Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hammer on desktop in Q4 2003??

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 20, 2002 4:27:22 PM

<A HREF="http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePubli..." target="_new">Read the second paragraph carefully.</A> Is it just me or is Heye saying that Hammer will be perhaps OEM or mobile only in Q2 2003 and won't be available for retail until Q4 2003?? Makes sense if AMD wants to focus on Barton for the mainstream and they only have enough fab space to make either Barton or Hammer in mainstream volumes.

Or does he mean Opteron? I'm confused now...

Ritesh

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ritesh_laud on 09/20/02 11:28 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : hammer desktop 2003

September 20, 2002 5:31:10 PM

Who cares? Look at the price?!?!?! HAHAHA, a thousand bucks for the almighty orgasmic Hammer? What AMD cheapass is gonna shell out that kinda chedda for one of these "miracle" chips?
September 20, 2002 5:55:51 PM

I think it was fairly clear Hammer is going to be in the 1000$+ PC market only. until Q4.
that is - the whloe PC for 1000$+.

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
Related resources
September 20, 2002 6:08:28 PM

Hmm, I dunno it don't look that clear to me. And if it is gonna be a $1000 system then the rest of the machine is gonna suck. It can't have any high end components in it such as a nice graphics card and what-not. I mean what for a good card about $200-$300, let's say a mobo for this new beast will be around $150 (conservative price), HD $100, RAM $100, case and fan power supply $75, CD-ROM $50, monitor $200. And whadda ya wanna say the chip is considering the last price I heard for the unavaible 2600+ was around $300, so let's say at least $300 for the Hammer, printer $75. I dunno, keyboard and whatever and you're already at over $1000.
And these prices I'm just pullin out of my ass, but I know they are very conservative. How can they pair this "awesome" chip with crap components? I'm sorry but a decent Hammer system is gonna cost a lot more thatn $1000.
September 20, 2002 6:22:11 PM

I think they mean Processor, Cheep Video, Ram, HD, CDROM, floppy and Case for 999. Certainly a high end systems are going to be 1500+. Monitors and printers not included.

Complicated proofs are proofs of confusion.
September 20, 2002 6:32:34 PM

Okay, this is the scoop. AMD plans on getting the Hammer CPU to the mainstream desktop systems by the end of 2003. That means computers that aren't bleeding edge and cost $3000. What that means, then, is the Hammer should be around $400 per proc when first introduced. Much like the P4, which didn't hit mainstream until 9 months after it's launch (according to a price chart for the last 4 years, the P4 didn't reach the sub-$150 per proc price until Aug. 26th, 2001, and that's without the 128MB of RDRAM Intel offered with their procs for a while), the Hammer will be the same way (or, perhaps, this is a reference to a Duron-class Hammer). New technologies require a good amount of production time before they are cheap enough to produce for the sub-$1000 desktop system market. Hence the reason for the Barton. AMD has stated that they are no longer interested in the high-end, low-return market, and therefore are focusing on the mid-range, or mainstream. The Barton will fill that niche until the Hammer's production is ramped well enough to have procs that cost $150 or so, instead of the monumental $400-600 range. That's all it means. UMC will be the producer of Barton, though it looks like that won't be outsourced to them until Q2 2003 or so, instead of the planned Q4 2002. Then AMD will be able to devote all fab space to the Hammer and Opteron, becoming, over time, the bread and butter of AMDs processor lineup.

-SammyBoy
September 20, 2002 6:34:08 PM

I have to admit, that article is just plain scary if the details are in any way acurate. Their use of K8, to me, indicates both Claw as much as Sledge since they're both K8 cores.

So, according to the article, AMD will paper launch the Sledge/ClawHammer in early '03.

Then sometime around summer or fall, you'll <i>finally</i> be able to purchase (for about the same price as an Itanium I would imagine) a K8 server, which frankly, would only even make sense if it were a <b>Sledge</b>Hammer.

And then, just in time for the Xmas shopping season, AMD will <b>finally</b> release a ClawHammer for desktop users. And even then, a whole year from now, when the ClawHammer actually becomes available, it'll be for a whopping grand a pop just for the CPU!

And meanwhile, AMD will be shoving Barton down everyone's throats during all of '03 just to shut up every anyone who whines about not having their ClawHammer, as if Barton were any feasable substitution.

If this article is in any way correct, this means not only has AMD delayed ClawHammer, but it means that AMD has completely reversed their roadmap. They'll be launching an Uber-High-Price-SledgeHammer first, and a still way too high ClawHammer much later. And they'll be depending heavily upon Barton because they have nothing else for SOHO use.

I think if this is how things go, AMD is sooooooo screwed that it isn't even funny. Almost no SOHO user is going to spend a <b>grand just for a CPU</b>, so it'll be more like the second half of '04 (TWO YEARS FROM NOW) before putting them into desktop PCs is even considered by any major OEM. Sure, they might hit workstations and servers, but hell if they'll be in a desktop at <i>that</i> price.

And honestly, who will even <i>want</i> one then? That'll be two years from now. Intel will have had a field day releasing new P4 after new P4. (Maybe even be up to P5 by then!) Performance won't even compare.

And Barton surely isn't going to remain competetive against a P4 at the top end. I mean yeah, the Athlon core is good, but AMD isn't pressing the core's expansion nearly enough to be anything more than an inexpensive mid-range substitute for a P4. I don't think that AMD even could if they wanted to. They seem to have about as much skill ramping their K7s lately as they do advertising.

So AMD is going to continue playing the role of a second-rate 'value' segment provider for yet another year straight, if not another <i>two</i> years? Their only hope for a decent revinue from their CPU department would be in the server market if they did that, and it's highly unlikely that they'd actually do any better there anyway.

Either DigiTimes has <b>really</b> got their info wrong, or AMD really must be run by monkeys throwing darts at a wall. It's ludicrous! It's SOHO market suicide! It's slap your few remaining fans in the face until they bleed madness! The whole article is nonsense. The only question remaining is: Is it AMD's nonsense or DigiTime's nonsense?

<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 6:37:21 PM

Actually from the wording it really sounds like the CPU is slated for $999USD. But thats my take on it.

-Jeremy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
September 20, 2002 6:42:39 PM

Quote:
that is - the whloe PC for 1000$+.

I think you folks are taking an incredibly glib interpretation of what DigiTimes wrote.
Quote:
<font color=red>AMD is also planning to introduce the 64-bit K8 <b>processors</b> into the mainstream desktop market, where prices are set at US$999</font color=red>

Complete systems are not mentioned or even hinted at. Granted, I sincerely hope that this is a royal f-up on DigiTime's part and they merely worded that really badly. However, taken at face value, they are <i>clearly</i> talking about processors, not complete systems.

And frankly, if it takes AMD a <b>year</b> to release ClawHammers, then chances are, it's taking AMD an awful lot of effort and/or money (same thing in the end) to produce them. On top of that, if they turn around and make their K8's out to be major <b>server</b> chips, not desktop chips, then they're going to put server prices on them, not desktop prices.

<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 6:47:15 PM

No. The article refers to mainstream sub 1000 computers. That seems to be the pricepoint consumers are comortable with and that is what AMD is aiming for. Sub $1000 computers by end of next year. NOT $1000 CPUs

As for Sledge, I wouldn't be surprised if the higher end sledge chips indeed retailed for around a grand just for the chip.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
September 20, 2002 6:52:32 PM

Quote:
AMD is also planning to introduce the 64-bit K8 processors into the mainstream desktop market, where prices are set at US$999

I dunno... to me, the "where the prices are set at US$999" seems to refer to the subject preceeding the comma, which is "mainstream desktop market." Also, every use of mainstream in computers (or most other markets) means mid-range, what most people would buy (think Duron, Celeron, and the low-side of the P4 and Athlon lineup). To have a processor in the mid-range requires the processor to only be a small part of the overall price, not 75% of it. Therefore, I think the DigiTimes article is referring to overall price of the system, and referring to AMDs intent to get into that market around 9 months after the release/paper launch of the Clawhammer. Anything else would be contradictory to their roadmap, and cause yet another investor lawsuit against them. The Barton will be the mainstream chip until that point, and after that, will probably be used as a Duron replacement.

-SammyBoy
September 20, 2002 7:27:38 PM

SammyBoy, I would love to be able to agree with you. However, the wording of the article itself just doesn't even imply nice thoughts.

Quote:
The Barton will be the mainstream chip until that point, and after that, will probably be used as a Duron replacement.

AMD has been indicating on roadmaps for ages that Barton was meant to be the new 'Duron' because ClawHammer was meant to become the new standard for desktop use. Yet clearly, if it will take AMD another year just to make ClawHammer mainstream, and if they will be pushing Barton for SOHO use for a whole year without any ClawHammer, then it seems appearant to me that AMD has drastically changed their tune.

Quote:
to me, the "where the prices are set at US$999" seems to refer to the subject preceeding the comma, which is "mainstream desktop market."

I agree with you on the structure. I too think that it refers to "mainstream desktop market". <i>However</i>, it clearly does not specify if they mean the PC market, or the processor market. Mainsteam desktop market can just as easily refer to the market of the chips themselves as it can the whole box. And since the author clearly preluded with the specific mention of processor, it leaves the only clear conclusion to draw that the mainstream desktop processor market was the specification, not the mainstream desktop PC market.

Quote:
Also, every use of mainstream in computers (or most other markets) means mid-range, what most people would buy (think Duron, Celeron, and the low-side of the P4 and Athlon lineup). To have a processor in the mid-range requires the processor to only be a small part of the overall price, not 75% of it. Therefore, I think the DigiTimes article is referring to overall price of the system

Which is a good argument and would be my preferred interpretation had the wording been in any way different. However, mainstream computers does not always mean 'budget PCs'. Mainstream is also a term commonly used in reference to SOHO products in comparison to Workstation or Server products. Since AMD has said time and again that ClawHammer is aimed at SOHO use and SledgeHammer isn't, to me this is merely backing that up further. It is not however stating that complete ClawHammer systems will be priced at $1000.

Again, I would love to believe that DigiTimes merely wrote a truely pathetic article with absolutely horrid wording, and that in fact, AMD is not making what could very well be the biggest succession of mistakes since their inception. However, until any proof contrary comes along, it is unfortunately all too believable with the way in which AMD has been acting lately. It is sad, but believable.

<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 7:43:52 PM

Quote:
As for Sledge, I wouldn't be surprised if the higher end sledge chips indeed retailed for around a grand just for the chip.

Last I'd read, the actual differences between Claw and Sledge were rather small. The real differences seemed to be not so much in the CPU itself, but in the platforms the CPUs are used on. (In fact, two-way Claws were meant to be named 'Opteron' just as four or eight way Sledges were.) So why would AMD offer Sledge prices comparable to Itaniums and Claw prices at a quarter of that or less? Either they would be severely overcharging for the Sledge, or severely in the red on the Claws.

Such a dramatic price difference between two very similar CPUs that probably even cost the exact same to produce would be absurd. It would be like Intel either offering a 'budget' Itanium for $400, or a Xeon for $1000 - $3000.

<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 8:11:49 PM

Well, I'd just like to add that when you go to Best Buy and ask to see the mainstream computers, you will probably be shown to the $1000-1500 machines. The term "mainstream desktop system" clearly screams to me that it's referring to a complete system, not just a CPU. DigiTimes is a upper-echelon IT news source on the web, and as such, would clearly make a distinction between processor and system. So, based on that, I am inclined to believe that they meant system when they said system, not CPU. I suppose the best course of action here would be to either ask AMD about the article at DigiTimes, or to contact DigiTimes themself about it.

Also, the AMD roadmap, in its current form, shows a .09 micron Claw being released in 2003H2, which would lower the production costs of the Hammer, and make it more accessible to the masses.

These are my opinions, and nothing more.

-SammyBoy
September 20, 2002 8:24:58 PM

With 0.13m having problems, with itself and SOI with it, I would be very very surprised the 0.09m conversion is done by 2H and has processors coming out. The conversion takes time, and if anything they should start by now, though they already are trying to fix SOI on 0.13m. Of course I am not a semiconductor expert so I could be wrong on how it works and the timelines.

--
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 8:27:22 PM

Quote:
Last I'd read, the actual differences between Claw and Sledge were rather small. The real differences seemed to be not so much in the CPU itself, but in the platforms the CPUs are used on. (In fact, two-way Claws were meant to be named 'Opteron' just as four or eight way Sledges were.) So why would AMD offer Sledge prices comparable to Itaniums and Claw prices at a quarter of that or less? Either they would be severely overcharging for the Sledge, or severely in the red on the Claws.

Well, keep in mind that the Pentium 4 Xeon isn't much more than a Socket 423 P4 with an extra packaging layer (with cache coherency logic and 603 pins). Not a lot of difference there, yet Intel gouged Xeon customers badly based on those differences until AMD released the AthlonMP platform. Intel <i>still</i> gouges customers for the 4-way and higher Xeons.

AMD might very well do the same if they can. Besides which, having a second DDR channel, a few more HyperTransport transceivers, and larger cache is no small feat of extra engineering.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
September 20, 2002 9:00:47 PM

Quote:
AMD plans on getting the Hammer CPU to the mainstream desktop systems by the end of 2003. That means computers that aren't bleeding edge and cost $3000.

Ok I was taking "mainstream" to mean widespread availability. Your interpretation of Digitimes's rather poor paraphrasing of Heye's words makes sense, mainly because it would be near suicide to AMD's share price for Heye to announce that Claws would be released in Q2 but not be in widespread availability until Q4. I think "mid-range" would have been better word choice than "mainstream", though.

Ritesh
September 20, 2002 9:27:35 PM

Uhm.. Claw and Sledge are not all that similar and Sledge will likely cost double what Claw costs to produce. Take a look at a few of the differences...

3 ht channels compared to 1
Up to 1 meg cache
100 million transistors compared to 40-60 million.

Now Please tell me how much alike these two CPUs are again.

Heck, validation alone is likely double the validation for Claw.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
September 21, 2002 12:32:23 AM

I'm not quite sure about AMD's tru plans, but it sounds to me like Sledge is gonna be a replacement for the MP and Claw is gonna be a replacement for XP, where as Barton will be released first, and should start with speeds that are comprable to the XP's, will eventualy take over for the Duron proccessors. The way I figure it the CLAW proccessors aught to be priced, upon first release, starting at the 2600+ price. With SLEDGE prices starting, also upon first release, with prices comprable to the top of the line MP, which I think is MP2200+ at a price of around 300 per CPU. From the selection of boards that I have seen, if you are planning to upgrade your system to one of the new chips, and your looking for a new motherboard now, check out ABIT's AT7-Max2. The possibility for overclocking is plain and simply NUTZ. FSB over clocked to 205, with a multiplier of 22.5. To add to that the Vcore can be uped to 2.325V!!! With SATA and the rest of it, weve got some realy fast systems comming our way. I'm not sure if I am accurate or not but I believe AMD announced that it swill be soon for the release of the new 166 FSB Athlons which could possibly be the begining for barton. Just a thought.
September 21, 2002 1:43:28 AM

Oh come on dude, think about it. Of course it means $999 for the whole system, not the CPU. I mean, if it were CPU, what speed CPU would it be for $999? Is AMD going to only release the Hammer at one speed? NO.

The article is saying that Q1 2003 the paper launch will happen where there will be reviews and benchmarks put out. A quarter later is when they will be readily available, refering probably to both clawhammer and sledgehammer. And they are hoping that 9 months later is when clawhammer's will be readily found in the lineups of mainstream desktop PC makers. Not too hard to understand...

"Trying is the first step towards failure."
September 21, 2002 2:22:26 AM

Part of the whole design and release process is payoff of the R&D on new CPU designs. This is why, when P4 first came out it was much more expensive than it is now. Production was ramping but demand was greater than supply. The same will likely hold for Claw AND Sledge. Initial demand will be greater than supply so the CPUs will carry a price premium. $200-$500 range for Claws in their various initial speeds and configurations and $500-$1000 for Sledge.

With Itanium costing around $3000 just for the CPU I think Sledge is a bargain compared to it.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
September 21, 2002 2:33:17 AM

I agree, 200-500$ will be a very nice Claw price. Even though 500$ is not AMD's usual treat, I do think many could easily buy it, IF its performance warrants it.

It is still unknown to now how Overclocking will be, so we could get more value for the buck.

--
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 2:57:05 AM

If they are at all overclockable. Because they don't have a FSB, how are the Hammer's CPU clock frequency determined? Is it just hardwired into each individual chip? Most likely AMD will lock them all as well, so they might not be able to be oveclocked...

"Trying is the first step towards failure."
September 21, 2002 5:47:48 AM

This just in, all of the following is located and quoted from: http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePubli...

"The postponed launch of the K8-core processors is indeed due to problems in the back-end verification of SOI technology and minor changes in processor design, Richard Heye, vice president of platform engineering and infrastructure at Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), confirmed on September 20 during a visit to the company’s partners in Taiwan.

However, he indicated that the new 64-bit K8 processors would definitely be launched in the first quarter of 2003 and volume shipments would be available in the second quarter of next year. Heye added that AMD is also planning to introduce the 64-bit K8 processors into the mainstream desktop market, where prices are set at US$999 on average, by the end of 2003.

The Barton-core processors, which will also adopt the SOI manufacturing technology, will hit the market in the first quarter of 2003 as well, Heye said.

As for the company’s other production plans, Heye said that AMD has decided to outsource production its 0.13-process K7 products to United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC), the world’s second-largest foundry, in 2003, not by the end of this year as the market previously expected."

By $999 I am pretty sure there talking the whole computer.
September 21, 2002 4:58:44 PM

Why did you make it sound as if there was new news, while this is what we just read before?
You could've simply stated your theory, that's all.

--
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 11:27:53 PM

Umm, someone mentioned that when a new CPU was released, it was to pay for the R&D? The 1 GHz P3 was released at $1200. The 1.5 GHz P4 cost $800. The P3 was an old design and the only "R&D" required was testing and optimizing of trace paths. Hardly the amount of R&D required for the P4 design. Yet it was more expensive. Explain that.
Want me to do it? All new CPU's carry a premium because Intel can afford to sell it at that and people would still buy it. That's it. That's how they make money (gasp! corporations do that?!). AMD has not been pulling a profit because they're not gaining enough money due to their abnormally low chip prices. If you'll notice, the lowest priced P4 is still $120.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
September 22, 2002 12:27:43 AM

Eden, you are right. Sorry about that. It was late, I out of it. All that I realy wanted to say is that it sounds to me like AMD is going to be competing with Intel On all fronts. SLEDGE taking on Intels XEON processor line, CLAW taking on Intels Upcomming Consumer market chips (Realy, Bitchin'ly fast P4s or even P5s) and Barton taking on Intel's current P4s, and eventualy when the HAMMERs hit, take over for the Duron. While the Opteron takes the final Itaniums. Sounds about right to me.
September 22, 2002 3:56:43 AM

Actually the first P4s DID NOT sell well at all.(remember how Intel even had to include RDRAM chips while still adding a higher price for those too?) I doubt even Dell sold much. I remember in Canadian pricing, the 1.7GHZ setup was 3999$ CDN, today they cost nearly 2000$ for the whole.

Today's view on high prices is radically different, and raising prices is no longer as efficient as before, as consummers get more conscious about pricing.

--
What made you choose your THG Community username/nickname? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
September 22, 2002 5:12:37 AM

The prices for RDRAM were pretty high but Intel included it in order to cut down on the price of RDRAM, not the P4. Dell and most other systems got a huge discount on both processor and ram so they still included it in many systems. Back then, we were in the middle of a tech boom so the P4's did sell pretty well relative to other "bad" releases. I.e. the Pentium Pro.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
September 22, 2002 6:33:04 AM

Quote:
However, he indicated that the new 64-bit K8 processors would definitely be launched in the first quarter of 2003 and volume shipments would be available in the second quarter of next year. Heye added that AMD is also planning to introduce the <font color=blue>64-bit K8 processors</font color=blue> into the <font color=red>mainstream desktop market</font color=red>, where <font color=red>prices are set at US$999 on average</font color=red>, by the end of 2003.

In English, as it is meant to be understood, the price refers to the average price of mainstream desktop computers.

qed

<font color=red>I'd like to dedicate this post to all my friends, family, and fans. Without them this post would never have been possible. Thank you!</font color=red>
September 22, 2002 6:14:03 PM

You honestly think a hybrid CPU like the Hammer will hold a candle to the power of a pure 64bit Itaimium? Ouch!!!

-Jeremy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
September 22, 2002 8:12:59 PM

No, I honestly DO NOT think that Hammer will hold a candle to the 64bit Itanium. I think the 64bit Opteron, listed as a totaly seperate proccessore core (from what I have seen, correct me if I am rong) will be able to compete against the 64bit Itanium. Just my speculation.

-TJ

If a CPU can be overclocked, try and overclock it. Do this always and forever, unless, of coarse, you have a POS ecs motherboard. In that case, thank god it runs.
September 22, 2002 9:27:50 PM

read the sentence.

"AMD is also planning to introduce the 64-bit K8 <b>processors</b> into the mainstream desktop market, where prices are set at US$999"

wouldn't that mean the cpu (aka processor) is a 1000 bucks?

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by xxsk8er101xx on 09/22/02 05:28 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 23, 2002 2:53:29 AM

This is English people! Deal with it. If you are not sure what this article is talking about, bring it to your local university and have someone from the English faculty explain it to you.

I know that sounds harsh, but I think a lot of people are trying to make this article mean something that suits thier agenda or personal hopes and desires. It's a new type of trolling apparently....

<font color=red>I'd like to dedicate this post to all my friends, family, and fans. Without them this post would never have been possible. Thank you!</font color=red>
September 23, 2002 3:10:32 AM

a comment you could add to your sig maybe? :wink:

<b><font color=blue>I prefer to blend into the background, because it's much easier to sneak up on people and disembowel them that way. Arr!</b></font color=blue>
September 23, 2002 4:06:44 AM

Okay, I finally decided to read the article after the hilarious English comment. It appears it has been updated, check it out again. It now reads clearly, "AMD is also planning to introduce the 64-bit K8 processors into the mainstream desktop market, where <i>systems</i> cost about US$1,000 on average"

The original article must have caused confusion for others as well, because it is worded differently than what old posts are stating. Even before the apparent edit (even though it doesn't mention an edit) it was still plain and simple indeed that they implied the desktop computer market, not only the chip.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by nja469 on 09/23/02 00:15 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 23, 2002 6:47:10 PM

Quote:
This is English people! Deal with it. If you are not sure what this article is talking about, bring it to your local university and have someone from the English faculty explain it to you.

dhlucke, in case you aren't familiar with the English language, here is the most appropriate definition of market: <i>A store or shop that sells a particular type of merchandise</i>.

If you paid attention, you would see that market does <i>not</i> specify any particular object of sale. Said specification is only clarified through definition of the type of market.

In this case, the quote "<font color=blue>64-bit K8 processors into the mainstream desktop market, where prices are set at US$999 on average</font color=blue>" defines one and <i>only</i> one possible specification for the type of market, which is <b>processors</b>.

Further, appearantly even DigiTimes doesn't agree with your lack of a grasp on the English language or else they would not have changed the wording in their article to "<font color=green>64-bit K8 processors into the mainstream desktop market, where <b>systems</b> cost about US$1,000 on average</font color=green>." They now clearly specify the "systems" market because their prior wording was misleading from their intent.

Quote:
I know that sounds harsh, but I think a lot of people are trying to make this article mean something that suits thier agenda or personal hopes and desires. It's a new type of trolling apparently....

Appearantly insulting people's skill in English (even though those skills are obviously better than yours) is a new type of trolling if your posts are any indication.

However, if you were not looking towards everyone else with your own trollish nature, you might have actually seen that people were <b>not</b> trolling in the first place. Most were honestly disappointed with AMD if the article was to be accurate. Some, like me, were even hoping that the article was merely written poorly. Obviously, the article <i>was</i> written poorly.

So the original article <i>was</i> indeed just written poorly. That was what I wanted to believe, however the evidence that was at hand at the time was by no means convincing of such. Now though, we all know that it was just poor English skills on the part of the author and we can all be happy that AMD isn't indeed severely overcharging.

<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 23, 2002 7:03:14 PM

Quote:
Uhm.. Claw and Sledge are not all that similar and Sledge will likely cost double what Claw costs to produce. Take a look at a few of the differences...

3 ht channels compared to 1
Up to 1 meg cache
100 million transistors compared to 40-60 million.

Now Please tell me how much alike these two CPUs are again.

Wow, are you really that much without a clue?
<font color=green>ClawHammer: Single Channel DDR mem controller</font color=green>
<font color=red>SledgeHammer: Dual Channel DDR mem controller</font color=red>
<font color=green>ClawHammer: standard-sized cache</font color=green>
<font color=red>SledgeHammer: mega-sized cache</font color=red>
<font color=green>ClawHammer: one Hyper Threading unit</font color=green>
<font color=red>SledgeHammer: multiple Hyper Threading units (I still say at <i>least</i> four should be used for an 8-way server.)</font color=green>

Everything else between them is exactly the same. Where do all of SeldgeHammer's extra transistors come from then? Mostly from cache! On top of that though, the extra channels in both the mem controller and hyperthreading will take a noticable number of more transistors as well.

In other words, the SledgeHammer is no more different from a ClawHammer than a P3 Xeon was from a P3 or a P4 Xeon is from a P4. More cache, improved inter-processor bandwidth, but at heart they are the same basic die.

And now, the rumor is that ClawHammer might even start out as dual-channel. (Which is something I already said was desperately needed for it to run 64-bit software without a significantly noticable penalty, what with integers being twice as large now and thus taking twice the bandwidth to transfer between memory and die.) So the actual differences between Claw and Sledge <i>might</i> even be smaller than I listed above.

SledgeHammer is most indeed just a K8 Xeon.

<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 23, 2002 7:31:06 PM

Quote:
dhlucke, in case you aren't familiar with the English language, here is the most appropriate definition of market: A store or shop that sells a particular type of merchandise.

If you paid attention, you would see that market does not specify any particular object of sale. Said specification is only clarified through definition of the type of market.

In this case, the quote "64-bit K8 processors into the mainstream desktop market, where prices are set at US$999 on average" defines one and only one possible specification for the type of market, which is processors.

Further, appearantly even DigiTimes doesn't agree with your lack of a grasp on the English language or else they would not have changed the wording in their article to "64-bit K8 processors into the mainstream desktop market, where systems cost about US$1,000 on average." They now clearly specify the "systems" market because their prior wording was misleading from their intent.


Slvr, I'm sorry that you feel this way.

I rest my case however in people trying to use English as a form of flaming. Nice use of dictionary.com btw. You insulted me specifically 5 times. I won't bother returning the favor.

You think there is only "one and only one possible specification for the type of market". I beg to differ. There are two. The other being mainstream desktop computers. Some chose to read what they wanted to hear.

Nonetheless, the revision is clearer so hopefully I won't have to read anymore English comprehension threads.


<font color=red>I'd like to dedicate this post to all my friends, family, and fans. Without them this post would never have been possible. Thank you!</font color=red>
September 23, 2002 7:37:23 PM

I think the real confusion is that some people thought they sold CPU's on the mainstream desktop computer market while others thought they sold mainstream desktop computers.

<font color=red>I'd like to dedicate this post to all my friends, family, and fans. Without them this post would never have been possible. Thank you!</font color=red>
September 23, 2002 8:05:21 PM

Quote:
And then, just in time for the Xmas shopping season, AMD will finally release a ClawHammer for desktop users. And even then, a whole year from now, when the ClawHammer actually becomes available, it'll be for a whopping grand a pop just for the CPU!

They said consumer system, not just CPU. That was the price of the average comsumer system.


If ignorance is bliss, then why is everyone so miserable?
September 23, 2002 8:05:21 PM

Quote:
And then, just in time for the Xmas shopping season, AMD will finally release a ClawHammer for desktop users. And even then, a whole year from now, when the ClawHammer actually becomes available, it'll be for a whopping grand a pop just for the CPU!

They said consumer system, not just CPU. That was the price of the average comsumer system.


If ignorance is bliss, then why is everyone so miserable?
September 23, 2002 8:14:16 PM

I personally beleive there are more core enhancements in Sledgehammer. It is said to have 20% more IPC than Clawhammer.
It is already known that cache is not what will push Hammers since the on-die memory controller should make less access.

However the good thing is that indeed, it's about systems, not processors, which some thought AMD would sell à la 'Intel's new core' way. I pretty much doubted AMD would shoot their ass to make people pay 1000$.

Also, after reading dh's reply, I was pretty confident, that he would rebutt with no insulting. He's still one of the few who replies to you without resorting to insults. I wish though you would try to calm down sometimes, you keep launching "You don't have a clue"-style sentences!

PS: BTW I know you probably are tired from programming, because you musta really dosed off when calling AMD's HyperTransport, HyperThreading!

--
What made you choose your THG Community username/nickname? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
September 23, 2002 9:10:14 PM

I seem to be reading a different article, because what you're quoting doesn't seem to match.

<A HREF="http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePubli..." target="_new">This</A> article says:
Quote:
However, he indicated that the new 64-bit K8 processors would definitely be launched in the first quarter of 2003 and volume shipments would be available in the second quarter of next year. Heye added that AMD is also planning to introduce the 64-bit K8 processors into the mainstream desktop market, where systems cost about US$1,000 on average, by the end of 2003.

There, typos and all. System costs of about $1000, not CPU costs.

If ignorance is bliss, then why is everyone so miserable?
September 24, 2002 11:48:46 AM

Clearly you are just wont to throw insults. However, let me state again.. Sledge certainly offers enough diffeences/enhancements to warrant a significantly higher pricetag. 4x the cache alone is a significant difference, especialy considering that cache is often the culprit when a cpu fails validation. Speaking of which, the additional validation required for Sledge, to ensure the additional memory channel and HT connections all work properly also means a signifiacantly different cost basis. A CPU with double the die size is going to cost double more likely....whether YOU think that there are or aren't many differences in it compared to it's less expensive counterpart.

Sledge will likely cost twice as much as it's closest Claw counterpart ansd rightly so.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
September 24, 2002 12:38:23 PM

Quote:
I think the real confusion is that some people thought they sold CPU's on the mainstream desktop computer market while others thought they sold mainstream desktop computers.

Exactly! The original wording of the article did <i>not</i> specify 'systems'. The <i>only</i> thing that it <i>did</i> specify was processors. Therefore the only <i>proper and literal</i> way to read it was that they meant the mainstream 'processor' market.

Now, most of us were and are more hopeful than that, and pegged it as just a likely mistake on DigiTime's part. In fact, even DigiTimes recognized their own mistake and corrected it. However, taking the original article literally, it was a message of little hope. (And frankly, even with the correction isn't much better of a message.)

Then you come along claiming people to be trolling <i>and</i> to have no English skills, when in fact all <i>literal</i> interpretation was against you and when there was <i>no</i> trolling. It was a highly over-reactive post containing not just one, but two insults to people who frankly didn't deserve it. I called you on it and yet still treated you far more respect than you treated everyone that you insulted.

dhlucke, you claim that I insulted you specifically five times? That's bull-drek, and you know it. I made observations mirroring your own claims of prejudice and inadiquacy right back at you. It's not my fault if your very own words show your inadiquacy. I didn't have to make a single insult. Your own words did all of the work. I merely showed your own lacking in the ways that you judged others. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

And if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

<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 24, 2002 12:52:27 PM

Quote:
They said consumer system, not just CPU. That was the price of the average comsumer system.

Quote:
I seem to be reading a different article, because what you're quoting doesn't seem to match.

The original wording of the article in question was notably different than the wording that they use now. The wording that DigiTimes used at first did <i>not</i> specify 'systems'. They only said 'mainstream market' and the <i>only</i> specification of market that they gave was through their previous mention of 'processors'. It was incredibly poorly-written in that respect as the only literal intepretation could be the mainstream 'processor' market.

Obviously, this caused a great deal of coonfusion because as we all hoped (and some even tried to argue) they actually meant the mainstream 'system' market. Even I agreed that hopefully that was what DigiTimes had meant, even though it was most definately <i>not</i> what they had originally said.

Without such actually being said (until after DigiTimes silently corrected their mistake) there was <b>no</b> evidence to support that what DigiTimes had meant was complete systems, not individual processors.

And then <i>someone</i> comes along and starts badmouthing everyone who took the discernable hard evidence at face value in light of <b>any</b> evidence to the contrary and claiming everyone who was actually holding out for any real evidence before they would believe otherwise to be 'trolls', as well as those people to have a poor grasp of the English language.

Now, I'll admit that there are many here who are not native English speakers and may indeed have a poor grasp of the English language. However, in this case, there was one and <i>only</i> one literal interpretation of the article and <b>any</b> good scientist works only with fact and evidence. Just like any <i>good</i> scientist will change their mind if evidence and fact that say otherwise are discovered. Appearantly though <i>someone</i> here does not believe anyone here capable of such logical endeavor and so then, to them, we must just all be trolls.

<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 24, 2002 1:08:00 PM

Quote:
Clearly you are just wont to throw insults.

Clearly you are just wont to interpret honestly-posed questions as insults because you lack the qualities necessary to answer them as anything but an indication of your own shortcoming.

You could have just as easily answered "No, I'm not that clueless." and then gone on to prove that you are not. It is not <i>my</i> fault nor problem that you see questions which leave the answers <i>up to you</i> as insults.

That aside, you indeed managed to prove that you are <i>not</i> that clueless, since your new thoughts are a vastly different portrayal than your first.

Originally you stated "Uhm.. Claw and Sledge are not all that similar and Sledge will likely cost double what Claw costs to produce." Yet they are in fact incredibly similar, with only a few tiny (but important). Further, because they are so similar, their costs to produce will be much closer than a 100% difference.

Now though, you say more logical things like "Sledge certainly offers enough diffeences/enhancements to warrant a significantly higher pricetag." I fully agree with this statement and I never once argued otherwise.

Quote:
Speaking of which, the additional validation required for Sledge, to ensure the additional memory channel and HT connections all work properly also means a signifiacantly different cost basis.

I agree. Validation however is <i>not</i> production. They are two seperate processes that both contribute to end cost and yield.

Quote:
A CPU with double the die size is going to cost double more likely....

Hardly, since most of CPU pricing is <b>not</b> a fixed markup of the cost of production.

Quote:
Sledge will likely cost twice as much as it's closest Claw counterpart ansd rightly so.

I agree. I never once stated otherwise. However, selling a Claw for $350 and a Sledge for $2000 (which is likely how it will go) is more than <b>five</b> times the cost difference, not <b>two</b>. If we go by your scale of two, and we <b>know</b> that AMD is aiming Sledge at taking the market share from Itanium, then the derivation of Claw's price would indeed be around $1000.

<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>
!