Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

$28M AMD Ad Campaign: "AMD Me"

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 16, 2002 6:37:01 AM

well i guess amd is actually listening to some people here. good for them. about time they face the general public.

<A HREF="http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/020916/0104000036_1.html" target="_new">check it out</A>

<font color=green> there's more to life than increasing its speed -Ghandi</font color=green>

More about : 28m amd campaign amd

a b à CPUs
September 16, 2002 11:15:34 AM

Yes, they only advertise when their products suck, they never advertize when they are on top! If the hammer is any good at all, they will probably quit advertizing. They don't want to sell as much as possible, but instead seek to increase sales when they are significantly below capacity and reduce sales when they are reaching capacity!

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
September 16, 2002 5:15:03 PM

Amd suckered the MicrosoftXp masses, now they're after the WindowsME crowd.

this is AMD's most extreME desperation move yet.

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
Related resources
September 16, 2002 9:27:30 PM

On top of that, it's a print campaign only. They need TV time to reach out to more people.

If ignorance is bliss, then why is everyone so miserable?
September 16, 2002 9:36:19 PM

I agree with Crashman. AMD must be close to alot of trouble financially, so they started an AD campaign. But, it's only print and online, and so far, I've only seen the ads at Anand and THG. Yet again, AMD's wasting their money advertising to the same enthusiasts that already know about them. I mean seriously, for 28M, you could have a pretty good TV campaign, and that will reach alot of people. Imagine if AMD advertised during "American Idol". That would get the attention of alot of people. Sigh, when well AMD Marketing ever learn?

- - -
<font color=green>All good things must come to an end … so they can be replaced by better things! :wink: </font color=green>
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2002 1:04:39 AM

I remember the BulletTrain add. AMD did that one when they were desparate, they had just released the Athlon and only enthusiast were buying them. Everyone else associated them with the K6-2 at that time, when the PIII was already out.

Most investors know nothing about retail business. A group of them sued AMD for spending the money. But the add helped, and AMD found themselves short on capacity! Then they got sued for delaying orders!

They had to take drastic measures, so they built the new plant in Germany. Investors still not understanding the business side of things, they sued AMD for spending their profits on the new plant, saying it was too big and expensive and would never be used at capacity! AMD was forced to sell production space to Motorola just to keep the dogs off their back, before the plant was even finished!

AMD became a hyper competitive company, selling far too many processors far too cheaply. Intel told the public that AMD was responsable for the current recession because they flooded the market with high speed processors that nobody needed to upgrade for a long time!

By now, AMD's president had resigned, I think he was tired of dealing with stupid investors. AMD, under the new leader, took the stance that they would no longer compete with Intel for the highest performance processor. Instead, they would target the larger midium performance market. Now the only reason to buy AMD is that it's cheap. I get a feeling that they are purposely delaying new product launches in order to maintain their position as the makers of second rate, er, "mid performance" processors.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
September 17, 2002 1:25:58 AM

I agree, I thought that this news would involve them doing TV adds. Sadly as usual, this was not the truth. IF they had, I am sure it'd have done something. 28M $ for web adds is NOT something to be proud of spending.

Quote:
Imagine if AMD advertised during "American Idol"

Did you also watch it? I thought I was the only Canadian here! :frown:
And yes that would helluva helped, better than the Ford adds!

--
Where did your THGC username come from and why did you choose it? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
September 17, 2002 7:59:33 PM

Hey Crashman, you're obviously an intelligent individual who's been watching the CPU biz for a while, and much of what you've said rings true. But some of the statements you've made just don't make much sense...

>>>They don't want to sell as much as possible

Surely you don't really believe that? Practically any business would like to sell as much product as possible.

>>>but instead seek to increase sales when they are significantly below capacity and reduce sales when they are reaching capacity

You're probably right about this, but I'm not sure you understand why they would do this. I doubt you've ever been involved in semiconductor fab development. Filling out a new fab is not something you do overnight - especially if you're using the latest, greatest technology. Many of the tools have a lead time (time between order placement and tool delivery) of 6 months, with some as long as 18 months. You don't just run out to Wal-Mart and buy the equipment for a new fab. And you'll need about $2,000,000,000 to buy all that equipment. The cheap tools cost $100,000. Some of the expensive ones are getting up to the $15,000,000 price range - per tool. Maybe you can start to see why a semiconductor company can't just ramp up production overnight when product starts selling. Caught in a "too successful" scenario, marketing would have no choice but to fall in line with what the business could actually deliver. So a company's "wants", and their abilities, could differ greatly.

>>>I get a feeling that they are purposely delaying new product launches in order to maintain their position as the makers of second rate, er, "mid performance" processors.

I'm hard pressed to believe that one either. I'm sure you're smart enough to realize that developing something as complex as today's top of the line CPU's is an amazingly complex and difficult task. And anything with that degree of complexity takes time and a lot of hard work.

Sorry if it seemed like I was singling you out or something, I don't mean to. Just trying to inject a bit of reality into all the supposition, and perhaps provide some food for thought.

* Not speaking for Intel Corp *
September 17, 2002 8:28:41 PM

I know what facts he's basing his oppinion on, and I agree with him somewhat.

AMD I don't think is aiming to be second fiddle, but they are no longer burning to be the best and are happy just being second fiddle.

On top of that, they're betting the whole farm on Hammer, which could be a huge mistake. The mystery of x86-64 has worn off, and most people who follow this at all know there would be very little immediate benifit for the current end user. Meanwhile the P4 keeps cranking and cranking. I honestly don't think AMD expected the P4 to scale this well and this far. Meanwhile Intel is simply sitting on a superior chip, waiting for AMD to release theirs and then they can trump it again, but only slightly.

And the public, who is interested in a cheeper platform, doesn't know about AMD because they won't advertize on TV to reach the public. Apparently, because they can't fill the demand for their product if they do.

Why does this sound like AMD realy don't want to make money? If their product is that popular, usually you raise the price a bit if you only have a limited quantity. That's how you make more money, by reacting to market demand in a way that makes you money, not that simply keeps you floating.

If ignorance is bliss, then why is everyone so miserable?
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2002 8:35:25 PM

Actually, they REALLY DON'T want to sell as much as possible. You see, this is a company who has been caught with their pants down selling more processors than they could produce! In order to cut back sales to the number of processors they can produce, they either must raise prices or turn away customers. #2 is a bad business move as those customers might never come back. And they can't seem to get the timing right on #1, they have in the past oversold, then raised prices to reduce sales, then filled their orders late (at the earlier price) as sales declined, then found that they raised their prices too high and had to lower them to get sales back up...they just can't respond in time. And they loose customers when they fill orders late.

As for my other comment you've questioned, that's not pure speculation, AMD actually SAID they were voluntarily dropping out of the high end market to concentrate on the larger midpriced market way back last spring.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
September 18, 2002 4:07:56 PM

At first I saw this and thought to myself "<b>It's about f-ing time!</b>"

But then I thought to myself "But AMD <i>still</i> hasn't upped their production yet, so even if they got the attention of the general public, they <i>still</i> can't provide for a higher demand."

So my hopes died down considerably.

Then I discovered that it doesn't even involve TV commercials!

Ugh. I think a blind monkey throwing darts at a wall filled with yellow stickies full of ways to run the company could run AMD better than is currently being done. They're <i>still</i> only advertising to the own lemmings. They're <i>still</i> not even <i>trying</i> to educate the general public. (Many of which might actually appreciate a lower cost computer.) They're <i>still</i> sucking arse at producing in volme.

Nothing changed other than that AMD just wasted quite a few million. For a tenth of that they could have gotten far more customers by using TV advertising. Hell, for a tenth of that I personally could have gotten them more customers than advertising to the people who already know about AMD will accomplish.

When a company is run by complete morons, how long can we expect their product to even remain useful? :(  I mean at some point in time one of their blunders is <i>bound</i> to catch up with them. Luck only lasts so long...

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
September 18, 2002 4:23:13 PM

this is just a sign that the mighty Intel has won the battle in a way.

Money can do that and Intel has lots of it. Amd got cought up competing with a giant. Scared Intel for while but now the tables are turning. AMD's chip gets older and older to a point where the core can't do anymore. While the pentium 4 is rather new so Intel can just keep cranking the speed.


I think the next generation chips will fall down in speed but be a lot faster then the fastest pentium 4. ya know?

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
September 19, 2002 5:58:48 PM

"For a tenth of that they could have gotten far more customers by using TV advertising." - slvr_phoenix

Sir, you obviously have NO CLUE as to the costs associated with television advertising. No...I am not talking about a 15 second spot on the local PBS station... I am talking about a major netword during prime time. Lets see... 10% of 28 million is $2.8 million. That would get you maybe 10 individual 30 second spots on a major network during prime time.

Print advertising is fine, but I agree they need to focus more on daily newspapers than the tech. publications.

FrizzleFried
www.trackedaggression.com
September 19, 2002 7:22:51 PM

No they should have taken that $28mil and spent it on hiring engineers to make better chipsets/chips. Nobody is gonna care about the ad campaign. Not the computer buying public, not the AMD fanboys, not even Intel. I hope Ruiz doesnt ruin AMD like he did with Motorola. Geez what an idiot.
September 20, 2002 2:38:54 AM

Quote:
Money can do that and Intel has lots of it. Amd got cought up competing with a giant. Scared Intel for while but now the tables are turning.

yes, i think amd, their fans and their pets underestimated what intel can really do... you remind me of that wwii quote about awakening the sleeping giant. my readings brought to even more darker news for amd. not only does intel want the performance crown, they want it to be the unquestionable, undisputed, heavyweight champion of the world...

ok more realistically guys, intel's goal is to be 1 generation (1 year) ahead of their competition! and word has it they're already half way there.

intel is not only awake, i think they're determined to never make the same mistake again by letting amd come close.

<font color=green> there's more to life than increasing its speed -Ghandi</font color=green>
September 20, 2002 2:53:24 AM

<i>yes, i think amd, their fans and their pets underestimated what intel can really do... you remind me of that wwii quote about awakening the sleeping giant. my readings brought to even more darker news for amd. not only does intel want the performance crown, they want it to be the unquestionable, undisputed, heavyweight champion of the world... </i>

Intel always has been the champion of the 32-bit world, but everyone is rapidly moving to 64-bit processors for desktop/workstations. Intel thinks that 32-bit procs are all that you will ever need. So we shall see what happens. Next year will be a pivitol year in PC computing for sure.
September 20, 2002 5:14:20 AM

I remember hearing about that. AMD said that they will only concentrate on the mid-range sector. What I don't get is why is AMD contradicting themselves? Supposedly, they are working hard on the hammer (hence the delay) so it will be able to beat a P4 with hyperthreading. But, if they are now only targeting the mid-range market, then why not just release Barton and be second best? I believe that AMD (like slvr stated) is being run by morons. They want to compete in high end with Intel, yet at the same time stating they want to only concentrate on the mid-range market. On top of that, they make new ad campaigns only once in a while, and every time the ads cater to the same lemmings and fanboys that already love AMD. I mean, AMD is wasting money and simply killing itself this way.

sonoran, AMD <b>does not</b> want to sell as much as possible, otherwise, they wouldn't be running the company like morons. And anyways, AMD wouldn't be able to supply the demand for their chips. And just to let you know, AMD has <b>never truly</b> designed thier own original CPU. The K6 was a next-gen CPU, whcih in itself was a Pentium clone. Then, AMD took the basic P3 architecture, modified it, asked Alpha for a fancy FSB, and there you have the K7. The K8 is the first core that AMD is actually making themselves. Even the K8, though is based off of the K7. Intel, lets see, made quite a few cores out of scratch. Intel also doesn't like to imitate or copy other companies. Intel follows it's own path.

Also, sonoran, you are right about the whoel fab thing. I mean, to be a good CPU maker these days, you NEED TONS of CASH, like in the billions. If AMD started making CPU's in the 70's, maybe they would've become a big company by now. But since they started late (90's) Intel was already huge. Now, as the cost of manufacturing, as well as all the tools are rising, AMD needs more money everyday to keep up with Intel. AMD, unfortunately is losing money instead of gaining it. I wouldn't be at all suprised if hammer was delayed again/cancelled. It probably won't happen, but there is a small chance. If it did, I sure wouldn't be shocked.

Slvr, your thread was spot on. If AMD continues this way, they're going to collapse onto themselves. I mean, it wasn't that hard for 3dfx to collapse, now was it? AMD MUST change their current plan of action, or else.

shallowbaby, I think AMD is well aware of what Intel can do (well aware of what Intel can do <i>normally</i>). It's just, AMD is not aware of what Intel can do if they <b>really try hard</b>. Craig Barrett did that with Intel in the 80's. Employees though that Barrett's rules and regulations were paranoid, but that "paranoia" saved Intel, because it dramatically improved yields, and it gave Intel CPU's the legendary stability and reliablity they are known for today. In the 80's, American chip makers were threatened by Japan, with it's low prices, and "paranoid" quality. Barrett saved Intel because he put "Japan-like" standards and rules to use in Intel.

Arrix, you're a fool. AMD NEEDS to be known by average joes. They don't need more engineers or more CPU's, and it about time they stop catering to the fanboys. After AMD is known, then they can start working on the quality of their chipsets. BTW, Intel wants to rid itself of 32 bit CPU's, but because there still is a high demand for them, they continue making them. In fact, 10 years ago, Intel predicted that by now everyone would be using 64 bit CPU's.

- - -
<font color=green>All good things must come to an end … so they can be replaced by better things! :wink: </font color=green>
a b à CPUs
September 20, 2002 3:29:03 PM

AMD started making CPU's a long time ago, they started out in that market making them for Intel when Intel couldn't keep up with orders. I think it was the 8080 days. I've seen the AMD logo on the following processors: 8088, 286, 386, 486, 5x86 (a 486 with a couple Pentium features I think), the K5, K6, and all the Athlons. I don't think their CPU business became competitive with Intel until the 386 days, before that it was supplemental to Intel.

TI also used to make similar CPU's.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
September 20, 2002 8:01:29 PM

Quote:
Then, AMD took the basic P3 architecture

I am afraid you really don't read too much in architecture comparisons. Either you didn't read THG's K7 vs P6 core, or some Ars, but K7 IS NOT some slapped on P6 core in any way.
The way I see it, after reading MANY articles, I can deduce MANY differences in their functionality which made the K7 so superior, not by adding components but by making them optimized and different functioning. Take the decoding, the P3 has a ROB, the K7 has an ICU. K7 has fully pipelined FPUs, IIRC all three are, and a deep Schedule buffer at the time, not to mention some hefty sized BTB.
No, from what I have gathered in the past, the K7 is NOT a slapped on P6 core.
I could agree K6, though I never got the chance to read on it too much, as I know it wasn't too performing or scalar.

Quote:
then why not just release Barton and be second best

Today AMD answered the delay question, even Barton will use SOI, and since SOI has problems being perfected, it answers the K7 and K8 delay questions.

--
Where did your THGC username come from and why did you choose it? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
September 20, 2002 8:13:36 PM

Quote:
Sir, you obviously have NO CLUE as to the costs associated with television advertising. No...I am not talking about a 15 second spot on the local PBS station... I am talking about a major netword during prime time. Lets see... 10% of 28 million is $2.8 million. That would get you maybe 10 individual 30 second spots on a major network during prime time.

Actually, I do. You just happened to completely and totally miss my entire point.]

AMD is advertising entirely to the wrong people. Their advertising campaign will accomplish only didly and squat. If even one new customer comes out of it that wouldn't have gone with AMD anyway had the advertising never taken place, I will be monumentally surprised.

Where as, had they even run 1 individual 10 second spot (if such a thing existed) at midnight, they would have probably at least reached <i>someone</i> new.

To paraphrase an appropriate quote, AMD is merely preaching to the choir. It'll be darned hard for them to 'convert' anyone with that kind of tactic. To have wasted nearly 30 mil to do so is just plain stupidity.

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
September 20, 2002 8:35:03 PM

Quote:
but K7 IS NOT some slapped on P6 core in any way

I don't entirely agree nor disagree with that statement. The K7 is definately different from a Pentium, yes. However, are those differences idealistically new? Or are those differences just logical ways to make improvements? It's a tough call really in my opinion. I don't think that the K7 design started entirely from scratch. I think, at heart, it was originally just an extremely re-worked Pentium. Either way though, it is not simply a Pentium clone any more than a K8 is a K7 clone.

Quote:

Poster: Eden
Subject: Re: $28M AMD Ad Campaign: "AMD Me"


In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, AMD took the basic P3 architecture



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am afraid you really don't read too much in architecture comparisons. Either you didn't read THG's K7 vs P6 core, or some Ars, but K7 IS NOT some slapped on P6 core in any way.
The way I see it, after reading MANY articles, I can deduce MANY differences in their functionality which made the K7 so superior, not by adding components but by making them optimized and different functioning. Take the decoding, the P3 has a ROB, the K7 has an ICU. K7 has fully pipelined FPUs, IIRC all three are, and a deep Schedule buffer at the time, not to mention some hefty sized BTB.
No, from what I have gathered in the past, the K7 is NOT a slapped on P6 core.
I could agree K6, though I never got the chance to read on it too much, as I know it wasn't too performing or scalar.



In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

then why not just release Barton and be second best



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today AMD answered the delay question, even Barton will use SOI, and since SOI has problems being perfected, it answers the K7 and K8 delay questions.

Maybe AMD <i>could</i> have benefitted more from putting their advertising money into engineers and R&D than into advertising. Heh heh.

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
September 20, 2002 9:00:23 PM

This is really sad. I thought that maybe I'd have to buy an AMD processor to avoid Palladium for a while, I really don't need us gov't or movies/music industry not allowing me to use, listen, copy, the stuff I BOUGHT. Intel is Oh so happy to please microsoft and Hollywood, MusicBiz, that I have a hard time wanting to buy their next-gen chip (I havent got a P4 'cause I still ain't got no money to build it myself, and I already asked for a PC when I graduated and entered the University a year ago) 'cause all the TCPA and DRM will be hardwired to their hardware. I think I saw AMD saying something that the Opterom- whaterver will also support Palladium, but I was hoping to buy their top of the line before Palladium enabled. But if they go AWOL, there'll be no support, and I'll HAVE to buy DRM :( 
I guess I'll just have to become an Digital Hermit and find my way through some other OS that lets me do what I want, and no "I'm sorry Licho, I can't do that..." from the CPU, OS, etc....
maybe I'm not making much sense, but heck, I'm not american and the news about the DMCA and the Palladium-DRM-FritzChip-Congress-Civil Rights-Lobbyst-Music-MPAA-RIAA-MP3 isn't excactly a rosy picture and just make me think of a bleak future
Reminds me of Dogbert, as a consultant, whose ultimate plan was that consumers send money to the company each time they saw an Ad.
September 20, 2002 11:49:33 PM

Indeed, but AMD simply made clones/duplicates of Intel CPU's up until the mid 90's. Also, even in the K6 days, AMD did not provide "much" competion to Intel, since the K6 CPU's had several problems (I won't bother pointing out the obvious). It wasn't really until the K7 that AMD provided some heavy competition to Intel.

Quote:
<i>Written by Eden</i>
I am afraid you really don't read too much in architecture comparisons. Either you didn't read THG's K7 vs P6 core, or some Ars, but K7 IS NOT some slapped on P6 core in any way.
The way I see it, after reading MANY articles, I can deduce MANY differences in their functionality which made the K7 so superior, not by adding components but by making them optimized and different functioning. Take the decoding, the P3 has a ROB, the K7 has an ICU. K7 has fully pipelined FPUs, IIRC all three are, and a deep Schedule buffer at the time, not to mention some hefty sized BTB.
No, from what I have gathered in the past, the K7 is NOT a slapped on P6 core.
I could agree K6, though I never got the chance to read on it too much, as I know it wasn't too performing or scalar.

*Sigh*. I understand it now. It seems I must FULLY explain everything I post, or else there will be some confusion (I'm not making fun of you in any way, just rambling). I guess you can never have too much explanations.

Ok, here goes. First of all, I said that AMD took that <b>basic</b> P3 architecture. Note I'm emphasizing basic. I admit that I worded it wrong. Here's a full explanation: AMD engineers took the basic ideas and principles of the P3 (Katmai) and tried to improve on them in every way. Also, AMD engineers looked at all the performance problems that Katmai had, and tried to improve on all of them too. AMD also concentrated on obliterating the P3 performance-wise with a killer FPU (since FP was one of K6's weak points). Another thing AMD did was add a gigantic 128KB L1 cache (64 + 64). They made the L2 on-die, and they fully pipelined all their execution units. Also, AMD made sure they had a killer FSB, so they asked Alpha for it's EV6. Now, hopefully, you understand what I meant. Katmai had a large influence on the development of the K7. In very general terms, it (K7) was based off the P3 core. Trust me, the K7 WAS NOT made out of scratch. AMD engineers did what they do best: they took the principles and ideas of Intel, and tried to improve on them. Thankfully, for the K8, AMD engineers did not use any of Intel's principles or ideas. But of course, AMD just HAD to use SSE2, and get a license from Intel.

Quote:
<i>Written by Eden</i>
Today AMD answered the delay question, even Barton will use SOI, and since SOI has problems being perfected, it answers the K7 and K8 delay questions.

That still doesn't answer the fact that AMD is contradicting itself.



- - -
<font color=green>All good things must come to an end … so they can be replaced by better things! :wink: </font color=green>
a b à CPUs
September 20, 2002 11:54:28 PM

K6 was a great CPU, when used on an Intel chipet.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
September 21, 2002 1:40:25 AM

The K7 core actually originated from Next Gen. But you're right, AMD saw how their 3dNow! was failing against the powerful pipelined FPU on the P2/P3 and they wanted a design with a strong FPU. Next Gen's processor design with its impressive 3-way FPU was just what they were looking for. They packaged it in a socket 7, did a few tweaks, and sold it. It's been quite successful wouldn't you say?

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
September 21, 2002 1:44:03 AM

Are you saying K7 already was done before, but AMD just tweaked a bit?

It wouldn't make sense though since Socket 7 was not a K7 socket.

--
Where did your THGC username come from and why did you choose it? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
September 21, 2002 1:52:16 AM

Like Slvr said which I agree, it is neither a fully different architecture, or a slapped on one.

Yes you did make it sound like AMD copied it down, and I did make sure the BASIC word was emphacized when I wrote my reply. My point was that K7 is a much different CPU in terms of its components to P6, but that does not make it a new age core. The P4 is most definitly, but if AMD wants to ever make a new core, they MUST look at the P7 and get some ideas. That's as far as basic goes, with me, because any company has to find some inspiration IMO. The P4's superscalar pipeline is an example of where AMD can start! So yes they have to base some ideas off the next generation core from the competitor, but not copy it. K7 is what they came up with, it is a P6 generation core, 10 stage as well, decodes nearly the same amount of IPC but often more, however it is a much needed advancement at the time.

Quote:
But of course, AMD just HAD to use SSE2, and get a license from Intel.

You act like you're whining in that sentence. Of course they had to, if everyone is optimizing for SSE2, what is AMD gonna do, create 3d NOW! with some instructions not related to anything SSE 2? No, AMD HAS to get a license. Heck if VIA ever wanted to make their CPUs take advantage of these apps, they will NEED to get a license!
Did ATI steal the Vertex and Pixel Shader idea from nVidia? No, they took a license, since nVidia is technically the original creator or that DX8 technology.

--
Where did your THGC username come from and why did you choose it? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2002 3:30:04 AM

What choo talking about Willis?

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
September 21, 2002 3:13:59 PM

Exactly. Using a chipset that was meant for the K6; you had a lot of problems. But if you put it in an Intel chipset, it worked fine. Also, the K6 as you know had compatibility problems with certain games software, and some hardware. USing an Intel chipset sovled alot of problems, but it couldn't solve the software compatibility problems.

imgod2u, that actually makes sense, now that I think about it. When AMD bought Next Gen, the K7 was already into development, so it makes sense that it was orginally from Next Gen.

Quote:
<i>Written by Eden</i>
You act like you're whining in that sentence. Of course they had to, if everyone is optimizing for SSE2, what is AMD gonna do, create 3d NOW! with some instructions not related to anything SSE 2? No, AMD HAS to get a license. Heck if VIA ever wanted to make their CPUs take advantage of these apps, they will NEED to get a license!
Did ATI steal the Vertex and Pixel Shader idea from nVidia? No, they took a license, since nVidia is technically the original creator or that DX8 technology.

That's my point. AMD really han't done anything innovative which has changed the industry. If AMD actually made their own multimedia extensions, then maybe they wouldn't have to license Intel's extensions. But alas, I doubt that AMD would do that, or if they ever will do it.


- - -
<font color=green>All good things must come to an end … so they can be replaced by better things! :wink: </font color=green>
September 21, 2002 4:54:50 PM

Um hello, 3dNOW!?

It wasn't succesful, that's why they need to use what the industry follows, Intel.
Most likely however, this time x86-64 will be licensed by AMD, so Intel this time will need to get one, if MS pushes it.

Also, technically what you're saying is, that ATi also didn't bring much innovation that changed the industry, but Nvidia did?


--
Where did your THGC username come from and why did you choose it? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2002 5:20:02 PM

You can't blame AMD if VIA made trashy chipsets. ALi chipsets had fewer problems but lacked performance, and SiS was using some kind of crappy onboard video that had all kinds of problems. Can't blame AMD that the TX couldn't support 100MHz FSB or that the third party makers made shitty chipsets.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
September 21, 2002 8:38:45 PM

Yes I know, for Itanium IA64, but I meant x86-64 Windows which is still controversy up until today. There was a period in June IIRC where the court had Jerry Sanders discussing more with MS, but there's yet any other news. It is still a rumor. My bet is that Hammer is delayed in order for MS to completly finalize XP x86-64, to correlate the launch between the two 64-bit supporting products so no one complains or sues!

--
Where did your THGC username come from and why did you choose it? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
September 21, 2002 11:23:29 PM

Yes, the K7 core was originally from Next Gen, along with the K6 for that matter. AMD did add their own 3dNow! extensions to it and for quite some time it was a very superior FP method. Unfortunately, the industry doesn't follow AMD, they follow Intel.
Just to mention, the K7 may have similar specs to the P6 core but it is, in detail, nothing like it. It has a 10 stage integer pipeline compared to 12 on the P6 core. It has a 3-way, fully pipelined FPU compared to 2, one fully pipelined and one partially pipelined on the P6 core. The result is about similar due to the inabilities of the x86 ISA to properly feed the execution pipelines of the K7. But in specs, it is much superior to the P6 design.
Also, I would like to mention that AMD and Intel do have a cross-liscense agreement in terms of x86 extensions. Any extension one makes, the other may use freely. So in short, Intel already has a liscense for x86-64 and AMD already has a liscense to whatever SSE extensions Intel has or will ever come out with. IA-64 is another matter I think.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
!