AMD Sempron without 64bit = big mistake (UPDATED)

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040610024204.html" target="_new">Click!</A>
<A HREF="http://www.overclockers.com/tips00596/" target="_new">Click again!</A>

Good news! AMD Sempron will be available for SocketA platform. But will it only be renamed Athlon XP or they will actually make faster rated Sempron for SocketA. If a new core come to SocketA, it might become good overclockers.

Bad news! <font color=red>AMD Sempron WILL NOT support 64bit</font color=red> A couple of months ago, I didn't bother about the fact that AMD planned to launch 32bit only socket754 CPU. I tought that AMD would only move the XP line to the Socket754 to slowly "kill" the SocketA market. But, now, the market have changed. Intel will get 64bit-enabled CPU soon. If AMD don't offer 64bit in all their new CPU, it will be very weird! AMD claimed that 64bit was the FUTURE with the last year launch of the AMD64 line of CPU. Now, they will tell their customer, keep buying 32bit CPU, we make cheap one for you! And forget about this 64bit thing, it will not be out soon and will not offer you advantages. I can't believe it!

AMD must make Sempron 64bit ready to stay on top and to keep pressure un Intel. If Intel enter the 64bit market with low-budget 64bit CPU (see Celeron) AMD will get a big slap in their face.

And if it's possible, AMD should anable 64bit on SocketA too with Sempron. This would be a very unique move. But i'm not sure it's technogically possible to do this.

<b>UPDATE (2004-06-16):</b>
AnandTech is giving interesting details about the WHY and WHEN of Sempron :
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2083" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2083</A>


--
What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheRod on 06/16/04 07:39 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
68 answers Last reply
More about sempron 64bit mistake updated
  1. ok first of all, none of that says sempron wont have 64bit enabled on chip. the xbit article said its sitll unknown so you cant say it wont happen. secondly, celerons wont have 64bit enabled on them for quite sometime, well into 2005 for sure, if at all during that year. amd wants to get its new value line running and entrenched, they will migrate to 754 then in q1 or q2 '05 ,when s939 numbers are suppose to outpace s754 parts, they will transition sempron there as well. now this could mean dual core or thier k9 will be on a new socket, which i highly doubt, or they are getting all chips on one socket.

    anyway, here is an INQ that seems to suggest it will have 64bit:

    <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16424" target="_new">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16424</A>

    so it could be they will have 64bit, but no one can say right now.
  2. I really wish AMD will not make the huge mistake of not enabling 64bit on all their new processors.

    I agree with you that it's not 100% sure that they will or will not support it. But, you must agee that it would be really stupid for AMD to not release 64bit Sempron. This would be a step back for them if they do so. AMD were the first with x86 64bit and they must keep pushing it in the market, and making entry-level products 64bit-ready would be a clear message that 64bit is THE way to go.

    And this would help AMD System Integrator selling low-cost system with a "64bit ready" marketing campaign.

    --
    What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...
  3. yeah i mean i would say its smarter to have 64bit enabled. but i can see why they might not. logically, anyone buying a sempron wont be buying windows xp 64bit edition anytime soon, so they wont even take advantage of it.
  4. Quote:
    but i can see why they might not. logically, anyone buying a sempron wont be buying windows xp 64bit edition anytime soon

    But system integrators would have the opportunity to build and sell low cost 64bit system. This is marketing!

    Have you ever wonder why people are still buying Celeron? Because they looks great with their 2.4/2.6GHz speed label. Enthousiasts knows that Celeron 2.4 is not faster than a P4 1.8, but most buyers don't know this. It's the same thing with 64bit. Many people will surely think that 64bit computers are "faster" than 32bit computer. We call this : Marketing for the masses!

    --
    What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...
  5. AMD and marketing is almost an oxymoron

    <font color=blue>If I found the hidden fountain. Drank the wisdom from it's deep.
    Would I have the time to save me. Would I have them both to keep...</font color=blue>
  6. isn't it the same with most companies in the computer world?
  7. Quote:
    AMD and marketing is almost an oxymoron

    :smile:

    --
    What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...
  8. *sigh* some people kill me. id like to see some of you do better with the resources amd has. good lord what do you want. amd has to focus on hardware, they relie on 3rd parties and oems to do the marketing. i have always hated seeing people come up to bash this aspect, well suprise amd doesnt have deep pockets like intel.

    i do think 64bit on the semprons is a good move to allow oems to market better, and it could very be that they do that. obviouls it wont be on socket a, but i bet you it will on 754 or 939. until then, lets cut amd a bit of slack on the marketing end of things.
  9. Quote:
    some people kill me. id like to see some of you do better with the resources amd has. good lord what do you want. amd has to focus on hardware, they relie on 3rd parties and oems to do the marketing.

    I agree with you, my main point is not bashing AMD for their marketing. In a technology point of view Sempron MUST be 64bit enabled CPU. This feature will become a strong sale point even if marketing is near zero. Because 64bit is becoming a BUZZWORD for PC buyers. People starts to ask questions about it, because in the last they see all those adds about AMD 64bit CPU, they wonder what is that? How it works? Is this good? etc...

    For the marketing stuff, I lknow that DEEP pocket makes the difference, I work for an ISP/Carrier in Canada. Our main competitor is Bell Canada which have millions of residential customers that gives them millions in income every months. Their marketing power is so strong compared to our 500 employees - under 100 millions $CA/year sales. It's hard to be competitve in term of marketing when your main competitor have so much money/market share. We have to rely on service quality, etc...

    --
    What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...
  10. I really don't see your logic. If semprons are 32 bit only, this will just help AMD is cashing in a premium price for the A64's. It will also avoid marketing disasters like "64 bit cpu's are slower then 32 bit ones" when comparing 64 bit semptron with 32 bit P4's.

    Also, why do you think celerons don't support hyperthreading ? Its not like it doesnt work on them... its just another way for intel to differentiate P4 from Celeron. Considering K8 based Semptrons with just 256kb will probably still be excellent performers, more than fast enough for most of us -very much unlike Celerons- it makes sense to differentiate them from A64's this way. Especially since intel won't ship 64 bit celerons anytime soon. It will even take very long before all shipping P4s are enabled with it. You really can't blame AMD for trying to make a buck and not selling you a fast, 64 bit enabled CPU for ~$50.

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  11. Quote:
    I really don't see your logic. If semprons are 32 bit only, this will just help AMD is cashing in a premium price for the A64's.

    AMD will still cash with Athlon 64 even if Sempron are 64bit enabled. Sempron are there to replace Duron, they will probably get lower speed rating.

    Quote:
    It will also avoid marketing disasters like "64 bit cpu's are slower then 32 bit ones" when comparing 64 bit semptron with 32 bit P4's.

    Sempron will not fight against P4 they will fight against Celeron. They will surely be competitive with them in term of performance and having 64bit would be a major advantage over Celeron.

    Quote:
    Considering K8 based Semptrons with just 256kb will probably still be excellent performers, more than fast enough for most of us -very much unlike Celerons- it makes sense to differentiate them from A64's this way.

    AMD will not have any problem to differentiate Sempron and Athlon 64. Less cache and lower speed will surely make them slower than Athlon 64.

    Quote:
    You really can't blame AMD for trying to make a buck and not selling you a fast, 64 bit enabled CPU for ~$50.

    It's not a question of blaming them to not selling me 50$ CPU with 64bit. I would actually not buy it, I need more raw power (gaming,encoding,etc...). The problem is that AMD is promoting 64bit like crazy in the last year and this technology is now becoming accepted. Windows 64bit is on his way, most important hardware company have 64bit drivers in beta stage.

    AMD chose to push 64bit to the desktop a year ago, they can't go back. They decided to gives their customers and potential customers an x86 CPU with 64bit capabilites. They wanted to cut the Intel leg's off and force them to go the 64bit route too in the AMD way. Of course, Intel power and market share put them in a comfortable position. But, they will have to give 64bit support to customers. Because when Microsoft will release Windows XP 64bit edition and Intel don't have CPU to run it, AMD will surely benefit from this.

    Many potentiel customers will turn on AMD not because it's AMD, but just because they will want the newest 64bit OS. And customer that will not have a load of money will probably be tempted to get a low cost 64bit system and Sempron 64bit would surely be the number choice among average customer that want 64bit Windows.

    At Windows 64bit launch if only 1 company have a low-cost 64bit offering, this company will surely gain market share in this market. If the average customer get a good experince with their system when they will upgrade, they might ask for the same brandname CPU. So both AMD and Intel need to be ready for the Windows 64bit launch. AMD is ready in mid/high range, Intel is not ready yet, but will probably be with mid/high range too at the time of the Windows 64bit launch. The actual 64bit fight is in the low-end market.

    Today's Intel clearly dominate that market because of the "more MHz is better" rule. But with the emergence of 64bit, this might become a strong selling point : "64 bit is better than 32bit".

    And we must not forget that many apps. will benefit from the 64bit Windows on day 1, others might lost speed too. But, I'm pretty sure there will be games/apps. with 64bit optimisation, like today's SSE/HT optimized software, that will benefit from this technology.

    --
    What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...
  12. Thats a long post, but its short on arguments I'm afraid ;)

    >AMD will still cash with Athlon 64 even if Sempron are
    >64bit enabled. Sempron are there to replace Duron, they
    >will probably get lower speed rating.

    You mean, like everyone buying cheaper AXPs and not A64's today ?

    >Sempron will not fight against P4 they will fight against
    >Celeron. They will surely be competitive with them in term
    >of performance and having 64bit would be a major advantage
    >over Celeron.

    Indeed. So much so, it might well be a bit too competitive against lower end A64s as well. If there where a 1.6-1.8 GHz sempron with AMD64 available today, it would be my chip of choice.. Now I'm torn between a A64 2800+ and a AXP 2500+ as a standard recommendation.

    >AMD will not have any problem to differentiate Sempron and
    >Athlon 64. Less cache and lower speed will surely make them
    >slower than Athlon 64.

    so what.. ? Even if it performs noticeable worse, it will still be considered fast enough for most people, and probably a large majority (myself included) wouldnt even consider the A64 anymore (unless you're a die hard gamer or something) if it supports 64 bit software as well. It will turn the A64 into a sort of "FX" chip, while AMD really wants you to buy A64's, no semprons.
    <b>
    What it boils down to is this: would more people buy a (64 bit) sempron over a A64 than people would buy such a chip over a Celeron? I'm fairly certain A64 sales would be impacted *significantly*, while Celeron would hardly suffer (there is no point in buying a celeron over an AXP today, so why would these people suddenly grow a brain ?).
    </b>
    > I would actually not buy it, I need more raw power
    >(gaming,encoding,etc...).

    By the time K8 based sempron launches, it will probably be comparable to a A64 2800+~3000+. That is still a lot of computing power, even for gamers and people encoding, and it would be sufficient for most. If you don't have to worry about 64 bit cathing on or being usefull, such a chip would be a no brainer IMHO. Again, A64 would suffer tremendously.

    >AMD chose to push 64bit to the desktop a year ago, they
    >can't go back. They decided to gives their customers and
    >potential customers an x86 CPU with 64bit capabilites. They
    >wanted to cut the Intel leg's off and force them to go the
    >64bit route too in the AMD way

    Guess what.. they succeeded ! Windows is on its way, Intel is on its way, AMD got their prize and there is no turning back. Now its time to cash in on this, and giving 64 bit capability away is not the way to do it.

    >Many potentiel customers will turn on AMD not because it's
    >AMD, but just because they will want the newest 64bit OS.

    If they really want that, the $180 price tag of the A64 2800+ today shouldn't scare them away. Its not like intel will have a cheaper 64 bit capable product. If they don't want to spend $180, the K8-sempron is most likely still a far better choice than the Celeron.

    >But, I'm pretty sure there will be games/apps. with 64bit
    >optimisation, like today's SSE/HT optimized software, that
    >will benefit from this technology.

    Yep, but guess what ? You have to pay extra at intel if you want to benefit from SSE3 or Hyperthreading as well, which obviously makes sense. If you have a feature that people really want, enough to consider switching manufacturers, giving that feature away for free on your cheapest product really isnt a sensible business tactic. This might have made sense to increase the installed userbase and increasing the chances of MS and other developpers actually supporting it (think 3DNow!), but with MS Windows and Intel's backing now, its already guaranteed to succeed. AMD doesn't need to seed the market anymore, just concentrate on making bucks and a 32 bit sempron makes perfect sense in this regard IMHO.

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  13. Guess what.. they succeeded ! Windows is on its way, Intel is on its way, AMD got their prize and there is no turning back. Now its time to cash in on this, and giving 64 bit capability away is not the way to do it.
    ____________________________________________________________


    This would indicate that AMD figures 64bit implementation is a lot farther off for the average guy than we think. I can't see any other reason for investing a nickel in a 32bit roll-out now. Maybe the Semperons will be A64 throwaway wafers that aren't making the cut. I can't see the logic here.

    "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. Now, let's eat!
  14. If it will not have the 64bit ability, that would mean it is marketed for the low-budget consumers. It it is 64bit that would mean a new mobo anyways. The question is will the 32bit Sempron be better than the Athlon Xp Barton...

    AMD defiantely plans to release a 64bit version but maybe later on to reap the profits of the existing 64-bit chips such as the recently released socket 939.

    Mobile Barton 2500+ @ 2420mhz 11x220 1.7v
    Asus A7N8X Dlx 440 FSB
    1gb Geil GD pc3500 Dual Channel (2-3-3-6)
    Segata 80gb SATA 8.5ms seek
    ATI Radeon 9800 Pro to XT(420/730)
  15. Quote:
    Thats a long post, but its short on arguments I'm afraid ;)

    Scuze me! I've not met your standard. :smile:

    Quote:
    everyone buying cheaper AXPs and not A64's today ?

    NOt averyone is buying XP chips, but many people do, because they don't have other low price alternatives. I don't think users will not buy A64 if the Sempron line performs between Athlon XP 1800+ to 2800+ (same range as current Celeron). Socket754 will become a more attractive choice to low/mid-range market. People still buy XP chips because they are affordable. If AMD gives users the choice between Athlon XP and Sempron (with or without 64bit) with equivalent performance people will probably turn to Socket754 but if Semron are 64bit capable, the choice would be obvious. No one would ever recommend Athlon XP CPU since Sempron would be as fast and 64bit ready.

    Quote:
    Now I'm torn between a A64 2800+ and a AXP 2500+ as a standard recommendation.

    Most enthousiasts like us still recommends Barton 2500+ because they can all be overclocked to 3200+ speed and they are much cheaper than A64 2800+. But, would you recommend anyone to buy an Athlon XP 3200+ that is not faster than the A64 2800+ and it's not supporting 64bit? Never.

    Quote:
    Even if it performs noticeable worse, it will still be considered fast enough for most people, and probably a large majority (myself included) wouldnt even consider the A64 anymore (unless you're a die hard gamer or something) if it supports 64 bit software as well. It will turn the A64 into a sort of "FX" chip, while AMD really wants you to buy A64's, no semprons.

    I don't agree with you. Of course, some buyer's would turn to low-cost Sempron, but most of them would have not bought A64 anyway, they would have bought Athlon XP. If Sempron come with 64bit support, this will only kill the Athlon XP market. Have you noticed that most PC store don't sell P4 slower than 2.8GHz now? Average users are willing to pay that price for CPU's.

    If a "crippled" CPU (Celeron, Duron, Sempron)is enough for your need and you are educated enough to understand their performance. It's fine go and buy one. But average buyers buy based on price tag and buzzwords. They want "Intel", "AMD", "3.0GHz" or "1Meg Cache" because someone told them or they have heard something about that...

    Quote:
    would more people buy a (64 bit) sempron over a A64 than people would buy such a chip over a Celeron?

    I would simple answer to this that everything with Intel logo certainly get an advantage over AMD in most people mind. Which is sad.

    Quote:
    Now its time to cash in on this, and giving 64 bit capability away is not the way to do it.

    They would not necessarly give it away... But I understand the fact that AMD might want to keep 64bit in the mid/high-end market. But, this can been from another perspective : why AMD would not push 64bit to the low-end before Intel to show their customer they believe in this technology and they really think users deserves CPU that can last long and will not need to be replaced when Windows 64bit will be there.

    Quote:
    If they really want that (64bit Windows), the $180 price tag of the A64 2800+ today shouldn't scare them away. Its not like intel will have a cheaper 64 bit capable product.

    Today's average customers don't know much about Windows 64bit, but when the OS will be out, if tehy can find decently priced 64bit machine (based on Semron 64bit) they will probably buy it compared to a Celeron system at the same price tag.

    When Windows 64bit will be out, who will still recommends to buy 32 version of the OS if the hardware is able to run the 64bit version?

    Quote:
    You have to pay extra at intel if you want to benefit from SSE3 or Hyperthreading as well, which obviously makes sense. If you have a feature that people really want, enough to consider switching manufacturers, giving that feature away for free on your cheapest product really isnt a sensible business tactic.

    Giving away stuff is never the way to go, but havaing an advantage over the competition for the same price is a good way to go. AMD is not giving 64bit, their A64 are priced equally to P4 that have HT/SSE3. AMD could also not give AMD64 on Sempron, they could set their price to 10/20$ more than equally rated Athlon XP or Sempron for SocketA. Sempron would still be competive with Celeron.

    Quote:
    AMD doesn't need to seed the market anymore, just concentrate on making bucks and a 32 bit sempron makes perfect sense in this regard IMHO.

    If AMD will do so, I will not blame them, they will want to make money. But what I'm afraid of is if average people will be interested in 32bit Sempron. Most of them will stick to Intel's logo.

    We could go on and on with this, we will see upon offical release/reviews and after sales numbers...

    I really wish to see them with 64bit, if they are not I'll be a bit disapointed.

    --
    What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...
  16. Why does everyone thinks that 64bit Sempron would cut AMD profits? Did Duron cut Athlon XP profits?

    Quote:
    The question is will the 32bit Sempron be better than the Athlon Xp Barton

    A one million dollars question! It would be a bit weird for AMD to launch faster CPU on a dying platform. On ther other hand, it might become a viable upgrade for current Duron/Athlon XP owner.

    But I have big doubt/concerns about Sempron on SocketA. How AMD can make an integrated memory controller CORE work on a SocketA, these core are very different in architecture. Have they disgned it to work without the integrated memory controller? Or, in worst case scenario. Sempron for SocketA will only be "renamed" Athlon XP with a new rating that reflects the new reality. Athlon XP 3200+ would become Sempron 2800+...

    --
    What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...
  17. see what the problem here is, we arent normal consumers, so we cannot say what they would do. the sempron is aimed at the duron segment, thats not a very decerning segment of consumers. those are the people that order a dell with a celeron just becuase dell tells them to, and its dirt cheap. its nto about any features celeron has, its price. sempron, if not 64bit enabled, will gian the same share, people will but it for how cheap it is, not neccesarily its features. even person i know that is in that segment, doesnt knwo anyhting about hyperthreading, sse2, or even the speed of thier system, they dont care, they just bought it cuase dell bundled crap with it lol.

    belive me, sempron wont suffer if it lacks 64bit. it snot like intel would be attacking sempron head on. that segment is a quieter segment, the real fights occur in the mainstream.
  18. <b>TODAY'S ADS :</b>
    DELL Celeron 2.4GHz - 499$
    HP XP2500+ - 499$

    <b>ADS OF THE FUTURE :</b>
    DELL Celeron 3.0GHz - 499$ loaded with Windows XP 32bit
    HP Sempron C30+ - 499$ loaded with Windows XP 64bit

    Maybe Average Joe will understand something and will get the Sempron with 64bit! But, well... I don't think this will happen anytime soon!!!

    --
    What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...
  19. Duron was a lower to the Athlon XP, less chache. AMD has a very interesting marketing strategy of releasing the new stuff that are same thing over and over again. They will make you buy the current and drop it and re-release it again with a diffent face.

    I can see the marketing value of releasing a new CPU on an older platform to give the people with those platforms that idea that they can still upgrade with that platform but in reality that they will get the same damn thing they already have but the illusion is there. This may seem stange but to those that understands marketing tatics this is an ingenious plan.

    Mobile Barton 2500+ @ 2420mhz 11x220 1.7v
    Asus A7N8X Dlx 440 FSB
    1gb Geil GD pc3500 Dual Channel (2-3-3-6)
    Segata 80gb SATA 8.5ms seek
    ATI Radeon 9800 Pro to XT(420/730)
  20. I really doubt Sempron will have 64bit as much as I'd like it to. How would they differentiate between it and Newcastle 754?

    ...And all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put my computer back together again...

    <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6482578" target="_new">3D Mark2K1 Compare</A>
  21. >Scuze me! I've not met your standard.

    Don't worry, few do ;)

    >NOt averyone is buying XP chips, but many people do,
    >because they don't have other low price alternatives.

    That is not the point, they are buying AXP and not A64 in spite of the lack of 64 bit support, and with price differences not being that big at all, especially when comparing >2500+ to A64 2800+.

    > don't think users will not buy A64 if the Sempron line
    >performs between Athlon XP 1800+ to 2800+ (same range as
    >current Celeron)

    I think you're being far too generous to celeron here :) prescott celerons aside, they perform between an Athlon 700 and axp 1800+ for the most part.

    > People still buy XP chips because they are affordable. If
    >AMD gives users the choice between Athlon XP and Sempron
    >(with or without 64bit) with equivalent performance people
    >will probably turn to Socket754 but if Semron are 64bit
    >capable, the choice would be obvious. No one would ever
    >recommend Athlon XP CPU since Sempron would be as fast and
    >64bit ready.

    Again, I think you're missing the point. Sempron will replace Athlon XP afaik. Duron is as good as dead, and AXP serves as the value solution nowadays, sempron will take its place. Enabling 64 bit would make it look like a high end solution, and definately eat into low end A64 market.

    > But average buyers buy based on price tag and buzzwords.
    >They want "Intel", "AMD", "3.0GHz" or "1Meg Cache" because
    >someone told them or they have heard something about that..

    Exactly, so when they see the price difference between the 64 bit computers (be it P4 or A64) and the cheaper Sempron/Celerons, they will consider "do I want to spend more on this "64 bit thing". I'm fairly sure a lot would. If sempron would be 64 bit enabled, I have no doubts it would sell pretty well, heck, I would probably want one, but it would steal more sales from A64 as Celeron IMHO. Don't forget many customers hardly consider something that doesn't have an intel cpu, and in the corporate market AMD is nowhere. An AMD64 enabled sempron will not change this more than it would change the mind of AMD-buying customers that would otherwise consider paying the price premium for an A64. At least, that is my firm conviction.

    >why AMD would not push 64bit to the low-end before Intel to
    >show their customer they believe in this technology and
    >they really think users deserves CPU that can last long and
    >will not need to be replaced when Windows 64bit will be
    >there.

    Cause AMD is a business, and exists to make money just like intel. And they would rather have you buy a 32 bit sempron today, and a 64 bit A64 tomorrow. Or have you pay a premium for A64 today.

    > But what I'm afraid of is if average people will be
    >interested in 32bit Sempron. Most of them will stick to
    >Intel's logo.

    Assuming sempron offers comparable bang/buck over celeron as AXP does today, there would be *plenty* of reason to choose it over a celeron. 64 bitness would just be another argument, but I'm not sure if its big enough to lure typical/loyal intel customers to AMD. At least not in the same degree it would canabalize A64 sales.

    >I really wish to see them with 64bit, if they are not I'll
    >be a bit disapointed.

    Why ? because you think it would be worse for AMD, or because you feel you are missing out on a "steal" ? Are you dissapointed there is no hyperthreading on celerons ?

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  22. >But I have big doubt/concerns about Sempron on SocketA. How
    >AMD can make an integrated memory controller CORE work on a
    >SocketA, these core are very different in architecture.
    >Have they disgned it to work without the integrated memory
    >controller? Or, in worst case scenario. Sempron for SocketA
    >will only be "renamed" Athlon XP with a new rating that
    >reflects the new reality. Athlon XP 3200+ would become
    >Sempron 2800+...

    As I understand it, Sempron will just be a new marketing name that will apply to both current AXP's (or derivatives like Thorton) on socket A and future K8 based, socket 754 chips that will basically be A64's with part of the cache and AMD64 disabled. There is no way K8 would work on socket A, and it seems like a wasted effort to design a K7 based chip with ondie memory controller that works in S754. Maybe, just maybe S754 semprons will be a "new" chip, for instance without SOI, but a bulk silicon implementation, and designed from the start with only 256Kb cache, but I really doubt it will be anything completely new. I am quite certain those chips will support AMD64 until the moment a laser beam or microcode cuts that functionality, just like HT on celerons.

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  23. They would/will differenitate between the A64 and Sempron the same exact way they did with the XP and Duron. Simply lower the cache and clockspeed.

    I dont see whats so hard about this.
  24. May I add a couple of points?
    The Sempron will be sold to emerging markets. ( China, India, Easern Europe) where any reasonable chip, at a low price will be well recieved. They dont want anything that adds to the cost.
    The Sempron will be made from cores that lack full functionality. If a core lacks mem controller, or the added registers, just make it into a Sempron.
  25. more like:

    DELL Intel 350- 499$ loaded with Windows XP 32bit
    HP Sempron C30+ - 499$ loaded with Windows XP 64bit

    this wont help consumers, just confuse the hell out of them lol
  26. >I dont see whats so hard about this

    Its not hard, i just don't think it would be quite as effective. I've got a feeling for most consumers, even with less cache (which doesnt seem to hurt K8 performance a lot) and lower clockspeeds, it will still be more than good enough. For non hardcore gamers/performance freaks, the AXP is all you need performance wise, but the reason many people will advice against it nevertheless is the dead socket, and the lack of AMD64. Take those away, and there is not much reason left to pay the price premium for a A64. Bringing out 32 bit semprons will also help underline the 64 bit capability and associated value of the A64's.

    Just a thought exercise; imagine they would bring out both 32 bit and 64 bit semprons, at equal clockspeeds and ratings, and charge for instance ~$25 more for the 64 bit parts. Would that be stupid (ignoring the effect on A64) ? I think not, and basically, its what 32bit sempron versus 64 bit A64 is about. They just bundle the extra performance with the 64 bit argument to increase the incentive for buying higher end even further.

    Either way, I think AMD knows more about its customers than we do, so if they bring out 32 bit semprons, I figure they did the math...

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  27. Quote:
    Either way, I think AMD knows more about its customers than we do, so if they bring out 32 bit semprons, I figure they did the math...

    Or not.

    Either way a decision will be (or has been) made, a product line will launch, and life will go on.

    Either AMD tries to take as much of the 64-bit SOHO platform now before Intel can grab some so that their customers 'upgrade' within the AMD line in the future, or AMD continues to offer a 32-bit SOHO platform so that their customers have more of a reason to upgrade to shiny new 64-bit proc in the future.

    Frankly it's a situation where the answer that is less important than the question. Whatever happens happens and it really isn't going to change jack because you pretty much get exactly the same results in the end either way. Maybe AMD did the math, or maybe they realized that the math wasn't worth doing, or maybe they even just don't care. Who knows?

    The one thing that I think is actually of minor importance in all of this is that if AMD does release Sempron as a 32-bit CPU that will say a lot for how much AMD believes 64-bitness will actually help the average SOHO consumer. Sempron's bitness may not matter from a financial standpoint, but it does matter as an indicator of AMD's vision of the non-enthusiast PC consumer and the speed of the complete conversion (hardware and software) to 64-bits.

    <pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
    Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>
  28. >Maybe AMD did the math, or maybe they realized that the
    >math wasn't worth doing, or maybe they even just don't
    >care. Who knows?

    Good point. Indeed, maybe they are not interested in making money either, they probably use darts and weathercharts to set prices and predict production volumes.. I mean, selling chips is only their core business, and making money the only purpose of their existance, so why *would* they care ?

    > if AMD does release Sempron as a 32-bit CPU that will say
    >a lot for how much AMD believes 64-bitness will actually
    >help >the average SOHO consumer

    You mean, like Celeron proves how little (according to intel) the average SOHO user benefits from hyperthreading ? Or 800 MHz FSB's ? Or 1Mb caches ? SSE3 ? Speedstep on laptops ? Or could it be intel did its math as well and concluded it could make more money by charging premium prices for features people want, and segment the market accordingly ?

    > the speed of the complete conversion (hardware and
    > software) to 64-bits.

    This won't happen this decade, if ever. i'll laugh at anyone who claimes something different. We barely finished the "complete conversion" to 32 bit hardware and software, which began 20 years ago and which was much less friendly towards backwards compatibility as the 32->64 bit migration (16 apps/drivers messed up the protected mode model of IA32 and windows OS's, and therefore provided incentives other than performance or memory addressibility). That didn't mean that 32 bit hardware and a mixed 16/32 bit software environment didn't offer compelling advantages 15 years ago though.

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  29. Quote:
    The one thing that I think is actually of minor importance in all of this is that if AMD does release Sempron as a 32-bit CPU that will say a lot for how much AMD believes 64-bitness will actually help the average SOHO consumer. Sempron's bitness may not matter from a financial standpoint, but it does matter as an indicator of AMD's vision of the non-enthusiast PC consumer and the speed of the complete conversion (hardware and software) to 64-bits.

    I 100% agree with you. Actually, this is why I really think AMD should only realease 64 bit CPU from now. But I understand that in a financial point-of-view, there is still "life"/potential for 32bit CPU. I think it will not be until the end of 2005 that x86-32bit only CPU will become "obsolete".

    I don't blame AMD, but I would rather liked to see 64bit low-end CPU from them now. This would have push 64bit from low-end to high-end market.

    And I don't agree this would hurt Athlon 64/FX sales much. If Sempron are slower they will have their "niche".

    And to the people that argue, you have to pay a premium for 64bit. So why Athlon XP 3200+ and Athlon 64 2800+ are sold at the <b>SAME PRICE</b>. We all know that the XP 3200+ and A64 2800+ performs equally (not much difference).

    If AMD would have wanted us to bay a premium for 64bit, they would sell A64 2800+ higher.

    --
    What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...
  30. It really is no different from disabled hyperthreading, SSE3, speedstep etc on Celerons on top of the slower clockspeeds. Segment the market, to make some bucks.

    BTW, its sort of ironic that certain people not even 6 months ago where arguing against AMD64 being usefull *at all*, for anyone but a tiny niche, and now they would cry AMD doesnt include AMD64 support even in its bargain bottom market chips ?

    >And to the people that argue, you have to pay a premium for
    >64bit. So why Athlon XP 3200+ and Athlon 64 2800+ are sold
    >at the SAME PRICE. We all know that the XP 3200+ and A64
    >2800+ performs equally (not much difference).

    "we" all know that, joe smoe doesnt and sees a hefty price premium for 64 bitness at the same "speed". He may also hear those 64 bit athlons are actually faster than the 32 bit ones. Besides, AXP 3200+ is a very low volume product, could be a poor binsplitter, quite possibly more expensive to produce than a 2800+ A64. This won't be the case with K8 based semprons vs A64's.

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  31. no see the reason the xp models are the same with the ahtlon 64 2800+ shows exactly that they are positioned at a premium. consumers look at the two and they see 3200+ vs 2800+ for the same price. oh wlel obviously go for the 3200+, no wait look at that 64, that must be special. see what im getting at? lol

    indeed athlon 64 chips do carry a 'premium', cuase normally the consumer would just go for the 3200+.


    do you gues not understand market segments? do you not realize that the s754 and s939 will be the mid to high end segments? all of those being 64bit? that means the largest portion of thier market will be 64bit capable, i think that says they want 64bit to be the mainstream choice. since when do celeron's and durons carry the latest and greatest tech in the low end segment? they have always been stripped down versions of the main sellers, this is no different. and it has never ment intel or amd werent trying hard enough to push a new tech. wheres the outcry for sse3 or ht on celeron? i dont see it...

    64bit is being treated as a feature, not a new architecture, so as a feature, it wont go on the lowest end until the toehr segments are firmly entrenched with mature products. eventually sempron will be 64bit, if it doesnt debue with it on some level.

    im still not convinced all semprons will just be 32bit. it could be the socket A wont be, but either s754 or s939 could bring 64bit capable cpus. im still waiting to see that.

    and i know this outdry for low price chips is stemming from the fact s939 chips came out to be priced higher then s754. this kind of stuff doesnt happen overnight. amd cant just release a new line of cheaper 64bit cpus with all the new tech like hypertransport, integrated controller, for a rock bottom , sub $100, price tag at this moment. They are having enough trouble ramping up s939 chip production and finalizing the 90nm shift. so they take an interim step and release a socket A replacement thats stripped down that can just get that line going, then upgrading them later on to support various things.
  32. Quote:
    BTW, its sort of ironic that certain people not even 6 months ago where arguing against AMD64 being usefull *at all*, for anyone but a tiny niche, and now they would cry AMD doesnt include AMD64 support even in its bargain bottom market chips ?

    I'm not one of these. From the beginning I know that 64bit is a very good move from AMD. I personnaly understand the AMD64 is not the only thing in CPU. But, it's obvious that if you buy a CPU today that is 64bit ready you will have the opportunity to upgrade to 64bit for "free". Which is a big advantage. If your PC main usage is gaming, there is no reason to get P4 over A64.

    I mean, P4 are not bad at all, and I will never think it's stupid or dumb to get a P4 today. But the AMD CPU's have an advantage in mid/long-term. Many will argue that by the time 64bit will become mainstream, the actual cpu/platform might be slow or "obsolete". But, I don't totally agree. Of course, current Socket754 platform will probably be nearly dead, but Socket939 will still have some potential.

    Quote:
    "we" all know that, joe smoe doesnt and sees a hefty price premium for 64 bitness at the same "speed". He may also hear those 64 bit athlons are actually faster than the 32 bit ones. Besides, AXP 3200+ is a very low volume product, could be a poor binsplitter, quite possibly more expensive to produce than a 2800+ A64. This won't be the case with K8 based semprons vs A64's.

    You are right that the average Joe don't know much, and probably think that a 2800+ at the price of a 3200+ it's weird. In "Mart-Stores" this kind of stuff is often misleading for customers. On the oter hand, the same problem happen when comparing P4 price vs Athlon XP price, an XP 3200+ is lot cheaper than a P4 3.2GHz... Average Joe is probably confused about that too! :smile:

    I'm not sure that the XP 3200+ chips cost that much to build. With today's yields, AMD is probably marking a lot of XP 3200+ at lower grade to meet the demand. Most XP 2500+ can be clocked to 3200+ without much effort and mobile Barton can often be clocked at 2.6GHz (and more). The manufacturing process is now mature.

    YES, AMD will release 32bit Sempron, and YES they will probably sold many of these CPU's. But, yet another name for a "new" CPU. I would rather have liked to AMD keep Athlon XP branding and move it to low-end market.

    In my dreams... It would have been great to see that AMD can offer 64bit computing to Average Joe! But, it will probably be not this. Intel will catch up and AMD will not be alone!

    Long live AMD, long live Intel!

    NOTE : I can't wait to see Prescott 64bit vs AMD64 performance. This will be a very interesting "battle".

    --
    What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...
  33. Quote:
    no see the reason the xp models are the same with the ahtlon 64 2800+ shows exactly that they are positioned at a premium.

    But, it's not a "real" premium. If there was a real premium for 64bit. Even the A64 2800+ would cost more than an XP 3200+. These 2 processors performs equally, so their price are basically the same, even if the A64 have the integrated memory control and the 64bit extension.

    I really think that the AMD pricing is good when you check price/performance. All Athlon 64 chips are faster than Athlon XP chips, they cost more and I would not like to see 100$ AMD64 CPU's.

    Quote:
    64bit is being treated as a feature, not a new architecture, so as a feature, it wont go on the lowest end until the toehr segments are firmly entrenched with mature products. eventually sempron will be 64bit, if it doesnt debue with it on some level.

    I fully understand this, and it's totally true! But AMD should take a step foward (it's my opinion) and push 64bit to the low cost market ASAP.

    A good exemple of this kind of behaviour, came from Toyota, the first NON-Lexus car they equipped with VVT-i was the Toyota Echo/Yaris, not the Camry or the 4runner.

    I know electronics it's not car business. But this move forced the competion to develop and market more efficient engine to compete with them. AMD could do the same thing. I know Intel will push 64bit soon into the market and this is because AMD pushed it hard.

    Quote:
    They are having enough trouble ramping up s939 chip production and finalizing the 90nm shift. so they take an interim step and release a socket A replacement thats stripped down that can just get that line going, then upgrading them later on to support various things.

    We don't hear much about 90nm AMD process? It is good or bad? And for the SocketA replacemt I really doubt they will be based on "Paris". How could AMD make an integrated memory controller CPU work on a SocketA platform... Quite a mystery for me. If AMD can do this, it's great ingeneering or will they simple relabbed Athlon XP CPU with more up-to-date rating?

    --
    What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...
  34. Quote:
    Indeed, maybe they are not interested in making money either, they probably use darts and weathercharts to set prices and predict production volumes.. I mean, selling chips is only their core business, and making money the only purpose of their existance, so why *would* they care ?

    I never said that they didn't. I merely offered it as a possability. And quite frankly from the people who brought you socket 939 this long after socket 940, it is entirely possible that they <i>don't</i> care. AMD seems to be saying and doing a lot of goofy things lately. Yet it seems to be working for them. So maybe switching from board meetings to games of darts really did solve their problems. Maybe they even call a psychic hotline. I don't know. I don't sit in on their meetings. Do <i>you</i>?

    Quote:
    You mean, like Celeron proves how little (according to intel) the average SOHO user benefits from hyperthreading ? Or 800 MHz FSB's ? Or 1Mb caches ? SSE3 ?

    <b>Yeah!</b> They're neat features for people who care about performance, but for the average SOHO non-enthusiast they mean very little. You don't need <i>any</i> of them to surf the net or write a Word doc. Just as you don't need 64-bit to do those things either. So it will be an interesting study in how strongly AMD is pushing 64-bits.

    <pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
    Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>
  35. > I don't know. I don't sit in on their meetings. Do you?

    No, but suggesting they might not care if some non trivial strategic decission makes economic sense or not is rather silly IMHO

    >Yeah! They're neat features for people who care about
    >performance

    You conveniently left out speedstep, which is not performance related. What other reason do you think there is to disable speedstep on mobile celerons, other than make you pay extra for the pentiums ?

    > but for the average SOHO non-enthusiast they mean very
    >little.

    Battery life means something for most mobile users.

    >You don't need any of them to surf the net or write a Word
    >doc.

    *yawn*.. no you don't. Don't need anything faster than a 500 Mhz PC either. AMD (nor anyone else) ever claimed you needed a 64 bit cpu for those things either.

    >So it will be an interesting study in how strongly AMD is
    >pushing 64-bits.

    Well, phase one was establishing it as a standard, making sure developpers will code for it and that the ISA would become usefull. That might have required an aggressive push to gain as much marketshare as possible, but they achieved this now. Phase two is simply: how do we make the most money now ?

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  36. its funny how people dont mind saying amd doesnt have a clue how to do things, pretty much saying they are idiots running the company into the ground. yet intel has cornered the market on good ideas and smart people to run the show, yeah right.

    you know lets give amd just a tad more respect and benefit of the doubt, you know they might know a thing or two about business. if thier cpu segment isnt enough to prove that, then look at thier flash memory segment, where they now lead the NOR market over intel.
  37. The problem here is if in fact AMD does make a low cost 64-bit chip it must be better than a low-cost 32-bit chip from Intel (right now 64-bits has no real advantage). They also can't market it as a chip that will serve you in the future since applications will need more power by the time 64-bit is the mainstream(probably, if these 64-bit chips are sub 2800 - 3200mhz). Therefore it is my opinion that AMD should make 32-bit chips and better but less costly (compared to A64) 64-bit chips. No point in making someone buy a useless 64-bit chip now and then having to upgrade when it's not powerful enough to run 64-bit applications (eg: games). Because if they do buy a new chip they will most definatly buy an Intel 64-bit chip.
  38. Quote:
    The problem here is if in fact AMD does make a low cost 64-bit chip it must be better than a low-cost 32-bit chip from Intel

    This is not a problem for AMD to make faster chip in the low-cost market. Actually, the Athlon XP line is much faster than any Celeron and they cost less.

    Quote:
    They also can't market it as a chip that will serve you in the future since applications will need more power by the time 64-bit is the mainstream(probably, if these 64-bit chips are sub 2800 - 3200mhz).

    So, Intel should not to sell Celerons to their customer, because they will not handle future apps well, even if they are running at 2.6GHz. It's not worst to sell low-speed 64bit than crippled CPU that actually can't do much more than office apps.

    Quote:
    Therefore it is my opinion that AMD should make 32-bit chips and better but less costly (compared to A64) 64-bit chips.

    The Sempron can't be BETTER in 32bit than Athlon 64, since they are based on the same CORE. And if Sempron are better than Athlon XP in 32bit on socket, it would be kind of weird to have AMD trying to sell faster CPU on a dying platform. I would not understand the marketing behind this kind of offering. AMD Sempron should be Socket754, it's my opinion. This would force OEM and tight-bidget user to get a Socket754 platform and this would increase the Socket754 market share.

    Quote:
    No point in making someone buy a useless 64-bit chip now and then having to upgrade when it's not powerful enough to run 64-bit applications (eg: games). Because if they do buy a new chip they will most definatly buy an Intel 64-bit chip.

    But if they already got a system that can be upgraded with a faster 64bit CPU (S754/S939), a percentage of these customers will upgrade their CPU only, this would put money in AMD's pocket. And if Sempron would be 64bit, some people would probably upgrade their OS only (at first) and then see if the performance are good. If their system is "sluggish" they would have the opportunity to upgrade ti with a CPU only, no need for MB/Memory/etc...

    I know I'm a bit optimisitic, because most of the low-cost system buyers (Celeron/Duron), never do upgrades. They usually trash their old system and buy another one! It's the market! When they hear that a worthy upgrade would cost them near the price of a complete system (read hear a completly CRAPPY ans slow PC), they often buy the complte system with a warranty instead of the wiser upgrade path.

    There is market for crap, if they were not Kia/Hyundai would not sales cars. Many people don't want to pay a premium or really want to pay very low price, because they think that in the long run they will be better served, and often it's not true.

    So YES, AMD will sell 32bit Sempron and YES many customer will keep buying crappy Celeron even if all gather together with flyers in front of each Wal-Mart, EB, and Radio-Shack all around the world that explain the TRUTH.

    But, I will not sit down and wait. I really think that things have to change in the computer market and these changes will benefits users. So, I will not only say that whatever AMD do, Intel will win. I say, whatever customers will want will influence thy way AMD and Intel will do business. And educating people is harder to do than only say things are done this way, we won't change it.

    Humm.... A bit of philosophy here... :smile:

    --
    What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...
  39. Quote:
    No, but suggesting they might not care if some non trivial strategic decission makes economic sense or not is rather silly IMHO

    Did I ever claim that the suggestion that they might not care was anything other than rather silly? Since when is having a sense of humor such a serious offense? Lighten up a little. I'm sorry that THGC doesn't have an emoticon with a jester's cap. I have to settle for just plain old <b><font color=green>c</font color=green><font color=blue>r</font color=blue><font color=purple>a</font color=purple><font color=red>z</font color=red><font color=orange>y</font color=orange></b>. :eek:

    Quote:
    You conveniently left out speedstep, which is not performance related. What other reason do you think there is to disable speedstep on mobile celerons, other than make you pay extra for the pentiums ?

    I didn't conveniently leave it out. I intentionally left it out to see how anal-retentive you are. That's one less mystery now. Why disable it? You mean other than that with all of the other extra features disabled it already uses a lot less power? There's the fact that almost no one thinking of buying one would care if it exists or not.

    Quote:
    Battery life means something for most mobile users.

    We both know that's a load of bull. It's <i>supposed to</i>, but it doesn't. Show me one mobile user who doesn't crank their brightness up way high. For that matter show me one mobile user who even researches the power consumption of their screen. No, other than extreme mobile enthusiasts, no one actually cares. They should. Some even get miffed when they can only run for an hour on battery. Most however just don't care. In the grand scheme of things battery life means very little to most mobile users. And of those who it does matter to, they're not going to even be looking at a mobile Celeron. Your use of self-defeating arguments is growing tired.

    Quote:
    Don't need anything faster than a 500 Mhz PC either.

    I'm still running Word 97 on a 486 66MHz laptop that I picked up for a buck at a silent auction to work on my novels in bed just peach keen. So as far as I can tell 500MHz is significant overkill.

    Quote:
    AMD (nor anyone else) ever claimed you needed a 64 bit cpu for those things either.

    I never said that they did. I have however said that it will be interesting to see if AMD pushes 64-bit all the way down to low end so soon or if they will avoid making such a bold statement.

    Quote:
    Well, phase one was establishing it as a standard, making sure developpers will code for it and that the ISA would become usefull. That might have required an aggressive push to gain as much marketshare as possible, but they achieved this now. Phase two is simply: how do we make the most money now ?

    Either way AMD wins. Either way AMD will make money. They either grab for more customer base now with low end 64-bit that bites into current sales of more profitable middle-to-high end 64-bit but gain more upgrades in the future, or they make more money now by keeping low end as 32-bit and still gain a number of upgrades in the future. It's just a question of money now or money later. Either way AMD wins. It's really a no lose choice. So the route that AMD takes says a lot more about their beliefs of how to push the market then it does about actually making money.

    <pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
    Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>
  40. What I was trying to say was that if a user buys a 64-bit chip now when no apps support it it won't do much better than a 32-bit chip. So they will see that there friend who bought a cheaper Intel chip gets the same performance as they do. Therefore in there mind now Intel is better then AMD so in the future they will buy intel chips. I don't know if this makes sense but I think AMD is ust trying not to get ppl to buy a 64-bit chip believing it would blow away any 32-bit chip at the present time.

    Also this gives AMD the chance to sell cheap 32-bit chips and keep there 64-bit ones at a higher price. Atleast until Intel makes a 64-bit chip for desktops.
  41. Quote:
    its funny how people dont mind saying amd doesnt have a clue how to do things, pretty much saying they are idiots running the company into the ground. yet intel has cornered the market on good ideas and smart people to run the show, yeah right.

    you know lets give amd just a tad more respect and benefit of the doubt, you know they might know a thing or two about business. if thier cpu segment isnt enough to prove that, then look at thier flash memory segment, where they now lead the NOR market over intel.

    I can't help but feel that since this was a response to a post of mine that it is at least partially aimed at me. I would like to point out that I never once said that anyone at AMD is an idiot, nor that they are running their company into the ground. In fact I've said quite the contrary. For the first time in years they're finally doing something right, and I for one hope that it will be a continuing trend. They may be making strange decisions, but they at least seem to be working, so I don't fault them.

    What I do however find funny is that AMD fans are still so touchy that you even give a suggestion of humor and they get both all high and mighty <i>and</i> defensive at the drop of a hat, often completely misreading posts in the process. Does AMD matter so much to you that you cannot even laugh? Or is <A HREF="http://www.dilbert.com" target="_new">Scott Adams</A> wrong about things like people making decisions by throwing darts being funny?

    <pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
    Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>
  42. Quote:
    if a user buys a 64-bit chip now when no apps support it it won't do much better than a 32-bit chip. So they will see that there friend who bought a cheaper Intel chip gets the same performance as they do.

    You are wrong there. AMD pricing is competitive with 32bit Intel CPU. All the Athlon 64 CPU are rated/priced in comparison to 32bit Intel processor. So, it's impossible to buy an AMD 64bit rated CPU that is slower than an equally priced Intel 32bit CPU.

    AMD is not crazy! They will not try to sell AMD64 CPU at high cost compared to Intel CPU, if they were doing so, no one would buy them.

    And when Windows 64bit will be out, who will have the opportunity to buy/install it from day one? The AMD64 owners. Of course, 64bit Windows will not boost the system performance like crazy, but it will definetly improves performance is some area for FREE. Intel 32bit actual offering have a nice cards too, HT/SSE2/SSE3 boost performance in some situation. But, actual Intel CPU will be useless in a 64bit environment, no one can argue contest this.

    Quote:
    I don't know if this makes sense but I think AMD is ust trying not to get ppl to buy a 64-bit chip believing it would blow away any 32-bit chip at the present time.

    I don't think AMD ever claimed that 64bit would boost performance that much nor Intel ever said that HT is turboing your PC. AMD clearly focus on upgradability/compatibility/ROI and long-term investment. Have you read IT magazine? Opteron publicity are clear, they focus on security (NX bit), on compatibility (32bit AND 64bit). They say to IT : be wise and buy an Opteron based system today and when you will be ready to roll-out 64bit you will not have to change all your hardware infrastructure.

    Quote:
    Also this gives AMD the chance to sell cheap 32-bit chips and keep there 64-bit ones at a higher price.

    Of course, Sempron will probably have an impressive price/performance for 32bit apps. But, if Sempron would came out with 64bit. This would have giving them an edge over intel low price offering.

    But, in the low cost market, we can't assume that buyer's are WISE or well informed. AMD surely know this and will capitalize on the new branding and they will try to push low cost Sempron as an unbeatable alternative to low-cost Intel offering.

    But AMD already have this with Athlon XP line and people still buy Celeron's! Educating customers... It's what's need to be done.

    --
    What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...
  43. Quote:
    And when Windows 64bit will be out, who will have the opportunity to buy/install it from day one? The AMD64 owners.

    The question is how much actual gap will there be between launching 64-bit Windows XP and launching 64-bit P4?

    <pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
    Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>
  44. Quote:
    The question is how much actual gap will there be between launching 64-bit Windows XP and launching 64-bit P4?

    I think you did not understood my point. I don't care about the Intel 64bit launch. I said that if you have a x86-64bit CPU today (only AMD are selling them NOW), you will be able to easily upgrade to 64bit, it will only a mather of software installation. If you buy an Intel CPU today, you will not be able to use Windows 64bit unless you upgrade at least the CPU, and probably the MB/RAM too. I doubt Intel will launch 64bit CPU on their current platform.

    Of course, Intel will launch a 64bit CPU soon and when Windows 64bit edition will be out, we will have the opportunity to choose between Intel and AMD platforms.

    --
    What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...
  45. lol no no dont get me wrong, i can laugh as easily about mad as the enxt guy, ima user of amd and intel parts, so im familiar with both 'fan bases'.

    my point wasnt neccesarily directed at you, but something ive heard alot here and on other boards, something i have grown to not like. that is the obvious attacks agianst amd's company somtimes, even amd fans are doing it, first it was the s939 pricing, now its if the semprons wont have 64bit capabilities. this is not about a bais on my part, its just ive never seen any sorts of attacks on what intel has done, no lengthy threads on intel's direction.

    maybe its becuase amd is the underdog, i dont know, but i dont like anything to be one sides, no matter if its attacking intel or amd. and there are some out there that would dismiss things amd does as futile or wasteful, just becuase they think intel has the better resources/engineering.

    i dont think you believe that, but i wanted to say that ive heard it alot.
  46. I know what you mean. Why is it no one ever slags Itanic, or press-hot? Well maybe I dont know what you mean.
  47. lol well i know there are hit on intel too, but some wont question intel's plan, they just assume its how they wanted to do things. or maybe its just that right now there is more interest in amd products, so the criticisms will be more on them.
  48. Am I wrong or are you folks saying except for gaming...I shouldn't jump into the 64 bit proc because their aren't that many programs to make the investment worthwhile? I don't make my living from PC's, just recreational and so-forth...

    ...hey quit it...don't make me stop this car...
  49. >..I shouldn't jump into the 64 bit proc because their
    >aren't that many programs to make the investment
    >worthwhile?

    Assuming you are in the market for a reasonably fast machine, the required investment for 64 bit capability is *zero*, so even if only one app would show a tiny increase, its money well spent :)

    If you're in the market for budget solution, and performance isn't important, its even simpler, you don't have the option, and it is most likely not worth spending more on a faster machine just for the 64 bit capabilities.

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Sempron AMD