Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:28:11 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> > And the Athlon XP3000+ falls to the bottom of the list in the second
>> > 'Content Creation Winstone 2004' test.
>>
>> The answer is they don't buy a CPU, they buy a system.
>
>Who would buy a system without knowing what cpu is in it?
Actually I would guess that this would be reasonably common these
days, and in some cases for good reason. For things like an XBox or a
PS/2 the vast majority of people don't know/care what CPU is in it,
just how good the games are. People buying a PocketPC/Palm handheld
don't care much who made the ARM chip in it, just how it will function
as an organizer and take notes.
PCs as we generally think of them aren't quite at the stage of these
devices yet, ie simple function over components, but they are getting
there. This is not entirely a bad thing.
>> And for reasons
>> better than "I like AMD" in most cases. The other part of the answer is
>> that if you buy Intel you are not ever going to have to justify buying a
>> "clone,"
>
>Intel is now the clone maker, and AMD is the innovator. Notice how Intel
>tried to copy AMD's X86-64 chips(Intel didn't do such a good job though,
>as the Intel chips don't have integrated memory controllers or hypertransport).
>Notice that Intel is now using model numbers for many of its chips rather
>than describing them by clock speed. Another idea that AMD had first.
AMD was hardly the first company to use model numbers for their
processors. Even in the PC world this has been seen before, and
outside of processors it's pretty much the norm. Referring to
processors only by a single name for an entire product line-up and
then only one specification (clock speed) that might not be all that
meaningful is really an odd-ball concept.
Basically for all devices more complicated than a light bulb we tend
to use some sort of model numbers. AMD and Intel are just catching up
with the rest of the world.
>> which means more in some companies than others.
>
>Perhaps for some companies this might mean more. Do a Google
>search on Intel recalls.
AMD is not without their recalls as well, and there have been more
than one VIA chipsets for AMD processors that SHOULD have been
recalled if VIA were a more reliable company (note that the same could
be said about many other companies... ie Creative should probably have
recalled basically every sound card they've produced in a 15 year
period due to crummy driver quality :> ).
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:28:11 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> > And the Athlon XP3000+ falls to the bottom of the list in the second
>> > 'Content Creation Winstone 2004' test.
>>
>> The answer is they don't buy a CPU, they buy a system.
>
>Who would buy a system without knowing what cpu is in it?
Actually I would guess that this would be reasonably common these
days, and in some cases for good reason. For things like an XBox or a
PS/2 the vast majority of people don't know/care what CPU is in it,
just how good the games are. People buying a PocketPC/Palm handheld
don't care much who made the ARM chip in it, just how it will function
as an organizer and take notes.
PCs as we generally think of them aren't quite at the stage of these
devices yet, ie simple function over components, but they are getting
there. This is not entirely a bad thing.
>> And for reasons
>> better than "I like AMD" in most cases. The other part of the answer is
>> that if you buy Intel you are not ever going to have to justify buying a
>> "clone,"
>
>Intel is now the clone maker, and AMD is the innovator. Notice how Intel
>tried to copy AMD's X86-64 chips(Intel didn't do such a good job though,
>as the Intel chips don't have integrated memory controllers or hypertransport).
>Notice that Intel is now using model numbers for many of its chips rather
>than describing them by clock speed. Another idea that AMD had first.
AMD was hardly the first company to use model numbers for their
processors. Even in the PC world this has been seen before, and
outside of processors it's pretty much the norm. Referring to
processors only by a single name for an entire product line-up and
then only one specification (clock speed) that might not be all that
meaningful is really an odd-ball concept.
Basically for all devices more complicated than a light bulb we tend
to use some sort of model numbers. AMD and Intel are just catching up
with the rest of the world.
>> which means more in some companies than others.
>
>Perhaps for some companies this might mean more. Do a Google
>search on Intel recalls.
AMD is not without their recalls as well, and there have been more
than one VIA chipsets for AMD processors that SHOULD have been
recalled if VIA were a more reliable company (note that the same could
be said about many other companies... ie Creative should probably have
recalled basically every sound card they've produced in a 15 year
period due to crummy driver quality :> ).
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram