Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Removed from PriceWatch for posting clockspeed

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Processors
  • Windows XP
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
October 3, 2001 9:34:21 PM

It would seem all the vendors that had listed the Athlon XP processors on PriceWatch were removed for listing the clockspeed of the processor. I wonder how much pressure AMD had to place on them to get this done so quickly. Before you ask me how I can be sure of the reason they were removed let me explain. I was browsing PriceWatch looking at those processors and the descriptions were being changed by someone to include text similar to "AD NOT ALLOWED SEE RULE:8----" and then 30 seconds later the ad would disappear. Very interesting.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

More about : removed pricewatch posting clockspeed

October 3, 2001 10:01:43 PM

ya i seen em last nite, and just checked they weren't up anymore. maybe they aren't supposed to be even advertised/sold til a certain date?

ewww, put that thing away, you're in public!
October 3, 2001 10:11:21 PM

That is another possibility.. The two possibilities as I see it are 1) AMD had the listings removed for mentioning the clockspeed, and 2) AMD had the listings removed for mentioning the processors at all prior to some specific date.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Related resources
October 3, 2001 10:12:49 PM

What's interesting is that the AthlonMP 1.4, rated in GHz/MHz not PR, is still up there...so what gives? This makes no sense.

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
October 3, 2001 10:19:01 PM

The Athlon MP has always been marketed by clockspeed, has it not? The PR ratings are only for the new Athlon XP processors. There were six listings for the new Athlon XP processors last night, ranging from the Athlon XP 1800 down to the Athlon XP 1500. The item descriptions all mentioned their true clockspeed in addition to their PR ratings. Now there are no listings.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
October 3, 2001 10:22:00 PM

MPs have no PR rating, so there would be no reason for AMD to be upset that the actual clockspeed was mentioned.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 3, 2001 10:24:56 PM

These were AthlonMP 1.4's--so I'd assume they're part of the AthlonXP release. In fact, I know at least one is from the ETA.

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
October 3, 2001 10:45:50 PM

You are right here. A few of them specifically give ETAs of mid-October and they are still listed. This tells me that AMD was not going after the early listing of their processors, but indeed the mentioning of the clockspeed for the PR-rated Athlon XP line.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
October 3, 2001 10:51:30 PM

This makes me wonder if AMD is planning to start scanning the forums and getting posts removed that contain information on the true clockspeed of Athlon XP processors. I doubt it, but you never know.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
October 4, 2001 12:05:42 AM

Before the theories start flying, look at it from AMD's stand point. First, the XP, unlike the MP, hasn't been released at all, in any form (discounting the fact the Palomino core is in the MP). So, while AMD may not care about people advertising the unreleased 1.4 MP, they may have a problem with people talking about the unreleased, in any way, XP line. Now, it is also possibly true that they were remove for posting the actual speed, but if that were true, by now, people would have been reposting prices, without the actual speed. The only thing I found at all was a 1.53 MP with an ETA of Oct. 16. So, maybe AMD just wants to keep the XP completely under wraps until debut. It's possible. I mean, it would take a matter of days for someone to notice the 1800 they bought was only at 1533 and attack the vendor for markups. As a legal precaution, AMD would have to allow the actual speeds to be posted, or risk being attacked and/or dropped by vendors.

-SammyBoy
October 4, 2001 12:17:50 AM

They have already been dropped by many vendors... In fact most of these drops occurred right after these vendors received the price lists and disclosure rules for the new Palomino line (Athlon XP.)

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
October 4, 2001 12:55:43 AM

i don't think that'd even be legal. i'm sure that through the licenses for retailers (and i'm sure you'd know more about this than me) they can sue if the clockspeed is mentioned. but the actaul processor still <b>has</b> a clock speed, regardles of what amd want's to call it. and on that same ground, i imagine that people doing reviews of them would be perfectly within their rights to say what clock speed the chip was.

no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end, when we all disintegrate, it'll all happen again.
October 4, 2001 1:12:27 AM

Well then, perhaps you should speak with AMD. <A HREF="http://www.axiontech.com/news/news.asp?hl=Athlon_XP_get..." target="_new">System builders have been told not to mention the actual clock speeds of the chips.</A>

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
October 4, 2001 2:18:16 AM

and if you'll kindly reread my post you'll notice that i did say that it was probably legal for amd to forbid it's dealers from mentioning the speed of the chip. what i said was not leagal, was having mesages removed from boards and preventing reviewers from using the clock speeds in their articles.

btw--i was unable to read the article you linked to...i think it's the server's problem...load or something. spins for a while then says can't find server. it may also be my university's connection is unreliable. hotmail was doing it to me as well. if their was something in the article pertaining to general public posts and articles...kindly ignore this post.

no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end, when we all disintegrate, it'll all happen again.
October 4, 2001 3:50:36 AM

Ray, the article you refer to only mentions system builders not part vendors. System builders would be your Microns, compaqs, gateways etc. The article you refer to is also placed by an actual online vendor ( axiontech) in which he is actual reporting the actual clockspeeds in that very article....that in itself should tell you something.

Video editing?? Ha, I don't even own a camera!
October 4, 2001 3:55:31 AM

Interesting - when the adverts were first out it was stating things like 1500 XP -(not 1.5ghz) - I wonder if AMD can also pressure retailers (if that is what they are doing) to not tell people what they are not?

-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details
October 4, 2001 5:41:32 AM

MHZ ratings are going the way of the dinosaur.....

Its no longer the rule of thumb for speed thank to the P4.... the p4 uses what i call HOLLOW HERTZ... its spins its wheels waiting for instructions.... the ATHLON does more work in less time than a like clocked P4. SO what is the true rating of speed. When the Hammer comes out at say 2 GHZ and spanks a 3 GHZ northwood how will it be handled.... i am sure INTEL will make sure MHZ is the only topic with there processors from now on because the general public doesnt know any better.

I know you work for INTEL ...and your probally the most sensible PAID INTEL SHILL i have known.... But Intel has to be worried about HAMMER... i mean it doenst just look good.. it looks frightening... and i am looking on INTELS roadmap and I dont see what they have to fight it.... I thought Intel was dropping X86 after the P4

what is roughly intels counter-attack for hammer.... I know they wont get lulled into a false sense of security because of the MHZ crown
October 4, 2001 8:11:47 AM

shill(shl) n. One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.

Please refrain from insults if you expect replies from me in the future. Incredibile dictu.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
October 4, 2001 9:12:36 AM

Quote:
When the Hammer comes out at say 2 GHZ and spanks a 3 GHZ northwood how will it be handled....


How did you come to this conclusion? Sure the Hammer sounds like it's going to be a great chip, but until we see it benchmarked, we don't know it's actual performance.
Also, why do so many people assume that the Northwood will be just a higher clocked Willamette? Don't you think that they will use the extra space afforded by the .13 micron process to improve its performance in other ways? For all we know, it might be able to out-perform the Palomino clock for clock.

"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2001 9:22:07 AM

Oh, yes, I've seen these marketting tactics many times before, let's give it a name, like Quantispeed, to make it sound technical and confuse the buyers. Well my water must be better than your because MINE has "Formula H2O" in it! It's not a lie, it's Quantispeed!

Back to you Tom...
October 4, 2001 10:24:54 AM

i called u a paid intel shill in a friendly joking way...

i guess board posts cant show the levity of words and every things seems like an attack...friendly jab or vicous attack appear the same..... as u seem to have taken it
October 4, 2001 4:07:00 PM

Quote:
Don't you think that they will use the extra space afforded by the .13 micron process to improve its performance in other ways?


They've used it to make the chip smaller. Have you seen socket 478? It's the size of a quarter, it rocks :) 

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 4, 2001 8:26:22 PM

~ Before you ask me how I can be sure of the reason they were removed let me explain. ~

Raystonn... please please please return to your previous standards of separating fact and assumptions. This last week you keep on crossing the line.

I personally have always valued and respected your editorial contributions.

Please don't give in to the dark side :-(

<font color=blue> Smoke me a Chip'er ... I'll be back in the Morgan </font color=blue> :eek: 
October 4, 2001 8:38:21 PM

I do believe I gave all my data and said it was just a possibility. Am I not allowed to speculate even when I tell everyone that I am speculating and give some very good data to back it up? Giving out data is nice, but I would rather not just become the forum's encyclopedia. That can become boring; especially when not many people in this forum actually make use of any real data in their posts.

If you would like me to make it more obvious (and state firmly) that certain thoughts are based on speculation stemming from certain data I can do that.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
October 4, 2001 8:40:24 PM

Quote:
Before you ask me how I can be sure of the reason they were removed let me explain.

Uh, I saw they're up again in <b><A HREF="http://www.pricewatch.com/" target="_new"><font color=red>Pricewatch</A></b></font color=red>

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.
October 4, 2001 8:43:11 PM

[speculation]I think you were right in your speculation. Pricewatch now list the XP processors but don't list the real MHz.[/speculation]

Nice <b><font color=green>Lizards</b></font color=green> <b>crunch</b> Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:
October 4, 2001 8:48:13 PM

Good catch. Yes they are back. Do you notice the difference between the old ads and the new ads? The new ads do not mention the clockspeed of the processors anywhere. (They are also a bit more expensive for some odd reason.) The ads have returned with only one change to them: any mention of the true clockspeed of the processors was removed. This further supports the <b>theory</b> that, indeed, the mentioning of clockspeeds was the reason for the removal of the listings in the first place. I would classify this as a move away from freedom of information.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
October 4, 2001 9:17:10 PM

Someone has just added an Athlon XP ad to PriceWatch that contains the clockspeed of the processor. It will be interesting to see if it gets removed again.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
October 4, 2001 9:31:06 PM

I doubt it, it's the same company as from before.

Quote:
Athlon XP 1800+,1.53GHz (1530 Mhz),Socket-A

But this is interesting:

Quote:
INCLUDES - heatsink/ fan assy 3year AMD warranty,Certificate of Authenticity, case logo & manual


A certificate of authenticity and a manual??

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 4, 2001 9:45:38 PM

Strangly, all posted prices are from Lynn Computing Products... a place I've never heard of. It would be interesting to see if that one XP1800 with the actually speed hangs around.

-SammyBoy
October 4, 2001 10:04:44 PM

Except for the one with the clockspeed listed (Axion Technologies). I've seen both on PriceWatch before, but they're not known for having the lowest prices.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 4, 2001 10:25:19 PM

i don't really think they were taken down because of showing the clockspeed. all the ones the other night, if you saw them, specified no ETA. more/less making anyone think they already have them in stock (or if they do, maybe it was against contract to release them). but now i see 2 vendors listing the clockspeed as well, but now every dealer is showing an ETA. i think it would be pretty hard to keep actual clockspeeds a total secret. seems like that would be something that would have to be established even months before production on new chips started. not to mention all employees they would have to keep under wraps.

ewww, put that thing away, you're in public!
October 4, 2001 10:42:26 PM

No, I saw an ETA listed on the other ones. At least I thought I did.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>