Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD MARKETING MONKEYS REJOICE!!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 5, 2001 9:24:00 PM

I'd say this <A HREF="http://www.aceshardware.com/files/news/images/AthlonXP...." target="_new">ad</A> is very deceptive, wouldn't you?

that's AMD and Fujitsu marketing geniuses at work, to bad their asp are so low they have to warn and warn again.

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
October 5, 2001 9:27:20 PM

That's straight-out illegal. The ad will probably be pulled before it goes anywhere (if it hasn't already). AMD isn't saying anywhere that it's 1.7GHz.
Nice that the ad says 1.700MHz at one point :) 

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 5, 2001 9:34:28 PM

Many european and asian countries use a period instead of a comma in large numbers.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Related resources
October 5, 2001 9:46:48 PM

True, I forgot about that.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 5, 2001 10:18:00 PM

Actually it's both deceptive and not deceptive. I mean GHz have no meaning! I can have a 2GHz P4 with no cache that performs worse than a Pentium II 400MHz. The Athlon XP does not internally run at 1.7GHz but it will provide equivalent, if not superior, performance to a 1.7GHz P4. The average user doesn't care if it's 1.7GHz or 1700 performance rating. Personally, I think they should stop using GHz all together and use a simple PR method. Intel should start following in AMD's footsteps and rather than spending a lot of money on R&D to make faster (GHZ wise) processors, they should use the Pentium 4 platform as the baseline for performance comparison and use PRs to compare newer processors with the P4. For example, rather than saying I have a 1.7GHz Pentium 4, you would say, I have a 1.7PR Pentium 4. An example would be that the 64-bit 800MHz Itanium would be a 2.5PR Itanium or somewhere in that range.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 5, 2001 10:37:28 PM

Problem then arises from the benchmarking battle standards.
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2001 12:21:32 AM

GHz DOES have meaning, it's QUANTITATIVE! If you bought a 20oz bottle of Pepsi only to find out that it was 16oz, would you accept the fact that "Pepsi has won more taste test over Coke, therefore, this is the thirst quenching effectiveness of 20oz of Coke"? NO, you would DEMAND your full 20oz of Pepsi or you would DEMAND your money back. I hope adds like these bankrupt AMD, and then, after they are reorganized, they will know better next time (because we know that bankruptcy does not kill a company this large, they get reorganized). Waiting for the class action suites!

Back to you Tom...
October 6, 2001 1:19:12 AM

It's nothing like your comparison. A more accurate one would be a 20oz bottle of Coke, and then a 16oz bottle of Pepsi, but bottled under pressure to contain 20oz of Pepsi. Or...something like that.

:) 

New marketing would fix that.
October 6, 2001 1:51:46 AM

I wouldn't Whine too much about that... was the same way with the Cyrix chips and PR rating. And it is the Stores and PC comapnies that advertised the MHz or GHz, rather than properly labeling it with the PR. I somehow doubt that AMD told them to put 1.7GHz rather than PR 1700. It's the ignorant and deceptive PC companies that do that on their own... believeing that no one will know the difference. Would you say that someone ought to file a lawsuit against Cyrix and all the stores that sold computers with their chips and misreported the clock frequency?
I agree that this is not right to have it labeled like that... However, it is not AMD, it is the retailer.

--Fltsimbuff
October 6, 2001 1:56:13 AM

Someone should buy a processor from that reseller, wait until AMD releases a chip that really does run at 1.8GHz, and then 'discover' he was duped and demand an exchange for the real 1.8GHz part. It would be a free upgrade.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
October 6, 2001 2:01:34 AM

That would be amazing! :smile:

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2001 2:02:36 AM

I, quite franking, hope AMD gets slapped big for this. This sounds a harsh coming from someone that has only used AMD chips, but this last step by AMD is ridiculous. At this point I will be looking very closely at the Northwood’s performance compared to the current P4 and the Thunderbird. I refused to buy a chip called an AthlonXP 1800 and see that it doesn’t actually run at 1,800MHz, especially if it shows the PR instead of MHz on the bootup. Should this be an issue, I can see myself upgrading to an AthlonMP with a true MHz rating or the P4 with the Northwood core, pending it’s performance.

This marketing bull should not be accepted by the people who will be purchasing these processors. AMD needs to stop pushing their market people and start pushing the Fabs to produce faster chips. If AMD wants to get rid of its problems they will have to start producing chips on the same MHz level as Intel. Would that be hard to do? Yes it would, but no one on this earth would have to argue which was the faster chip.
October 6, 2001 2:35:28 AM

No offense, but that's non-sense. A person does not buy a CPU for the numbers, they buy it for performance. I have no doubt in my mind that the Athlon XP 1.53GHz processor will match or exceed the P4 1.8GHz in most tasks. In fact, even video editing might be close with the addition of SSE in the Athlon XP. I still believe MHz/GHz are meanless. Any one company can for example create a ridiculously slow 2GHz CPU. I can have a 2GHz CPU that underperforms a Pentium 100MHz. It's all in arcitechure! We need a universal way to measure performance! PRs may be the answer!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2001 3:17:31 AM

Yeah, but sitting there and making the Intel P4 the industry standard is stupid as well.

The only problem I have against the P-Ratings is that they are useless when comparing Athlon vs. AthlonXP, which a lot of us will be doing in the future. How much faster is an AthlonXP 1500 vs. an Athlon 1.33GHz or 1.4GHz? The only way to tell is outright testing the both of them against each other. When comparing AMD vs. AMD is where the numbers come into play.
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2001 3:27:01 AM

Your absolutely right! AMD needs to step up to .13 micron anyway, they have the equipement, it's going to cost them big to set it up whenever they do it, so they should have done it already.

Back to you Tom...
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2001 3:34:58 AM

Your absolutely wrong. 50% of customers walk in and say "how many GHZ, how many MB, how mand GB". And that's the only way they make their decision. Nothing else matters. Do you thing the typical customer reads Tom's Hardware and knows which performs better in what application? They read NO reviews. They buy Dell because Dell advertises that they were rated as having the best support. Or they don't even worry about manufacturer and only go by numbers.
50% of the rest say "Pentium". That's the only word they know when it comes to processors. They know nothing of T-Birds, Athlons, Durons, or even Cellerons. All they know is blue men and that emblem they had on their last PC.
Athlon can't say it's a Pentium. That's a trademark. And AMD can't match Intel's clock. These people know nothing of performance, the only way you can coerce them into buying a slower clock speed processor is to offer them a substantial price reduction.

Back to you Tom...
October 6, 2001 11:48:09 AM

Hmm, I don't know. It's just all my friends have or would rather have a Athlon. Whenever I think of computers, the Athlon equals a PC hotrod.

I can't imagine many people buying a computer for the first time. In my high-school 100% of the students in my classes have computers (and I see over 100 students over the course of the week). Every class I'm in, whenever the teacher asks, they find out every single student has a computer, the internet and in most cases DSL or Cable. Then again, Cable and DSL are really fast and cheap here in Canada. Everyone I know, knows that the Athlon is better. In fact, my friend recently wanted me to help him choose the right components for a cheap system, but he demanded AMD and nothing else. Why? I don't know. It's not just price. I mean you can get a fast Celeron now for a cheap price. Remember the days people loved to tweak their cars and turn them into Hotrods? Well AMD has become the name for PC Hotrod entusiasts. My point is, just as there are people who'd blindly get a Pentium and nothing else, there are people who'd get an Athlon/Duron and nothing else. Why? It's all a matter of taste.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 6, 2001 2:16:41 PM

If i have a Japanense car with a very high torque 4 cynlinder engine, 150 horsepower

you have a older american car with a 350, 8 cynlinder engine, 310 horsepower

we decided to drag race

my japanese care smokes you easily ... even though u have more horsepower

which car is faster?

HOrsepower has always been the benchmark for speed... but it means nothing here... as the more efficent and tuned Japanese car flys by the BIG HORSEPOWER American car.

Same thing with AMD and INTEL right now....

Intel is marketing its HORSEPOWER NUMBER... not its ACTUAL SPEED.... AMD is marketing its ACTUAL SPEED... not its HORSEPOWER NUMBER

We all beend saying the P4 needs about 300 MHZ + to equal a Athlon in most benchmarks.... THen howcome when AMD says the exact came thing ...ITS A BIG HUGE MISLEADING THING
October 6, 2001 5:37:04 PM

I don’t think its fair to race an old car with a new one and if you go a 1/4 mile the large engine is going to smoke the small one, especially if you put an up to date large engine corvette against a small engine rice burner.

A nitro-methane dragster will go from zero to 100mph in less than a second, take a second and a half to go from 100mph to 200mph, and then take 2 seconds to clear the last 100mph. This is not unlike the cache system in a modern CPU. A small memory footprint program will work fast on most CPU’s. A large memory footprint will only be fast on the large cache CPU’s.

Schmide

There is a lot more to a computer that the CPU itself.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2001 8:21:19 PM

...Well, I think I have the ultimate solution to this everlasting silly diskussion! If I was AMD, I should put a 10GHz oscillator (which did nothing, but that don't seems to bother folks like AMDMeltdown, FUGGER and their low IQ friends) on my chip. I will then call it "Hyper Super Burst", and no one will ever buy an Intel 2.0 again, when you can have an AMD Athlon HSB 10.0GHz (for only four times the money, but who cares, it has to be fast if it's 10GHz, doesn't it???...)

Hey Raystonn, or have Intel already that patent...

***A-Man***

...is it?...NO, it's AnotherMan...
October 6, 2001 8:30:18 PM

Exactly my point, good example AnotherMan. You can have a oscillator doing nothing but ticking at 10GHz. So 2GHz really means nothing.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2001 9:19:13 PM

You are funny people.

AMD's problem is: it can't keep up the believeable overating for long without a good kick in the pants like a good process upgrade. I can just see this $600 refrigerator system on some 2.0GHz Athalons which had to be installed by a degreed specialist for 200 bucks an hour, but hey I got the chip for 1/4 the cost.

I remember once way back when, I was stuck on this cyrix "workstation" which popped up calling itself a 166 at 133 or some crazy thing, comparing itself to Intel's MHz. It was total garbage. Hopefully for AMD's sake people won't think about that.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2001 9:31:06 PM

Ouch, some people (and they are quite a few on this forum...) never get the point, but hey, they got their chips for 4 times the cost of an yet faster Athlon. So, who could blame them??

***A-Man***

...is it?...NO, it's AnotherMan...
October 6, 2001 9:40:44 PM

Cyrix CPUs were never truly faster than Intel CPUs clock for clock but AMD CPUs ARE faster than Intel CPUs clock for clock.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2001 9:51:40 PM

I think that's great for them. That means in that respect they are a true value. Long live AMD.

My point is that since it seems as if Intel may be poised to be putting out ~3GHz parts in the near future. To get an XP3000 running you're going to need some cooling, that could be tough.
October 6, 2001 10:08:49 PM

Except the palomino is not the chip which will be up against that 3ghz part, it will be the thoroughbred and possibly the hammer. The palomino is a 2 quarter holding chip till AMD ramps its .13 micron process at dresden.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
October 8, 2001 6:18:03 PM

Quote:
A person does not buy a CPU for the numbers,


ROFLMAO
I can't believe you actually said that seriously. Why do you think that every computer Circuit City sells is a P4 at 1.3-1.4? (And half have 128meg of SDRAM). Because people walk in and see "Pentium 4", and "20gig hard drive", etc. and think "Wow, that's a good deal. And with a name like eMachines, it must be a good company. I mean, look at that wallpaper, it looks really good!"

This is 80% or more of the (home) computer-buying market.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 8, 2001 6:26:16 PM

Sadly fatty is right, the majority of computer sales are to suckers who think that dell kid is cool and his p4 1.4ghz is the bomb.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
October 9, 2001 11:11:07 AM

Guys, if MHz mean nothing, then it is completely irresponsible of AMD to expect consumers to take them at their word that this pull a number out of the bag strategy is honest. After all, we seem to be just accepting AMD at their word that these processors are 1.53 GHz, etc, how will we know in the future. The fact is that they are trying to dupe consumers into buying what they think is a 1.8 GHz processor, or they would have designed a completely different performance rating spec, which is independent of MHz completely, and gives simple, easy to digest scores in units of 1-100, and no more. What exactly is the core definition of the PR system, and where is the proof?
October 9, 2001 11:34:37 AM

This is no longer an issue. The Athlon XP 1800+ is the undisputed champion! It beats the Pentium 4 2GHz in almost every test. Just check out Anandtech's review.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 9, 2001 12:18:02 PM

the 1.333 ATHLON XP was kicking the INTEL P4 2.0 GHZ in the ass

amazing

AMD is king again.... they way it looks a 2.4 P4 might not close the gap much
October 9, 2001 12:24:57 PM

hahahahaah. those suckers who bought intel 1.7 ghz compueters are feeling pretty stupid. you know what my friend is still gonna buy intel 1.7 ghz. oh well its not my money
October 9, 2001 4:07:55 PM

Quote:
the 1.333 ATHLON XP was kicking the INTEL P4 2.0 GHZ in the ass


I've looked at several benchmarks, and I see the 1.333 narrowly beating the 2.0 in some benchmarks. The 1.53 handily beats it in most, but not the 1.333.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 9, 2001 4:25:43 PM

Right now, assuming you don't overclock, the Athlon XP 1700+ running at 1.47GHz provides the most bang for the buck.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 9, 2001 5:22:39 PM

True. Of course, remember that you can overclock Intel CPUs too.

Hmm...who was it that made a post saying that AMD was better because an overclocked (FSB) Athlon platform had better performance than a standard-clocked Intel platform. I can't remember the exact circumstances, but we were talking abour DDR vs. RDRAM. Can't remember who it was. Anyway...

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