About XP ratings...

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Crashman

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
Dec 31, 2007
48,582
92
66,190
I was being TOO generous when I said the XP3200+ compared to the P4 2.8C, it actually compares better to the P4 2.6C, and even then the 2.6C wins more benchmarks, by a larger margin. In many ways it compares to the 2.53...but then it would actually WIN overall!

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
 
Indeed high end XP are truley pathetic, however the middle of the pack are decently priced. On this note what is the best bang for the buck with higher end chips, 2.8?
 
It is too bad that Anandtech put that one losey Winstone benchie in. But just be glad that for a second time in a row Intel was able to win its own benchies. What really amazed me was how well the 2.4b did. When it was first up against the xp 2200 it was the clear looser,in these self same tests. Now just by adding 33 mhz to the fsb it is compeating well against the xp2800. For sure if the fsb were 200 it would beat the xp3200.LOL.
 
If i didnt know how to turn a £50 processor into a £360 one I would surely have gone the P4 2.8C route. I wonder how AMD will rate the new 64 processor. If they give it a realistic rating, say for example a top processor they release actually matches a p4 3.2ghz and they call it a 3200, what about the current 3200???? Looks like AMD will have to either keep giving their processors stupid ratings or name them like the opteron, unless the new 64bit proc is as fast as a 3.4ghz P4, which I cant see happening but who knows till later in the year...

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=945569" target="_new"> MY RIG </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)
 
You could always go with the 2.8c and with a few mhz increase of the fsb you'd have the 3.0c. Hopefully I'll turn my $402 3.0c into a $700 3.2c.

--Xenius
-non computer guru
 
And then there are people like me that putter along just fine on a K6-III 400.

AMD is having a slight problem with market segmentation. The proper way to segment a market, with regards to cost, is to provide a premium product at a premium price and use the premium price as a forcing factor to drive customer confidence upwards towards the premium product ("if I pay more, I get more"). Conversely, the company must provide lower cost alternatives to those unable, or unwilling, to pay the premium price, such that they still make a profit whenever a customer buys a lower cost alternative (Microsoft, Kraft).

The problem with AMD is that they no longer have a premium product in regard to their chief competitor. Still, AMD must make it appear to the general public that they have a premium product that is comparable to Intel's premium product (PR ratings), but then, they throw segmentation theory out the window and sell this product for much lower cost. Admittedly, they have to charge less, because the product performs less. AMD is mired in a vicious circle. Until they have a premium product that is on par with Intel’s, performance-wise, and are willing to charge more, they will continue to dwindle towards niche status (Apple).

I would suggest to AMD to forgo desktop market dominance in favor of the more lucrative mobile and handheld market. It’s just going to get bigger.


Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
 
AMD will never relese a 3200+ Athlon 64. They will release 3100+, 3400+ but no 3200+ Athlon 64

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new"> My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new"> My Rig</A></b>
 
AMD said they didn't WANT to compete with Intel at the top end anymore! When was that, 2001 or 2002?

They said they would focus on the more lucrative midrange market. The only reason they offer a 3200+ is to fill the product line.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
 
I'd say anything from 3 model numbers to 8 model numbers below Intel's latest would be what AMD aims for. You see, Intel blamed AMD for the drop in sales, claiming the MHz and Price wars caused people to buy processors early on that they had no reason to upgrade later on. Many of AMD's investers agreed, hence the move. And the midrange sector is where AMD was already getting most of their sales from anyway.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
 
I guess technically speaking the AMD CPUs are faster clock for clock but the superior bandwidth technology behind Intel's chipsets have made this comparison pointless now.

My suggestion to AMD is yes we respect you make a great CPU but start developing a chipset to complement it instead of relying on companies like VIA and SiS who frankly don't give a F**K!
 
Clock for Clock went out the window when AMD came up with their XP model number system. For instance, when you buy an XP 3200+, you pay for 3200MHz of performance, even if all you get is 2200MHz. So you can only go by model numbers and prices any more.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
 
AMD said they didn't WANT to compete with Intel at the top end anymore!
Click to expand...

If you can get documentation on that, I'd be keenly interested in that, serioulsy. Of course, I could do it myself, but you may have a leg up on where to start looking.

I'm skeptical that AMD would say that because high end exposure trickles down and usually leads to increased to mid and low range sales. Additionally, margins are higher on the top end parts, the only thing more "lucrative" about mid-range is volume.

It is apparant to me, now, that AMD offers a 3200+ model to protect and/or maintain public perception. I do not like the fact that the PR numbers are not realistic, but I do understand the need to do so. Value is completely derived from the benefit of owning an item-- it does not matter whether the benefit is real or imaginary. Thus, AMD markets a 3200+ processor to maintain market share, which is more important than margin, in the long run. Just ask Apple.

If it was ealier in the day, I owuld be more coherent.

Regards,

Dave

Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
 
I follow the business stories on msnbc.com. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to find anything in their archives. I'd appreciate it if you would take a stab at it, because I had someone else request proof recently as well.

It seems like well known facts are well forgotten by people who love a certain company!

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
 
Oh, you might do well to find the story where Intel blamed AMD for the recession first (actually they might have just blamed them for weak CPU sales, but one thing leads to another).

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
 
AMD said they didn't WANT to compete with Intel at the top end anymore! When was that, 2001 or 2002?

They said they would focus on the more lucrative midrange market. The only reason they offer a 3200+ is to fill the product line.
Click to expand...

We ask for documentation because that statement is not logical.

After reading articles like <A HREF="http://www.redherring.com/mag/issue60/intel.html" target="_new">this one</A>, <A HREF="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983901.html" target="_new">this one</A>, and <A HREF="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983542.html?tag=nl" target="_new">this one</A>, it is apparant that AMD always intended on competing with Intel at all price points, especially the high end. Really, if that were true (not wanting to compete) why would they be spending the R&D dollars on Opteron (which, they would have been when they made such a statement)

And <A HREF="http://hardware.earthweb.com/chips/print.php/1585171" target="_new">this</A>, too.

Dave

Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
 
Oh, you might do well to find the story where Intel blamed AMD for the recession first (actually they might have just blamed them for weak CPU sales, but one thing leads to another).
Click to expand...
That makes no sense eitther.

Regards,

Dave


Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
 
Do you have any idea how hard it is to find old news? I get my news mainly from MSNBC.com, and their archives are a nightmare!

You might search these forums for the date I first made these statements, which would likely have links to the original articles, which then might be cross-referenced with the archives.

At any rate <A HREF="http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2001/10/15/daily42.html" target="_new">Here's a link</A> which contains part of the information that was involved with these decisions. Here is a rundown of what happened, all from news history which I have commited to memory:

1.) AMD and Intel announce sluggish sales
2.) Intel blames AMD for sluggish sales, claiming price wars and MHz race have flooded the market.
3.) AMD drops out of MHz race
4.) AMD promises to raise average profit per unit by focusing on midrange market.

Now, none of those might sound exactly like what I said, but a summary of those stories is that Intle blames AMD for weak sales, AMD changes sales strategy to focus on midrange market.

I've found an easy to navigate news site, I'll try to bring you more links, but...I have several thousand headlines to look through.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
 
Don't you mean AMD blames Intel for weak sales?

Still, it doesn't make sense for any company to say, "we're not intending to compete." Obviously, they intended to compete. I do recall that AMD's agreement with UMC put the kibosh on AMD's roadmap circa 4Q 2002. Also do not forget that 4Q 2001 was Worldcom, Enron, Tyco and whatnot. Lots of stinky, smelly fans then.

Dave

Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
 
When AMD dropped from the MHz race and stated that they were going to focus on the midrange, they gave some details. One of them was that they were focussing on the more lucrative midrange market. This means they are turning focus away from the high end and budget markets.

I never said they weren't competing, I said they were no longer trying to compete at the top. They've focused on a different market. They are trying to outclass Celerons at Celeron prices. Their PR rating, which is supposed to be based on the T-Bird core, is actually scaled toward the P4. What they are trying to accomplish here is similar to P4 performance at similar to Celeron prices, which puts them in the midrange PC market, as they originally stated they were shooting for.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
 
Well how appreciable is the volume that the top speed grade ever sell in given
the typical big rise in price between the fastest and second fastest?

Once an Intel type explained the benefit of the top speed grade device with what
he called the triple cheeseburger principle. A burger chain might introduce a
triple cheeseburger even though it might sell only in modest quantities. Why?
Because it will significantly raise the sales of double cheeseburgers. People
don't think of the double cheeseburger as as excessive if they can rationalize
it by the fact they didn't buy a triple cheeseburger. People are funny animals. ;-)

The value of a 3.4 GHz Northwood in a competitively tight environment isn't
necessarily due to its direct sales volumes as much as it has a drag-on
effect on 3.0 and 3.2 GHz devices

That explain the need of high-end stuff need for AMD competif or not

[-peep-] french
 
I never said they weren't competing
Click to expand...
Do not misconstrue me. I was not intending to put words in your mouth, by no means. You can follow my logic that it seems very unreasonable for any company (whose goal is to make more money now and in the future) to admit the phrase "We do not intend to compete . . . blah, blah, blah." (I can't but help think of Apple during instances such as these. They did make statements like that, and meant them. Idiots.)

You know and I know they did not voluntarily drop out of the MHz race. They must say they did to save face. Spin, spin, and spin. It follows that they did not intend NOT to compete with Intel at the high end, but they might have to SAY they did to save face.

Shame on AMD. AMD, shame on you! I thought Jonah taught you better! What a way to bolster consumer confidence (translates to percieved value, which impacts sales) in your product.

I'd sure like to sources of those statements for my scrapbook. I'll keep looking now that I know more of what to look for. Heck, maybe I can call AMD and ask.

Regards,

Dave

Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom