AMD Sempron without 64bit = big mistake (UPDATED)

trooper11 · Jun 12, 2004

more like:

DELL Intel 350- 499$ loaded with Windows XP 32bit
HP Sempron C30+ - 499$ loaded with Windows XP 64bit

this wont help consumers, just confuse the hell out of them lol

P4Man · Jun 12, 2004

>I dont see whats so hard about this

Its not hard, i just don't think it would be quite as effective. I've got a feeling for most consumers, even with less cache (which doesnt seem to hurt K8 performance a lot) and lower clockspeeds, it will still be more than good enough. For non hardcore gamers/performance freaks, the AXP is all you need performance wise, but the reason many people will advice against it nevertheless is the dead socket, and the lack of AMD64. Take those away, and there is not much reason left to pay the price premium for a A64. Bringing out 32 bit semprons will also help underline the 64 bit capability and associated value of the A64's.

Just a thought exercise; imagine they would bring out both 32 bit and 64 bit semprons, at equal clockspeeds and ratings, and charge for instance ~$25 more for the 64 bit parts. Would that be stupid (ignoring the effect on A64) ? I think not, and basically, its what 32bit sempron versus 64 bit A64 is about. They just bundle the extra performance with the 64 bit argument to increase the incentive for buying higher end even further.

Either way, I think AMD knows more about its customers than we do, so if they bring out 32 bit semprons, I figure they did the math...

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

slvr_phoenix · Jun 14, 2004

Either way, I think AMD knows more about its customers than we do, so if they bring out 32 bit semprons, I figure they did the math...

Or not.

Either way a decision will be (or has been) made, a product line will launch, and life will go on.

Either AMD tries to take as much of the 64-bit SOHO platform now before Intel can grab some so that their customers 'upgrade' within the AMD line in the future, or AMD continues to offer a 32-bit SOHO platform so that their customers have more of a reason to upgrade to shiny new 64-bit proc in the future.

Frankly it's a situation where the answer that is less important than the question. Whatever happens happens and it really isn't going to change jack because you pretty much get exactly the same results in the end either way. Maybe AMD did the math, or maybe they realized that the math wasn't worth doing, or maybe they even just don't care. Who knows?

The one thing that I think is actually of minor importance in all of this is that if AMD does release Sempron as a 32-bit CPU that will say a lot for how much AMD believes 64-bitness will actually help the average SOHO consumer. Sempron's bitness may not matter from a financial standpoint, but it does matter as an indicator of AMD's vision of the non-enthusiast PC consumer and the speed of the complete conversion (hardware and software) to 64-bits.

<pre>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</pre>

P4Man · Jun 14, 2004

>Maybe AMD did the math, or maybe they realized that the
>math wasn't worth doing, or maybe they even just don't
>care. Who knows?

Good point. Indeed, maybe they are not interested in making money either, they probably use darts and weathercharts to set prices and predict production volumes.. I mean, selling chips is only their core business, and making money the only purpose of their existance, so why *would* they care ?

> if AMD does release Sempron as a 32-bit CPU that will say
>a lot for how much AMD believes 64-bitness will actually
>help >the average SOHO consumer

You mean, like Celeron proves how little (according to intel) the average SOHO user benefits from hyperthreading ? Or 800 MHz FSB's ? Or 1Mb caches ? SSE3 ? Speedstep on laptops ? Or could it be intel did its math as well and concluded it could make more money by charging premium prices for features people want, and segment the market accordingly ?

> the speed of the complete conversion (hardware and
> software) to 64-bits.

This won't happen this decade, if ever. i'll laugh at anyone who claimes something different. We barely finished the "complete conversion" to 32 bit hardware and software, which began 20 years ago and which was much less friendly towards backwards compatibility as the 32->64 bit migration (16 apps/drivers messed up the protected mode model of IA32 and windows OS's, and therefore provided incentives other than performance or memory addressibility). That didn't mean that 32 bit hardware and a mixed 16/32 bit software environment didn't offer compelling advantages 15 years ago though.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

TheRod · Jun 14, 2004

The one thing that I think is actually of minor importance in all of this is that if AMD does release Sempron as a 32-bit CPU that will say a lot for how much AMD believes 64-bitness will actually help the average SOHO consumer. Sempron's bitness may not matter from a financial standpoint, but it does matter as an indicator of AMD's vision of the non-enthusiast PC consumer and the speed of the complete conversion (hardware and software) to 64-bits.

I 100% agree with you. Actually, this is why I really think AMD should only realease 64 bit CPU from now. But I understand that in a financial point-of-view, there is still "life"/potential for 32bit CPU. I think it will not be until the end of 2005 that x86-32bit only CPU will become "obsolete".

I don't blame AMD, but I would rather liked to see 64bit low-end CPU from them now. This would have push 64bit from low-end to high-end market.

And I don't agree this would hurt Athlon 64/FX sales much. If Sempron are slower they will have their "niche".

And to the people that argue, you have to pay a premium for 64bit. So why Athlon XP 3200+ and Athlon 64 2800+ are sold at the SAME PRICE. We all know that the XP 3200+ and A64 2800+ performs equally (not much difference).

If AMD would have wanted us to bay a premium for 64bit, they would sell A64 2800+ higher.

--
What's the AMD Mobile Athlon 64 overclocking potential? It's huge! Humm... Maybe not that huge...

P4Man · Jun 14, 2004

It really is no different from disabled hyperthreading, SSE3, speedstep etc on Celerons on top of the slower clockspeeds. Segment the market, to make some bucks.

BTW, its sort of ironic that certain people not even 6 months ago where arguing against AMD64 being usefull *at all*, for anyone but a tiny niche, and now they would cry AMD doesnt include AMD64 support even in its bargain bottom market chips ?

>And to the people that argue, you have to pay a premium for
>64bit. So why Athlon XP 3200+ and Athlon 64 2800+ are sold
>at the SAME PRICE. We all know that the XP 3200+ and A64
>2800+ performs equally (not much difference).

"we" all know that, joe smoe doesnt and sees a hefty price premium for 64 bitness at the same "speed". He may also hear those 64 bit athlons are actually faster than the 32 bit ones. Besides, AXP 3200+ is a very low volume product, could be a poor binsplitter, quite possibly more expensive to produce than a 2800+ A64. This won't be the case with K8 based semprons vs A64's.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

trooper11 · Jun 14, 2004

no see the reason the xp models are the same with the ahtlon 64 2800+ shows exactly that they are positioned at a premium. consumers look at the two and they see 3200+ vs 2800+ for the same price. oh wlel obviously go for the 3200+, no wait look at that 64, that must be special. see what im getting at? lol

indeed athlon 64 chips do carry a 'premium', cuase normally the consumer would just go for the 3200+.

do you gues not understand market segments? do you not realize that the s754 and s939 will be the mid to high end segments? all of those being 64bit? that means the largest portion of thier market will be 64bit capable, i think that says they want 64bit to be the mainstream choice. since when do celeron's and durons carry the latest and greatest tech in the low end segment? they have always been stripped down versions of the main sellers, this is no different. and it has never ment intel or amd werent trying hard enough to push a new tech. wheres the outcry for sse3 or ht on celeron? i dont see it...

64bit is being treated as a feature, not a new architecture, so as a feature, it wont go on the lowest end until the toehr segments are firmly entrenched with mature products. eventually sempron will be 64bit, if it doesnt debue with it on some level.

im still not convinced all semprons will just be 32bit. it could be the socket A wont be, but either s754 or s939 could bring 64bit capable cpus. im still waiting to see that.

and i know this outdry for low price chips is stemming from the fact s939 chips came out to be priced higher then s754. this kind of stuff doesnt happen overnight. amd cant just release a new line of cheaper 64bit cpus with all the new tech like hypertransport, integrated controller, for a rock bottom , sub $100, price tag at this moment. They are having enough trouble ramping up s939 chip production and finalizing the 90nm shift. so they take an interim step and release a socket A replacement thats stripped down that can just get that line going, then upgrading them later on to support various things.

TheRod · Jun 14, 2004

BTW, its sort of ironic that certain people not even 6 months ago where arguing against AMD64 being usefull *at all*, for anyone but a tiny niche, and now they would cry AMD doesnt include AMD64 support even in its bargain bottom market chips ?

I'm not one of these. From the beginning I know that 64bit is a very good move from AMD. I personnaly understand the AMD64 is not the only thing in CPU. But, it's obvious that if you buy a CPU today that is 64bit ready you will have the opportunity to upgrade to 64bit for "free". Which is a big advantage. If your PC main usage is gaming, there is no reason to get P4 over A64.

I mean, P4 are not bad at all, and I will never think it's stupid or dumb to get a P4 today. But the AMD CPU's have an advantage in mid/long-term. Many will argue that by the time 64bit will become mainstream, the actual cpu/platform might be slow or "obsolete". But, I don't totally agree. Of course, current Socket754 platform will probably be nearly dead, but Socket939 will still have some potential.

"we" all know that, joe smoe doesnt and sees a hefty price premium for 64 bitness at the same "speed". He may also hear those 64 bit athlons are actually faster than the 32 bit ones. Besides, AXP 3200+ is a very low volume product, could be a poor binsplitter, quite possibly more expensive to produce than a 2800+ A64. This won't be the case with K8 based semprons vs A64's.

You are right that the average Joe don't know much, and probably think that a 2800+ at the price of a 3200+ it's weird. In "Mart-Stores" this kind of stuff is often misleading for customers. On the oter hand, the same problem happen when comparing P4 price vs Athlon XP price, an XP 3200+ is lot cheaper than a P4 3.2GHz... Average Joe is probably confused about that too!

I'm not sure that the XP 3200+ chips cost that much to build. With today's yields, AMD is probably marking a lot of XP 3200+ at lower grade to meet the demand. Most XP 2500+ can be clocked to 3200+ without much effort and mobile Barton can often be clocked at 2.6GHz (and more). The manufacturing process is now mature.

YES, AMD will release 32bit Sempron, and YES they will probably sold many of these CPU's. But, yet another name for a "new" CPU. I would rather have liked to AMD keep Athlon XP branding and move it to low-end market.

In my dreams... It would have been great to see that AMD can offer 64bit computing to Average Joe! But, it will probably be not this. Intel will catch up and AMD will not be alone!

Long live AMD, long live Intel!

NOTE : I can't wait to see Prescott 64bit vs AMD64 performance. This will be a very interesting "battle".

--
What's the AMD Mobile Athlon 64 overclocking potential? It's huge! Humm... Maybe not that huge...

TheRod · Jun 14, 2004

no see the reason the xp models are the same with the ahtlon 64 2800+ shows exactly that they are positioned at a premium.

But, it's not a "real" premium. If there was a real premium for 64bit. Even the A64 2800+ would cost more than an XP 3200+. These 2 processors performs equally, so their price are basically the same, even if the A64 have the integrated memory control and the 64bit extension.

I really think that the AMD pricing is good when you check price/performance. All Athlon 64 chips are faster than Athlon XP chips, they cost more and I would not like to see 100$ AMD64 CPU's.

64bit is being treated as a feature, not a new architecture, so as a feature, it wont go on the lowest end until the toehr segments are firmly entrenched with mature products. eventually sempron will be 64bit, if it doesnt debue with it on some level.

I fully understand this, and it's totally true! But AMD should take a step foward (it's my opinion) and push 64bit to the low cost market ASAP.

A good exemple of this kind of behaviour, came from Toyota, the first NON-Lexus car they equipped with VVT-i was the Toyota Echo/Yaris, not the Camry or the 4runner.

I know electronics it's not car business. But this move forced the competion to develop and market more efficient engine to compete with them. AMD could do the same thing. I know Intel will push 64bit soon into the market and this is because AMD pushed it hard.

They are having enough trouble ramping up s939 chip production and finalizing the 90nm shift. so they take an interim step and release a socket A replacement thats stripped down that can just get that line going, then upgrading them later on to support various things.

We don't hear much about 90nm AMD process? It is good or bad? And for the SocketA replacemt I really doubt they will be based on "Paris". How could AMD make an integrated memory controller CPU work on a SocketA platform... Quite a mystery for me. If AMD can do this, it's great ingeneering or will they simple relabbed Athlon XP CPU with more up-to-date rating?

--
What's the AMD Mobile Athlon 64 overclocking potential? It's huge! Humm... Maybe not that huge...

slvr_phoenix · Jun 14, 2004

Indeed, maybe they are not interested in making money either, they probably use darts and weathercharts to set prices and predict production volumes.. I mean, selling chips is only their core business, and making money the only purpose of their existance, so why *would* they care ?

I never said that they didn't. I merely offered it as a possability. And quite frankly from the people who brought you socket 939 this long after socket 940, it is entirely possible that they don't care. AMD seems to be saying and doing a lot of goofy things lately. Yet it seems to be working for them. So maybe switching from board meetings to games of darts really did solve their problems. Maybe they even call a psychic hotline. I don't know. I don't sit in on their meetings. Do you?

You mean, like Celeron proves how little (according to intel) the average SOHO user benefits from hyperthreading ? Or 800 MHz FSB's ? Or 1Mb caches ? SSE3 ?

Yeah! They're neat features for people who care about performance, but for the average SOHO non-enthusiast they mean very little. You don't need any of them to surf the net or write a Word doc. Just as you don't need 64-bit to do those things either. So it will be an interesting study in how strongly AMD is pushing 64-bits.

<pre>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</pre>

P4Man · Jun 15, 2004

> I don't know. I don't sit in on their meetings. Do you?

No, but suggesting they might not care if some non trivial strategic decission makes economic sense or not is rather silly IMHO

>Yeah! They're neat features for people who care about
>performance

You conveniently left out speedstep, which is not performance related. What other reason do you think there is to disable speedstep on mobile celerons, other than make you pay extra for the pentiums ?

> but for the average SOHO non-enthusiast they mean very
>little.

Battery life means something for most mobile users.

>You don't need any of them to surf the net or write a Word
>doc.

*yawn*.. no you don't. Don't need anything faster than a 500 Mhz PC either. AMD (nor anyone else) ever claimed you needed a 64 bit cpu for those things either.

>So it will be an interesting study in how strongly AMD is
>pushing 64-bits.

Well, phase one was establishing it as a standard, making sure developpers will code for it and that the ISA would become usefull. That might have required an aggressive push to gain as much marketshare as possible, but they achieved this now. Phase two is simply: how do we make the most money now ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

trooper11 · Jun 15, 2004

its funny how people dont mind saying amd doesnt have a clue how to do things, pretty much saying they are idiots running the company into the ground. yet intel has cornered the market on good ideas and smart people to run the show, yeah right.

you know lets give amd just a tad more respect and benefit of the doubt, you know they might know a thing or two about business. if thier cpu segment isnt enough to prove that, then look at thier flash memory segment, where they now lead the NOR market over intel.

gpol2162 · Jun 15, 2004

The problem here is if in fact AMD does make a low cost 64-bit chip it must be better than a low-cost 32-bit chip from Intel (right now 64-bits has no real advantage). They also can't market it as a chip that will serve you in the future since applications will need more power by the time 64-bit is the mainstream(probably, if these 64-bit chips are sub 2800 - 3200mhz). Therefore it is my opinion that AMD should make 32-bit chips and better but less costly (compared to A64) 64-bit chips. No point in making someone buy a useless 64-bit chip now and then having to upgrade when it's not powerful enough to run 64-bit applications (eg: games). Because if they do buy a new chip they will most definatly buy an Intel 64-bit chip.

TheRod · Jun 15, 2004

The problem here is if in fact AMD does make a low cost 64-bit chip it must be better than a low-cost 32-bit chip from Intel

This is not a problem for AMD to make faster chip in the low-cost market. Actually, the Athlon XP line is much faster than any Celeron and they cost less.

They also can't market it as a chip that will serve you in the future since applications will need more power by the time 64-bit is the mainstream(probably, if these 64-bit chips are sub 2800 - 3200mhz).

So, Intel should not to sell Celerons to their customer, because they will not handle future apps well, even if they are running at 2.6GHz. It's not worst to sell low-speed 64bit than crippled CPU that actually can't do much more than office apps.

Therefore it is my opinion that AMD should make 32-bit chips and better but less costly (compared to A64) 64-bit chips.

The Sempron can't be BETTER in 32bit than Athlon 64, since they are based on the same CORE. And if Sempron are better than Athlon XP in 32bit on socket, it would be kind of weird to have AMD trying to sell faster CPU on a dying platform. I would not understand the marketing behind this kind of offering. AMD Sempron should be Socket754, it's my opinion. This would force OEM and tight-bidget user to get a Socket754 platform and this would increase the Socket754 market share.

No point in making someone buy a useless 64-bit chip now and then having to upgrade when it's not powerful enough to run 64-bit applications (eg: games). Because if they do buy a new chip they will most definatly buy an Intel 64-bit chip.

But if they already got a system that can be upgraded with a faster 64bit CPU (S754/S939), a percentage of these customers will upgrade their CPU only, this would put money in AMD's pocket. And if Sempron would be 64bit, some people would probably upgrade their OS only (at first) and then see if the performance are good. If their system is "sluggish" they would have the opportunity to upgrade ti with a CPU only, no need for MB/Memory/etc...

I know I'm a bit optimisitic, because most of the low-cost system buyers (Celeron/Duron), never do upgrades. They usually trash their old system and buy another one! It's the market! When they hear that a worthy upgrade would cost them near the price of a complete system (read hear a completly CRAPPY ans slow PC), they often buy the complte system with a warranty instead of the wiser upgrade path.

There is market for crap, if they were not Kia/Hyundai would not sales cars. Many people don't want to pay a premium or really want to pay very low price, because they think that in the long run they will be better served, and often it's not true.

So YES, AMD will sell 32bit Sempron and YES many customer will keep buying crappy Celeron even if all gather together with flyers in front of each Wal-Mart, EB, and Radio-Shack all around the world that explain the TRUTH.

But, I will not sit down and wait. I really think that things have to change in the computer market and these changes will benefits users. So, I will not only say that whatever AMD do, Intel will win. I say, whatever customers will want will influence thy way AMD and Intel will do business. And educating people is harder to do than only say things are done this way, we won't change it.

Humm.... A bit of philosophy here...

--
What's the AMD Mobile Athlon 64 overclocking potential? It's huge! Humm... Maybe not that huge...

slvr_phoenix · Jun 15, 2004

No, but suggesting they might not care if some non trivial strategic decission makes economic sense or not is rather silly IMHO

Did I ever claim that the suggestion that they might not care was anything other than rather silly? Since when is having a sense of humor such a serious offense? Lighten up a little. I'm sorry that THGC doesn't have an emoticon with a jester's cap. I have to settle for just plain old crazy. 😱

You conveniently left out speedstep, which is not performance related. What other reason do you think there is to disable speedstep on mobile celerons, other than make you pay extra for the pentiums ?

I didn't conveniently leave it out. I intentionally left it out to see how anal-retentive you are. That's one less mystery now. Why disable it? You mean other than that with all of the other extra features disabled it already uses a lot less power? There's the fact that almost no one thinking of buying one would care if it exists or not.

Battery life means something for most mobile users.

We both know that's a load of bull. It's supposed to, but it doesn't. Show me one mobile user who doesn't crank their brightness up way high. For that matter show me one mobile user who even researches the power consumption of their screen. No, other than extreme mobile enthusiasts, no one actually cares. They should. Some even get miffed when they can only run for an hour on battery. Most however just don't care. In the grand scheme of things battery life means very little to most mobile users. And of those who it does matter to, they're not going to even be looking at a mobile Celeron. Your use of self-defeating arguments is growing tired.

Don't need anything faster than a 500 Mhz PC either.

I'm still running Word 97 on a 486 66MHz laptop that I picked up for a buck at a silent auction to work on my novels in bed just peach keen. So as far as I can tell 500MHz is significant overkill.

AMD (nor anyone else) ever claimed you needed a 64 bit cpu for those things either.

I never said that they did. I have however said that it will be interesting to see if AMD pushes 64-bit all the way down to low end so soon or if they will avoid making such a bold statement.

Well, phase one was establishing it as a standard, making sure developpers will code for it and that the ISA would become usefull. That might have required an aggressive push to gain as much marketshare as possible, but they achieved this now. Phase two is simply: how do we make the most money now ?

Either way AMD wins. Either way AMD will make money. They either grab for more customer base now with low end 64-bit that bites into current sales of more profitable middle-to-high end 64-bit but gain more upgrades in the future, or they make more money now by keeping low end as 32-bit and still gain a number of upgrades in the future. It's just a question of money now or money later. Either way AMD wins. It's really a no lose choice. So the route that AMD takes says a lot more about their beliefs of how to push the market then it does about actually making money.

<pre>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</pre>

gpol2162 · Jun 15, 2004

What I was trying to say was that if a user buys a 64-bit chip now when no apps support it it won't do much better than a 32-bit chip. So they will see that there friend who bought a cheaper Intel chip gets the same performance as they do. Therefore in there mind now Intel is better then AMD so in the future they will buy intel chips. I don't know if this makes sense but I think AMD is ust trying not to get ppl to buy a 64-bit chip believing it would blow away any 32-bit chip at the present time.

Also this gives AMD the chance to sell cheap 32-bit chips and keep there 64-bit ones at a higher price. Atleast until Intel makes a 64-bit chip for desktops.

slvr_phoenix · Jun 15, 2004

its funny how people dont mind saying amd doesnt have a clue how to do things, pretty much saying they are idiots running the company into the ground. yet intel has cornered the market on good ideas and smart people to run the show, yeah right.

you know lets give amd just a tad more respect and benefit of the doubt, you know they might know a thing or two about business. if thier cpu segment isnt enough to prove that, then look at thier flash memory segment, where they now lead the NOR market over intel.

I can't help but feel that since this was a response to a post of mine that it is at least partially aimed at me. I would like to point out that I never once said that anyone at AMD is an idiot, nor that they are running their company into the ground. In fact I've said quite the contrary. For the first time in years they're finally doing something right, and I for one hope that it will be a continuing trend. They may be making strange decisions, but they at least seem to be working, so I don't fault them.

What I do however find funny is that AMD fans are still so touchy that you even give a suggestion of humor and they get both all high and mighty and defensive at the drop of a hat, often completely misreading posts in the process. Does AMD matter so much to you that you cannot even laugh? Or is <A HREF="http://www.dilbert.com" target="_new">Scott Adams</A> wrong about things like people making decisions by throwing darts being funny?

<pre>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</pre>

TheRod · Jun 15, 2004

if a user buys a 64-bit chip now when no apps support it it won't do much better than a 32-bit chip. So they will see that there friend who bought a cheaper Intel chip gets the same performance as they do.

You are wrong there. AMD pricing is competitive with 32bit Intel CPU. All the Athlon 64 CPU are rated/priced in comparison to 32bit Intel processor. So, it's impossible to buy an AMD 64bit rated CPU that is slower than an equally priced Intel 32bit CPU.

AMD is not crazy! They will not try to sell AMD64 CPU at high cost compared to Intel CPU, if they were doing so, no one would buy them.

And when Windows 64bit will be out, who will have the opportunity to buy/install it from day one? The AMD64 owners. Of course, 64bit Windows will not boost the system performance like crazy, but it will definetly improves performance is some area for FREE. Intel 32bit actual offering have a nice cards too, HT/SSE2/SSE3 boost performance in some situation. But, actual Intel CPU will be useless in a 64bit environment, no one can argue contest this.

I don't know if this makes sense but I think AMD is ust trying not to get ppl to buy a 64-bit chip believing it would blow away any 32-bit chip at the present time.

I don't think AMD ever claimed that 64bit would boost performance that much nor Intel ever said that HT is turboing your PC. AMD clearly focus on upgradability/compatibility/ROI and long-term investment. Have you read IT magazine? Opteron publicity are clear, they focus on security (NX bit), on compatibility (32bit AND 64bit). They say to IT : be wise and buy an Opteron based system today and when you will be ready to roll-out 64bit you will not have to change all your hardware infrastructure.

Also this gives AMD the chance to sell cheap 32-bit chips and keep there 64-bit ones at a higher price.

Of course, Sempron will probably have an impressive price/performance for 32bit apps. But, if Sempron would came out with 64bit. This would have giving them an edge over intel low price offering.

But, in the low cost market, we can't assume that buyer's are WISE or well informed. AMD surely know this and will capitalize on the new branding and they will try to push low cost Sempron as an unbeatable alternative to low-cost Intel offering.

But AMD already have this with Athlon XP line and people still buy Celeron's! Educating customers... It's what's need to be done.

--
What's the AMD Mobile Athlon 64 overclocking potential? It's huge! Humm... Maybe not that huge...

slvr_phoenix · Jun 15, 2004

And when Windows 64bit will be out, who will have the opportunity to buy/install it from day one? The AMD64 owners.

The question is how much actual gap will there be between launching 64-bit Windows XP and launching 64-bit P4?

<pre>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</pre>

TheRod · Jun 15, 2004

The question is how much actual gap will there be between launching 64-bit Windows XP and launching 64-bit P4?

I think you did not understood my point. I don't care about the Intel 64bit launch. I said that if you have a x86-64bit CPU today (only AMD are selling them NOW), you will be able to easily upgrade to 64bit, it will only a mather of software installation. If you buy an Intel CPU today, you will not be able to use Windows 64bit unless you upgrade at least the CPU, and probably the MB/RAM too. I doubt Intel will launch 64bit CPU on their current platform.

Of course, Intel will launch a 64bit CPU soon and when Windows 64bit edition will be out, we will have the opportunity to choose between Intel and AMD platforms.

--
What's the AMD Mobile Athlon 64 overclocking potential? It's huge! Humm... Maybe not that huge...

trooper11 · Jun 16, 2004

lol no no dont get me wrong, i can laugh as easily about mad as the enxt guy, ima user of amd and intel parts, so im familiar with both 'fan bases'.

my point wasnt neccesarily directed at you, but something ive heard alot here and on other boards, something i have grown to not like. that is the obvious attacks agianst amd's company somtimes, even amd fans are doing it, first it was the s939 pricing, now its if the semprons wont have 64bit capabilities. this is not about a bais on my part, its just ive never seen any sorts of attacks on what intel has done, no lengthy threads on intel's direction.

maybe its becuase amd is the underdog, i dont know, but i dont like anything to be one sides, no matter if its attacking intel or amd. and there are some out there that would dismiss things amd does as futile or wasteful, just becuase they think intel has the better resources/engineering.

i dont think you believe that, but i wanted to say that ive heard it alot.

endyen · Jun 16, 2004

I know what you mean. Why is it no one ever slags Itanic, or press-hot? Well maybe I dont know what you mean.

trooper11 · Jun 16, 2004

lol well i know there are hit on intel too, but some wont question intel's plan, they just assume its how they wanted to do things. or maybe its just that right now there is more interest in amd products, so the criticisms will be more on them.

TeeTewl · Jun 16, 2004

Am I wrong or are you folks saying except for gaming...I shouldn't jump into the 64 bit proc because their aren't that many programs to make the investment worthwhile? I don't make my living from PC's, just recreational and so-forth...

...hey quit it...don't make me stop this car...

P4Man · Jun 16, 2004

>..I shouldn't jump into the 64 bit proc because their
>aren't that many programs to make the investment
>worthwhile?

Assuming you are in the market for a reasonably fast machine, the required investment for 64 bit capability is *zero*, so even if only one app would show a tiny increase, its money well spent

If you're in the market for budget solution, and performance isn't important, its even simpler, you don't have the option, and it is most likely not worth spending more on a faster machine just for the 64 bit capabilities.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

AMD Sempron without 64bit = big mistake (UPDATED)

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Share this page