AMD provides the upgrade path. Run 32bit till you can or have to convert.

I think it is a good niche; in addition to what the article implies.

The loving are the daring!
Related resources
July 31, 2003 12:33:31 AM

i dunno about 8/16bit cpus but i know when everyone switched to 32bit there were "hybrid" cpus...

3 386DX-25's...12 volts...glue some ln2 and a wicked amount of overclocking and you get a willamantee minus 36 pins, 33.75 million transistors and a couple hundred mhz... :cool:
July 31, 2003 12:50:15 AM

Quote:
i bet people said that even when we switched from 8bit to 16 bit...there will eventually be a need...but i think it is too early......

I'm sure you meant 16-bit to 32-bit? People soon figured out that with 8-bit you can only have 256 byte of RAM. That's not even enough for the characters on the earliest screen. The first PC already had 16-bit.

But I never doubted that 64-bit will once become necessary. Allocating over 4 GB of memory in one thread simply isn't possible on 32-bit processors. But even for serious desktop users that's no problem yet, and for workstation applications we have had 64-bit for a long time. So Intel still has several years to come up with a good desktop solution, and I'm pretty sure it will be better than AA-64 in a time when it really starts to matter...
July 31, 2003 1:00:45 AM

Quote:
i dunno about 8/16bit cpus but i know when everyone switched to 32bit there were "hybrid" cpus...

Processors still have a 16-bit mode, and with prefixes every instruction can use 16-bit operands (but still 32-bit addressing), so they can also be considered 'hybrid'.

The only difference is, AMD chose to keep the current encodings 32-bit, and only instructions with a REX prefix are 64-bit. Surpringly not even their instructions with REX prefix support 64-bit displacements. Intel might use another strategy and make every instruction fully 64-bit, exept if they have a prefix for 32-bit operands...
July 31, 2003 1:13:47 AM

there were 8 bit cpus...there were even 4 bit cpus...look at the intel 4004 and 8008...

3 386DX-25's...12 volts...glue some ln2 and a wicked amount of overclocking and you get a willamantee minus 36 pins, 33.75 million transistors and a couple hundred mhz... :cool:
July 31, 2003 1:46:48 AM

Issue is, Omid -if you ever did read his rants- has always been critical of AMD lately, and very touchy on the fanboy issue (he started the name IIRC), he simply hated AMD's PR lately.

For him to admit such is a new one.

Additionally, if you DID read everything, why didn't you at least confirm the following?
Quote:
Splutterfish is optimizing its code for the Opteron, and getting significant rendering performance boosts over the usual x86 architectures. That's the way to look at it.

Now it could be due to registers, but I'd like to take my risks on this one.
Most are interested in AMD's Opteron, yet we know it is utterly a failure in workstation performance. So just WHAT gathered their thoughts, if THEY look for performance?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink:
a b à CPUs
July 31, 2003 1:54:53 AM

The Pentium 1 was a hybrid CPU, the Pentium Pro was a 32-bit CPU with some way to decode 16-bit instructions. The Pentium 233MMX was faster in 16-bit applications than the PII 233.

The PII 233 was a Pentium Pro, with slower cache and MMX.

When Windows 95 was current, the Pentium MMX was faster, clock for clock, than the Pentium II. In NT, the Pentium II was faster.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
July 31, 2003 2:03:37 AM

Should we start talking about 128 bit? To really confuse a lot of people.
July 31, 2003 2:07:25 AM

I doubt after the P PRO they never fixed the bad 16-bit performance. Even in Win98 you had a good amount of programs and drivers. I do remember that the P2 did have fixed 16-bit performance.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink:
July 31, 2003 2:08:36 AM

I can only imagine what sicko will need 3.4 x 10^32 Gigabytes of RAM!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink:
July 31, 2003 2:11:02 AM

Thats maybe tens years down the road or so.
July 31, 2003 2:15:00 AM

Quote:
Now it could be due to registers, but I'd like to take my risks on this one.
Most are interested in AMD's Opteron, yet we know it is utterly a failure in workstation performance. So just WHAT gathered their thoughts, if THEY look for performance?

That's bullshit. I wrote a DirectX 9 pixel shader emulator (<A HREF="http://sourceforge.net/projects/sw-shader" target="_new">swShader</A>) and having extra registers wouldn't improve performance. I use all eight general purpose registers, MMX registers and SSE registers.

So, I would be really interested to know what actually made the Opteron better for Splutterfish...
July 31, 2003 5:35:56 AM

is that why back in the day most of THG's benchmarks were on both NT based machines then done on a 95/98 based machine?

Would windows 9x based os's be considered 32 bit or 16 bit...they run on dos which is 16bit...but everything else about them seems 32 bitty to me...

3 386DX-25's...12 volts...glue some ln2 and a wicked amount of overclocking and you get a willamantee minus 36 pins, 33.75 million transistors and a couple hundred mhz... :cool:
July 31, 2003 10:41:27 AM

Are sure it was all the registers? In long mode you have 8 extra registers.

Yep there ya go..
July 31, 2003 10:50:26 AM

Quote:
Should we start talking about 128 bit? To really confuse a lot of people.

No. From 16 to 32-bit is multiplying addressable memory by 64 thousand. From 32 to 64-bit is multiplying by 4 billion. That's a lot faster than exponential, but CPU speed and such do grow exponential. Besides, 64-bit processors internally work only with 48 address bits and will continue to do so for more than a decade.
July 31, 2003 2:39:20 PM

Quote:
First of all, what advantage would 64-bit computing have over 32-bit in the DDC market? A 2k x 2k image, that's only 64 MB for floating-point color, and well within 4 GB. And even if it got close to that limit there still wouldn't be a problem if every image is allocated in its own virtual space. You can then access it just as efficiently by re-mapping pages. The only problem is you need OS support. But in the worst case you just use file mapping. The bottom line is: it can be done.

No kidding it can be done. The software that I work on even goes up to 4Kx4K images because we have some impressive x-ray diffraction detectors. Opteron doesn't really make any difference here over any old AXP. (Or dare I say P4.)

Quote:
Secondly, why would Intel not be able to touch it? We have had 64-bit Itanium DCC workstations for years. The only advantage AMD has here is that you can easily convert programs from x86-32 to x86-64. But recently Intel also has an x86 emulator for Itanium (working more like a JIT-compiler actually).

That was also my thought. One of the new upcoming low-end Itaniums for an almost unheard of low price would do much better than an Opteron for these kinds of workstation computational needs. If AMD gets specially optimized software why can't Itanium get specially optimized software? Intel has supposedly made doing that pretty easy with their compilers. (Not personally coding for Itaniums I can't actually personally validate this though.)

Quote:
I'm no Intel fanboy, and I wish AMD all the luck, but I'm just trying to be critical here...

I'm neither an Intel nor an AMD fanboy (hardly even just a fan of either company really) and I completely agree with you. It was all just hype and nonsense. Opteron has it's good points, but <i>none</i> of what was highlighted in this article made any sense as pertaining to Opteron. Oh well. Score one for AMD's marketing. Maybe AMD learned hypnosis.

"<i>Let's see what <b>Paragraph 84-B</b> has to say about it.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030724" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
July 31, 2003 2:52:29 PM

Quote:
Would windows 9x based os's be considered 32 bit or 16 bit...they run on dos which is 16bit...but everything else about them seems 32 bitty to me...

Win9x is a lazy hybrid of 16-bit and 32-bit code that stemmed from the simple fact that Win95 took a lot of its code from DOS and Win for Workgroups. So a lot of the overlaying API is 32-bit, but a lot of the underlying kernel (especially when dealing with drivers) was still 16-bit. As it progressed to Win98SE more and more of the underlying 16-bit code was stripped away, but there was still a significant portion of Win98SE that was 16-bit.

This is why M$ wrote WinME. It was an effort to remove all of the 16-bit code from Win9x. The problem was that to remain compatible with Win9x (especially the drivers) WinME still needed the ability to run 16-bit code. So M$ 'emulated' the 16-bit layers for compatability.

And anyone who has ever used WinME with 16-bit drivers can tell you just how often WinME BSODs because of this stupid solution used just to 'purify' the OS to a true 32-bit base. Which is why in the end M$ made the daring move to force home users onto WinXP (based on the NT5 kernel just like Win2K was), because after their attempt to 'fix' Win98SE by writing WinME, their Win9x codebase was just so riddled with problems and so not geared towards a continued lifecycle along side of their professional NT-based OSes that it was simply a waste of time and money to try to update it any further when they could just throw a fanciful eye-candy user interface onto NT5 and call it XP.

"<i>Let's see what <b>Paragraph 84-B</b> has to say about it.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030724" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
July 31, 2003 4:02:48 PM

This is the first good thread I've read around here in a long time...

Get your own sig!!! :tongue:
July 31, 2003 7:22:34 PM

thanx for the info..never relised that win me was "pure" i knew it had a lot of driver bugs but i never new the reason...

3 386DX-25's...12 volts...glue some ln2 and a wicked amount of overclocking and you get a willamantee minus 36 pins, 33.75 million transistors and a couple hundred mhz... :cool:
July 31, 2003 9:26:16 PM

This forum has been utterly boring for a good while now. There has been no new CPU news and reviews that are interesting. Not until September till we get the true CPU Forum back.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink:
August 1, 2003 6:28:12 AM

Screw it, i'm not upgrading till we hit 512bit...


I like the ease of intel systems.
I like the fun of overclocking amd systems.
That must make me mulatto or something.
August 1, 2003 7:14:54 AM

i am waiting for gigabit computers :eek: 

then i suppose i will give up pIII's and ati rage pros...

3 386DX-25's...12 volts...glue some ln2 and a wicked amount of overclocking and you get a willamantee minus 36 pins, 33.75 million transistors and a couple hundred mhz... :cool:
August 1, 2003 6:50:37 PM

There was some article I read that mentioned how tall the memory sticks would be on each bitness.

Funny to see that if you had about 128MB per stick on top of each other, you'd easily reach the moon to have 128-bit maximum capacity used.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>The sexiest website ever, guaranteed XXX!!!</font color=blue></b></A> :wink:
PS: New sexy users' sites now added! :smile:
August 1, 2003 8:03:46 PM

computers will yeild a new form of space travel...

Memory warping! They will take our astonauts to the moon and back!

I think gigabit computers are a long way off...immagine how many rescorces will be used just to adress all the memory!

3 386DX-25's...12 volts...glue some ln2 and a wicked amount of overclocking and you get a willamantee minus 36 pins, 33.75 million transistors and a couple hundred mhz... :cool:
August 1, 2003 11:01:01 PM

Omid certainly let his biases slip this time around:

"Unfortunately, one bauble of attraction was the wealth of possibilities opening up before the Opteron."

So, he thinks it unfortunate that possibilities are opening up for the Opteron?
September 28, 2003 3:06:24 PM

In general, and to contribute to this thread, and no particular post:

AMD's marketing is woeful because, I can't say sucks on the Sabbath.

If AMD does have such "superior" technology, provides competition against Intel, and seems to create so much "fanboy" lust, why can't they make any money out of it?

This is capitalism, not a commune for build-your-own-PCs so, my frustrations are more to do with the amount of time we waste talking up AMD, at the expense of all else.

Here I am doing it myself.

Itanium, by the way, is not a workstation chip, Xeon is, and my article refers to Opteron being competitive in the workstation space against Xeons. Don't give me technical arguments why Itanium is a workstation chip, or could be: Intel has positioned Xeon in that market, and AMD is much better suited competing against Xeons.

You may find, in the long run, that a pure 64-bit architecture will eventually replace a 32-bit architecture, and Intel may be better positioned for the long run conversion, however long that takes.

In the meantime, AMD has a good short to mid-term solution for certain segments of the market, and the DCC workstation is one of them hence, my article.

Omid Rahmat
GM & Publisher
Tom's Guides Publishing LLC
www.tomshardware.com
September 28, 2003 3:36:56 PM

Where the hell do you do for work?

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
September 28, 2003 5:21:54 PM

ya ya, whatever- if you are serious and I'm supposed to be impressed I'm not. Otherwise, I'm just curious.

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2003 5:58:29 PM

>First of all, what advantage would 64-bit computing have
>over 32-bit in the DDC market? A 2k x 2k image, that's only
>64 MB for floating-point color, and well within 4 GB.

DCC =! photoshopping consumer level digital camera images.

Of course you don't need 64 bit to work with those kind of images. But try working a 300 dpi images the size of a medium sized poster for prepress (let's say only 1 meter x 1 meter). Process them in CMYK and you are looking at roughly 0.5 Gb file size on disk. Now insert 10 or 20 layers (very common in PS) and you are way over your 4 GB. Then start actually doing some work, applying filters, converting, etc, .. and you'll see even photoshopping can require TONS of memory for one single project. never mind all the other apps you are running in meantime, and the other projects you are working on...

But DCC is a lot more than just photoshop you know. Ever tried editing video's for istance ? 4 GB is *nothing* when you need the entire movie fragment in memory for non linear editing

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
September 28, 2003 6:45:41 PM

theInquirer.net is running <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11781" target="_new">a story</A> claiming that Microsoft has forced Intel to adopt AMD64 extentions. They state the reason being is that Microsoft will not support a second 64-bit platform.

Now, I know the general opinions about theInquirer.net but I also know that they have broken a lot of stories open.

Does anyone believe this story?


<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
September 28, 2003 10:55:43 PM

Once again you bring up truth.

Yet people will try to say no, when the facts you present are there. Where are those who supposedly support AMD, and why are their profits still negative?

A conundrum? I think not.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
September 28, 2003 11:25:21 PM

lol a post that contains both 'negative profits' and the word 'conundrum' is something special :) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2003 11:44:25 PM

>Yet people will try to say no, when the facts you present
>are there. Where are those who supposedly support AMD, and
>why are their profits still negative?

Pretty much for the same reason IBM never made a penny on OS/2 or Corel never made a penny on its WP based office suite (forgot the name). The same reason BeOS went belly up, Alpha is being terminated or Netscape is not much more than a fading memory. Same reason ICQ is becoming a rarity compared to MSN or AOL messenger, etc, etc, etc..

Sure you can blame marketing, or you can think you would have a had a better strategy, and had you been the CEO, you would have made those technical mostly superior products a commercial success, no doubt, but the reality is that you don't stand much of a chance against a market leader with >80% of the market and billions in the bank. be it microsoft, Intel or De Beers.

AMD is putting up an extremely good fight, but the battlefield just isnt even at all. AMD needs to execute at least twice as well as intel to compensate for its lack of brand recognition, marketing muscle and stong arm power over the market. Sure, they still bleed money, but it's too easy as a layman to say: "its because of bad marketing" or "AMD should do this, and that, " but the fact is NO ONE has ever gone as far as AMD in challenging intel. Many have tried though, remember IBM with its blue lightenign 486 clones ? Remember Cyrix ? Remember Motorolla ? Alpha ? Winchip ? Centaur ? UMC ? Anyone ever heard of VIA or transmeta ? DO you really think all these companies where/are headed by braindead CEO's, had a lousy marketing department or engineeers that couldnt spell their names ? Or could it be its pretty much impossible to compete with such quasi monopoly in a market where you need several billions to get started, and many years to get a reputation that actually allows you to sell anything ? IMHO, AMD is execting better than Intel at the moment (better products, very efficient marketing considering their budgets, .. etc), but just being better than intel still isnt good enough. By a long shot.

Anyway, If you think you can do better than IBM, compaq AMD or BeOS, why don't you give it a try ? Nah.. its easier of course pointing out all the obvious blunders AMD makes, and thinking you know better. Guess what.. you don't.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bbaeyens on 09/29/03 06:41 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 29, 2003 12:53:51 AM

Well put my good man.

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
September 29, 2003 3:32:03 AM

I agree with what you say but you seem to think I don't know about what is going on.

AMD's problem remains as always, marketting. Joe watches TV you know? Where are those Football adds?
We will continue to say it this way because this is how word gets out, if not in journals. AMD sucks at marketting, I don't even know how you thought it's efficient with their budget.

WTF is a blind consumer doing in this website, and reading AMD ME? Do you think many come here that know jack on computers and actually fall for those adds?
To who is AMD freaking advertising? Why are they advertising to the knowledgeable people? Same as nVidia! They take us for braindead losers and want us to beleive their claims!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2003 7:48:28 AM

>AMD's problem remains as always, marketting. Joe watches TV
>you know?

blah blah blah.. really, you think it would make sense for AMD to spend gazillions on tv commercials to brainwash Joe, but then when Joe wants to buy a Dell, HP, Gateway or IBM, he can't even buy one of those athlon64's ? What a waste of money that would be. There is no point in massive advertising, if the companies "Joe" buys from arent selling him AMD kit, now is there ? And that is one of those uphill strungle things; even if AMD where to release a 4 GHz Athlon 64 or Opteron tomorrow, its still extremely doubtfull Dell would sell any, or HP would sell Opteron based servsrs. That's what I call an uneven playing battlefield. Intel can release an underperforming, incompatible and expensive crap product like Merced, and still everyone and their dog will sell and advertise the product and every major ISV will port their software. AMD otoh could produce the best chip by far, and it will be happy if only Alienware and 3 local white box sellers sell and advertise products based on it. How do you compete what that ? With multi millions dollar tv ads ? Think again.

Marketing is so much more than advertising alone. AMD is indeed doing this rather clever, despite what you think. Getting MS to produce and hype a 64 bit tailored OS, now THAT is an accomplishment. Getting companies like IBM, Oracle, SAP, SuSE, Epic, DivX networks, etc, etc, to support your 64 bit cpu and let *them* spread the word; now that is both clever, and quite an accomplishment for a small players like AMD. Spending huge ammounts of money on tv ads is just something AMD can not afford. As I recall, the Centrino campaign costed around $300 million. THREE HUNDRED MILLION. Sure, great campaign, and it seems to work pretty well, but with an average gross margin of maybe 30% on ASP's around $100, you need to sell 10 million MORE cpu's to break even on such an ivestment. 10 million cpu's, compare that to AMD's quarterly sales... No way in hell such a thing would EVER give a positive ROI, not likely for intel, definately not for AMD.

>WTF is a blind consumer doing in this website, and reading
>AMD ME?

You really think only well informed people come to websites like THG ? remember that spoof I made ? It scored incredibly high on google because it was linked from several hundred websites and forums. in fact even today if you google for "AMD barton 3000+" its number 3 in the list. You have *no* idea how many clueless people end up there, I still regulary get emails from people thinking its a serious review site and asking me purchase advice and such. And keep in mind the 'barton' code name already should implie somewhat knowledge.

Also, IMHO AMD's campaign does an excellent job of getting its main selling point accross: painless 32 bit and 64 bit support. If you think you could make better banners / slogans whatever, I suggest you start your own advertising agency.

BTW, AMD also sponsors Ferrari formula 1 and gets Michael Schumacher to promote its products (not a small thing here in Europe or in Japan), and in fact it does sponsor a football team in the UK. Not Man United, doing that would bankrupt them for sure.

Anyway, in short; AMD's problem is not so much its lack of airtime on tv, that is too expensive to give positive ROI's, its their lack of tier 1 oem support that promote AMD based products for them. And Omid recently wrote me in an email exchange AMD would be better off dropping tier 1/2 oem's al together and concentrate on the DIY market and white box market... like 10 or 20% of the market, and companies that hardly spend a dollar on marketing.. Gee, what a wizzkid this Omid.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2003 7:59:22 AM

I'm sure you can.. creating a fortune 500 company is just piece of cake; but then you wouldn't because you wouldn't want to topple your beloved intel, would you ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
September 29, 2003 10:38:38 AM

OK Bill, remember when you mentioned the same thing about 512k mem?

Seems Mem reqs/space is growing roughly 500-10x per 10 years...

And the Opteron can't handle THAT much, it can handle more than the IA32, which is coming up to it's max.

-Sig-

nVidia didn't make me an nVidia fanboy, ATi, and lack of other serious competition made me an nVidia fanboy.
September 29, 2003 5:27:05 PM

Hehe damned rights I can but do I have 53billion and 7 fabs to run with no... Takeing Intel down a notch isnt too hard its all about how you present yourlself if you can fake/convince/ or prove you are a fiscally responsible partner to any major OEM you are in. I am willing to place my first born child on the block thats how confident I am.

I also never said it would be a piece of cake 7.5 years at my best estimate if some upstart company came out and smacked the industry around. This industry is a bunch of sheep they need to be shown where to go if not chaos rules Intel is that shepard plain and simple.

-Jeremy

:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7013108" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1311896" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
September 29, 2003 5:52:40 PM

What exactly are you trying to convey with such post to me?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
September 29, 2003 5:58:05 PM

Man that was a spoof that made idiots reveal themselves, ROFL.

I still say if they make easy adds, heck ones that deliver the subtle message more bluntly, since we know most adults don't even know what Intel or Pentium even is in a PC, it can work. Sure they can't afford much, but then you should explain to me where did that 64-bit add came from, the one with the two people on a computer that suddenly experience UT2003 in 64-bit power. Nice movie-like spoof as well.
What with the ridiculous kinds of adds you see sometimes where the company's name appears at the end, but you have NO IDEA what the product is, what it does, or what the concern message is and why it is made, to me the message/slogan AMD would go for, should be as simple and guiding as: "The next time you buy a PC, ask for an AMD!" :smile:


--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
September 29, 2003 10:47:56 PM

I should come to the forums more often: they seem to be so full of anger and bile. How very nice. So, on with the show......

If you would get your facts right, I could be more interested in talking about this subject.

The US White Box market is:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-954501.html

30% and growing, and a competitor to the Branded OEM products.

Worldwide, the White Box market accounts for 55% of Intel chip sales so, it is no mean feat for a company to succeed in this market.

It might help AMD if it focused on what it could get quickly, and where it has some measure of strong support: the White Box channel. Smaller system builders means less reliance on competing with Intel/Tier One market development funds and advertising. In fact, most of AMD's market share growth with the Athlon came from the White Box market, and channels, and one of the regions where AMD showed its greatest strength, Europe where, surprise, there's more to life than Dell and HP.

Don't misquote me, or take my comments out of context to further your own agenda.

Now, shall we get into some more name calling so that you can feel big and manly? Or, are you happier when everyone agrees with you?

Omid Rahmat
GM & Publisher
Tom's Guides Publishing
www.tomshardware.com
September 30, 2003 1:16:38 AM

How do you propose they do that? You seem to know how to run the ship. Give them a call, market analyst.

It’s about time for a columnist to show those monkeys how to run a business.
September 30, 2003 2:54:47 AM

It is true Dell is mainly American. I don't know of Dell in the foreign market.

I also don't know which OEMs dominate the Asian European market. So with that said, if your facts are true, then I see that white-box channels should be catered.

I strongly think AMD CAN make big time if they advertise the message bluntly. No blue aliens (or in their case, green), but rather a true performance add, showing gaming and video/3D rendering. Then put a slogan telling people to ask for AMD. I know for SURE, too many of the buyers don't know what a processor is, let alone know that they should ask for an Intel when they go buy a PC. I know, because in Lebanon my uncle just bought whatever was 3750$ worth! I don't think he knew Intel was the main chip supplier at all.

I don't even think my mom knows who Dell is and what they do, despite the adds. That Dell-dude got arrested for drugs anyways, LOL!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
September 30, 2003 6:47:10 AM

Omid they are getting to you eh... be nice if you chit chat down in the front lines with us... BTW love the attitude in your posts makes the forum liven up... epecially that someone doesnt bend over when some of the more respected members says something.

-Jeremy

:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7013108" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1311896" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
!