Athlon then and now: How does it still lead?

[hineigger]

I was reading up on some old articles and I cant help but notice the old Athlon K6's outperformed all P3's and then the Athlon XP's outperformed all equally leveled P4's and now the Athlon 64 is murdering the Pentium extreme.

Youd think the smaller company would be the one behind at all times, yet Intel is the one behind even though its dubbed the market leader.

This shows people buy what is more well known, not what is better.

 

[Zoron]

I was reading up on some old articles and I cant help but notice the old Athlon K6's outperformed all P3's

Sorry, but I couldn't stop laughing long enough to read past this statement. Was there anything else you said?

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>

 

[TTZX]

I agree, that first sentence cracked me up too. Why does this forum attract so many fanboys?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
P4 2.4C @ 3.0GHz 1.525V Stock HSF
Abit IS7 BIOS v1.3 GAT Auto
Corsair XMS 512MB TwinX3200C2 2-3-3-6
GeForce4 Ti4200 AGP8X 128MB
Seagate Barracuda 80GB SATA

 

[pitsi]

I like AMD more than Intel too, I have no problem admitting it (although I don't consider myself a fanboy), but what you wrote is a bit .. let's say not accurate

 

[infiltrator]

I agree, I used to be a Plentium fan, but generally go for AMD now (dunno if fanbooi would be accurate ) I just think some AMD dudes try too hard. Honestly, I'll see what's best and look at how long it's been around and then see from there. To me it's way to early to sum up the new AMD chipsets, and I'm only gonna try when WinXP64 comes out.

 

[Zoron]

Ok... I was able to finally stifle my laughter long enough to post a better reply.

I was reading up on some old articles and I cant help but notice the old Athlon K6's outperformed all P3's

The original Athlons were dubbed K7. If you are actually meaning to say that AMD K6-2 or K6-3 CPUs outperformed Pentium IIIs, then you have been woefully misinformed. When the Athlon (K7) was finally released, it did indeed outdo the PIII... that's why when AMD released the Thunderbird core, I upgraded my PII 400 to a 1GHz Athlon.

and now the Athlon 64 is murdering the Pentium extreme.

Usually not a good idea to read reviews when high. It alters your perception. Athlon 64 is not 'murdering' the P4EE. Even A64-FX isn't 'murdering' P4EE. I have no doubt that if clock speed were equal, the AMDs would trounce the absolute [-peep-] out of the P4s. Clock speed isn't equal though... which means that AMD isn't performing quite as well as they SHOULD be. The benchmarks are very close, and I don't see either processor walking all over the other like a red-headed stepchild. AMD does extremely well, considering their 1GHz clock-speed deficit, but AMD MUST find a way to get more clock speed out of it's chips to compete with Intel.

Breaking into a big OEM would also help... namely one big OEM that they have yet to gain any ground with... Dell. If AMD can crack the Intel/Dell relationship, I will be truly impressed. To this day, I really can't understand why Dell has been Intel only, when all other OEMs have AMD chips in their lineups.


<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>

 

[umheint0]

Wanna know why AMD can't break into Dell? It's because Intel is giving Dell chips for $3 each.

Granted, I'm exaggerating, but that's the case. AMD isn't willing to sell their processors at a competitive level to Intel, even though they could.

If AMD did, however, you better believe AMD's market share would go up 10% or more pretty fast.

umheint0's phat setup --> <A HREF="http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umheint0/system.html" target="_new">http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umheint0/system.html</A><--

 

[eRacer]

Wanna know why AMD can't break into Dell? It's because Intel is giving Dell chips for $3 each.

Granted, I'm exaggerating, but that's the case. AMD isn't willing to sell their processors at a competitive level to Intel, even though they could.

If AMD did, however, you better believe AMD's market share would go up 10% or more pretty fast.

Even though I'm certain Dell does get a price break for sole sourcing with Intel, it is nowhere near the level that you imply.

Why would Dell want to sell AMD systems when they are one of the most profitable personal computer companies?

Why would Dell want to support even more product lines which would perform about the same as what they have now?

How can Dell trust AMD to deliver CPUs in decent volumes when AMD's fab capacity is rather limited?

After Dell toughed it out through the RDRAM/Willamette days without going AMD, why would Dell switch now when Intel's product line is much stronger and more reasonably priced than it was a couple years ago?

 

[umheint0]

I'm quite sure the exclusivity agreement they have now is better than anything AMD can make worth while for Dell right now.

AMD has a fair market share right now, that Dell is losing out on. Granted, AMD's money is made in the OEM market rather the prefab industry (where people see 2.6 ghz and think ooh fast), but Dell could offer more to bourgeoning markets like the performance and business markets where AMD would be more popular.

Dell needs to think further into the future, rather than only to the moment. The rate that the computer industry changes they can't be living from moment to moment. They need to diversify their product line, not be content in their niche, as today it could be gone.

Concerning volume, I don't think Dell needs to worry THAT much. I strongly doubt there will be that many sales that AMD wouldn't be able to keep up.

Granted, Intel's line is very well priced, but that doesn't detract from the fact that AMDs line is as well.

umheint0's phat setup --> <A HREF="http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umheint0/system.html" target="_new">http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umheint0/system.html</A><--