Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD dropping the Duron because...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2002 11:38:29 PM

It cost almost as much to make as the XP but sells for much less. They can't make a profit on it. So they are moving the XP and later the Tbred DOWNSCALE to fill that void. Their is more money in the "midpriced" market because it has a greater volume than the high end market and greater profit than the low end market. They don't have to recalibrate their XP+ rating system because, it will eventually be comparable to the performance of the P4 Celeron.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

More about : amd dropping duron

April 18, 2002 11:44:39 PM

Makes sense.

I've been disregarding the changes in Duron prices since the XP1600 & XP1700 came down in price. The price per MHz for the XP vastly outweighs the Duron. Sure their cheap, but for little more cost (£50) you can have a CPU with a lot more than twice the capabilities.

Now we'll see the Celeron get the elbow.

<b><font color=blue>~ What do you mean "It isn't working!"...Now where's my sonic screwdriver? ~ </font color=blue></b>
April 19, 2002 12:31:55 AM

Yeah, Durons made sense a while ago, but nowadays the performance gap is as big as the price gap..... It is rare that id suggest a duron to any but the most basic systems with integrated everything, which I hate =/

Jesus saves, but Mario scores!!!
Related resources
April 19, 2002 12:43:36 AM

saves a vast sum of moolah too.
dont need seperate dies.

do u think they will do the celleron trick and disable some cache? or is that below them?

i also read that later xp 'durons' or whatever u want to call them will use the 133fsb. what then for the top of the line.
i really really really hope barton or late tbred goes 166 or 200fsb.

extra fsb + 512k cache = yum

My tech advice here is not free. Email your credit card detials to mynic@hotmail.com :smile: :wink:
April 19, 2002 12:47:59 AM

Yeah, did you guys see on their earnings report? Their average selling price went from $90 to $86. $86!!!! that's not much money, that's like the price of a average Duron. By the way, I think this'll be my 200th post. Wahoo!!
April 19, 2002 12:54:25 AM

congrats... when u reach 10,000 we will organise a party for you :smile:

My tech advice here is not free. Email your credit card detials to mynic@hotmail.com :smile: :wink:
April 19, 2002 12:58:40 AM

Whew! 10,000. That's a lot. I'm practically still a n00b.....
April 19, 2002 3:24:59 AM

Makes sense to me. What didn't make sense to me was the introduction of the the Duron in the first place.

At one time, in galaxy far far away, the Athlons and Durons were both run on a 100mhz bus and they even had overlapping clock speeds, the Duron (spitfire) from 600mhz to 1000 mhz, the Athlon Thunderbird from 700mhz up to 1400mhz. For a long time they shared the 750 to 1000 mhz range. In performance, the Duron only trailed the Athlon by 5-10% at the same clock speed. (OK so you could find applications that took advantage of the Athlon's larger cache). At that time, a Duron was less than half the cost of an Athlon. Why would you market something so cheap? It seemed like AMD was risking prospective sales of the Athlon going over the Duron instead. On the other hand, why didn't anyone buy it. The Duron never did become very popular. Very few OEMs built systems around it. For that matter very few OEMs used AMD processors at all except the mobile market which was still transitioning from the K6-2.

The enthusiasts liked the Duron because it overclocked so well and it was cheap but we must have been a small percentage of all the processor customers in those early days. I wonder what percent of all processors go to DIY'ers now. Are there enough of us to matter in the grand scheme of things?



<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
April 23, 2002 4:09:16 PM

so Barton may still B a non-starter (I do wish they would make up their minds... is it coming out at all or will it B cancelled...

There are no stupid questions... just lots of inquisitive idiots...
April 23, 2002 4:10:50 PM

Personally, I would hope for a 200FSB and/or increased L1/L2 cache... that would be a worthy processor to buy... oh well hammer-time I guess

**DOH... I meant 333FSB... I musta fell asleep**

There are no stupid questions... just lots of inquisitive idiots...

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by marneus on 04/25/02 01:56 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 23, 2002 4:57:11 PM

What doesn't make sense to me is if you look at their earnings for last quarter they said that they sold 3.5-4 Million Durons Out of 8 Million total processors sold. That's about 40-50% duron Mix of the processor. Can they get the duron customers to buy Athlon now. there are lot of them as you can see.

KG

<b>"Hey! It compiles! Ship it!"</b>
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2002 6:49:09 PM

Maybe they can convert 50% of them at least, and that would be 2 million profits instead of 4 million losses :smile:

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 23, 2002 7:19:11 PM

That means that they are willing to loose market share to make profit. I think they wanted to gain market share.

KG

<b>"Hey! It compiles! Ship it!"</b>
April 23, 2002 7:21:46 PM

Look at 3DFX. They dominated the market share when they went belly up.

Market share isn't everything.

The Windows Gods demand money to appease the BSOD! - Rev. Bill Gates
April 23, 2002 7:36:39 PM

You'll maybe find they get shoved into budget OEM systems, for a knock down price.

<b><font color=blue>~ What do you mean "It isn't working!"...Now where's my sonic screwdriver? ~ </font color=blue></b>
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2002 7:59:02 PM

Even if they knocked $10 off the price of the slowest units, they would still make more than if they sold a Duron instead. It cost about the same to make an Athlon as Duron.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2002 8:00:36 PM

I think they only see that as a temporary loss of market share.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 23, 2002 8:04:26 PM

If Market share is nothing then why is AMD and Intel trying to grab as much as they can. Why is AMD trying to build an another FAB with UMC to make more CPU to gain market share. I think to these companies market share is everything. They can loose money to gain market share. And That's what AMD has been trying to do past few Quarters. They have been loosing money and to some extent loosing market share.

KG

<b>"Hey! It compiles! Ship it!"</b>
April 23, 2002 11:28:35 PM

Your missing an important reason crash.


AMD is dropping the duron because it was made at its austin fab, and the austin fab cannot make any faster durons(limit of the fab is near being reached), the austin fab is not .13 and it is not copper, so instead of using dresden space to make a duron(or upgrading austin fab) they just drop the duron and use the athlon in its spot when the hammer comes out.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2002 11:45:27 PM

Ah, but if it were a viable product, they would convert Athlon lines to it.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 23, 2002 11:54:14 PM

what about bus speeds, do u think they will differentiate between the tbred/barton and the 'duron' version?

im thinkin this cauz i believe that the tbred/barton really needs a fsb increase.

My tech advice here is not free. Email your credit card detials to mynic@hotmail.com :smile: :wink:
April 23, 2002 11:58:48 PM

Mat's right. Austin is .18 micron and will be converted to Flash (in place of the Gresham Fab?).

The real reason that the Duron didn't do better than the celeron was integrated chipset availability. The celeron almost always sells on a platform with integrated everything (especially graphics). AMD needs a real i815E/845G killer in the chipset market to be able to compete - The SIS735/745 + the new graphics chips could easily fill this slot. They are going to need this anyway to get into the OEM corporate market.

If the thought I thought I thought had been the thought I thought, I wouldn't have thought so much.
April 24, 2002 12:05:10 AM

The duron is only viable in relation to the athlon, when the hammer is released, there is no need for both a duron and an athlon line.


So they kill 2 birds with one stone, kill the .18 alum duron, lower the athlon to budget line(without cutting performance cause the hammer will own) and make hammer the high end.


The only reason the duron sells so many is the fact its considered a "budget"chip, in fact you can usually get an equal axp for as much or less than the duron counterpart, when the athlon is the "budget" line, the ratio between it and the hammer should be about the same as the duron/athlon.

They could rename the athlon to the duron, but that is pointless IMO, since the duron meant "budget athlon" why do they need it when the athlon is not the flagship line anymore?

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
April 24, 2002 12:07:11 AM

Quote:
Mat's right. Austin is .18 micron and will be converted to Flash (in place of the Gresham Fab?).



Partially(gresham fab closure*), the other reason is the only commercially viable product the austin fab can make is either flash or dram(or foundry service) since amd does not have a ram brand, and does not foundry for others, converting austin to flash is the only viable option.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
April 24, 2002 12:11:16 AM

I was thinking along the same lines.

Pair up a Duron with a K7S5A and 128MB of PC1600, and you have a decent entry level system.

Not sure if you can run the K7S5A at 100/133. Can you?

<b><font color=blue>~ What do you mean "It isn't working!"...Now where's my sonic screwdriver? ~ </font color=blue></b>
April 24, 2002 12:11:35 AM

The Nforce IMO is a killer combo, nah?
If not, get ECS to do an Nforce mobo, it'll cost a penny for OEMs+ AMD's low prices+SDRAM or DDR low price=perfect value performance compared to Celly Dells.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 24, 2002 12:53:00 AM

Quote:
Pair up a Duron with a K7S5A and 128MB of PC1600, and you have a decent entry level system.

Not sure if you can run the K7S5A at 100/133. Can you?


Have done exactly that for my oldest son (1.2 Duron, K7S5A, 128MB RAM) for US$120. Can't beat it on price. If only it had onboard video this type of board would make a killing in the OEM market.

I have another K7S5A running @ 150MHz stable as we speak (type).

If the thought I thought I thought had been the thought I thought, I wouldn't have thought so much.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ath0mps0 on 04/23/02 10:34 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
April 24, 2002 5:20:51 AM

All indications are that the Thoroughbred will be short lived at 133MHz FSB (DDR266). Whether AMD changes their minds about that at a latter time is really up to them. I see the Thoroughbred as becomming their next Duron replacement after the Hammer becomes their established performance processor. Because it's likely to be demoted, the Thoroughbred should be good for several months beyond it's previously intended lifespan.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 24, 2002 5:32:08 AM

and barton?
we know its gonna have 512....
but how long is it gonna live?



Despite appearances im not Phsysic. I may need your system specifications to solve your problem!
April 24, 2002 8:07:58 AM

i have mine running at 100/133 cause i have the gimpy athlon900(b), which as many of you know has the 200mhz fsb. but i have 266mhz ddr...SO..i set it to 100/133 in the bios. wham, bam, thank you...athlon(b)??!!?? :eek: 

-DAvid

-Live, Learn, then build your own computer!-
April 24, 2002 9:41:06 AM

Duron's are by FAR top of the line but come on guys! I'm building a basic system for my Aunt and I'm getting a 900Mhz from newegg.com for $31US!!!!! Seriously... that is unbelievable. Unless you are playing the newest games or running intensive apps, this is more than enough. I don't really care what line they keep as the "bargain" product, but it blows my mind that OEM's aren't jumping on this processor. What average user REALLY needs more then 1Ghz? If I were in the PC selling business I'd be cranking out Duron systems like crazy right now. If anyone has a better option for the money please let me know.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 24, 2002 10:26:32 AM

What Iam trying to justify is the move to XP CPU's. Damn it if my ol' 1.4 T'bird can get a pr rating of 2054 without even trying then I look at the price to beat it with an update! Sheesh, even in Sandra it craps on a P4 2.0 on DDR and in some cases with RDRAM if ya can rely on that but it certainly shites over a XP1800.

This old athy is too good to just put in the draw, some one tell me why I should?


<A HREF="http://www.herveybayqueensland.com/whalephotos.html" target="_new">My backyard </A>
April 24, 2002 11:31:49 AM

If you do multimedia like video editing and gaming, chances are you will see 30% performance improvement. It has been reported that the addition of SSE improved by up to 90% in some areas.
But again it all depends on your area of usage. If you have no performance regrets here, you shouldn't waste the money until a Barton at least.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
a b à CPUs
April 24, 2002 12:31:48 PM

No clue on the Barton, sorry.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 24, 2002 12:48:01 PM

The barton will be the new duron IMO, the hammer is safe even from its 512k cache, but the p4 celly is most certainly not, amd does not cripple its budget chips like intel does.

Amd does a cosmetic change(half cache) and says ok, intel ENSURES the celeron sucks ass.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
a b à CPUs
April 24, 2002 1:02:54 PM

Too bad all this technology didn't beet my budget deadlines.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 24, 2002 3:57:02 PM

Quote:
amd does not cripple its budget chips like intel does.


So true :frown:

And Crash, when's the deadline and final word on what you've decided on?

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 24, 2002 9:53:18 PM

Quote:
Too bad all this technology didn't beet my budget deadlines.


What I dont understand is if you are building these pcs for someone else, why cant you just get a nice axp for cheap!

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
a b à CPUs
April 24, 2002 10:04:28 PM

LOL, budget cap was high enough for a real performer-a P4 1.8GHz. It's MY computer, I'm overclocking it. I no longer make enough money to buy my own machine. This one is comming to me as a form of financial aid.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 25, 2002 1:52:31 AM

Geez don't you sell refurbished stuff? I mean you look like you sell for nothing!

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
a b à CPUs
April 25, 2002 2:42:12 AM

Last spring I bought a truckload of used systems, refurbished them, and sold them so cheaply that they were gone in two months. Now everybody in this town has at least two computers and act like they really don't thing they need another one, no matter what I tell them!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
!