AMD gone crazy

[majewski9]

anyone here heard of supply and demand? Any how Intel used to price their pentium processors over a thousand bucks! Those days are certainly gone with the advent of AMD becoming a serios competitor though they would be a more of a competitor if they could only release their products on time.

 

[Novgrod]

I once took a couple months to set up an AMD system!

Because I didn't know I had a bad stick of ram, and then i went off to college and didn't get the system built 'til i got back.

Seriously though i'm a friggin history major and I've put together a half dozen AMD systems (from duron 800 to xp 1500). If I can do it . . .

 

[bigshooter]

How do you put the heatsink on backwards anyways? My retail XP 1600+ was not the easiest to put on, but there was a notched part in the heatsink that matched up with the socket. Also if you buy a fairly new processor (as it was at teh time) and buy an old mobo that doesn't even support a 60gig HD (how old was the damn board?) you deserve to have problems. My philosophy when building a new system is to invest a lot in the mobo to get the latest and greatest features, and then to buy a slower processor. You'll be more future proof that way with peripherals and hopefully being able to add a much faster cpu later on as well.

 

[AndyHui]

Any how Intel used to price their pentium processors over a thousand bucks

So did AMD.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: bigshooter
How do you put the heatsink on backwards anyways?

It does seem to happen frequently, unfortunately. I wish AMD had forseen it and created an asymmetrical pattern of lugs so the heatsink's clip wouldn't line up with the lugs if it were reversed. Looks like Hammer will eliminate that problem entirely, however.

edit: oh, I see where this all came from... "AMD chips aren't stable." *supresses urge to rant*

 

[JavaMomma]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: pillage2001

Originally posted by: AgaBooga
Well, that past does matter. My dad is an all intel guy. I finally talked him into an Athlon XP 1700+ last to last December. We bought it with an Asus mobo. We set it up, put the fan on backwards (there was no manual or anything) and burned it. They replaced that since the fan came didn't come with a manual. Then, when we had it all working, we tried updating the Bios, we redid the whole thing, it just wouldn't work. We finally found out, that it wouldn't support my 60gig Western Digital hard drive. That was a brand spankin new 60 gig drive and at the time, that was really really big, its pretty big today but the 200gig drives make it obsolete.

Anyways, the thing is, the ONE time we tried to go for AMD, we burned a CPU and found out the Asus mobo wasn't compatible with the CPU. I was pretty shocked by the hard drive problem

Another thing to note from that, when people try something new one time and are dissapointed, it takes a lot of difference to pick that. Its kind of like Bose speakers, my dad buys the best Bose speakers they have to offer at the time. We went into Ovation, and they started reccomending all this other junk. That guys reasoning hasn't changed his mind at all since he loves the sound those speakers give since the sound is "richer," (not money wise, lol).

Also, the chipsets for Athlon processors and the cpu together, sometimes run into problems where it just freezes or something. With my intel cpus and intel chipsets, I haven't had any problems of that sort yet. That is why I don't consider Athlons stable. Lets not argue over this since it wo n't change our minds either, but I hope this just brings another point of view to everything.

A little side note: We ended up spending a total of 24 hours trying to get that thing to work, but just couldn't. When we got the Intel stuff, it worked on the first shot without any problems.

LOL. I'm not even gonna start on this.

Sounds like an advertisement for Dell, dude.

I was thinking one of those Apple switch ads
LOL

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: AgaBooga
If you have the money for an Athlon XP 3000, then get the 3.06ghz cpu since it has hyperthreading. I would personally go with Intel since they are a lot more stable.

I have AMD Duron and I never run in to any stability-problems. the "AMD CPU's are unstable!" is nothing but FUD, plain and simple.

 

[Shockwave]

I love to hear people who are, to put it honestly, to dumb to build a PC end up blaming the manufacturer for there errors. We burned it up...Well, put the heatsink on correctly. I've cracked 2 (Yes, TWO!! Grrr...) AMD cores cause i was careless. Sure, I *could* blame AMD for making "weak" cores, but honestly, it was my fault.

Anyways, you have to consider market share. Intel has, in the past, been the only real viable option for reliable CPU's up until a few years ago. Previous to AMD, it was pretty much Intel for what...20 years?? And the major market share doesnt switch to a new CPU maker just cause of price. You dont wanna start turning out CPU's that arent thoroughly reliable when your selling servers and other high end, has to work equipment. Its hard to get manufacurers to swtich to new vendors for the products, because if they switch and the product ends up not working, it tarnish's their image. IBM, Dell, Compaq...No one wants to shave a few bucks off the CPU price to possibly get a bad CPU.
Thats why Intel has, IMO, retained their hold on the market so well. Home users, especially the type of people who frequent this forum, are willing to go try new things. Major vendors with name brand recognition and market share stand to lose quite alot if they transition to a new product and it fails, thus stick with "Old reliable" as it were.

I'm not saying AMD isnt as stable as Intel. Both are rock solid all the way to Christ just boot damn you!! Theres alot of variables. I'm simply throwing out my 2 cents as to WHY Intel still is #1. Not because of any performance advantage, but because the areas that really create sales are areas that are much more difficult to penetrate into with a new product.

 

[Dennis Travis]

Bose Speakers? What do they have to do with AMD or Intel CPU's? If Bose made CPU's I BET they would be unstable and cost $1000's. I have a pair of Bose's in my bedroom because I had nothing else to use there. They sound so BAD it's not funny and cost a lot for the little you get and have CHEAP terminals on the back that won't even accept decent sized cable!

AMD CPUs are just as stable as Intel. It's not AMD's fault if you put the HeatSink on backwards or get a motherboard that is so old it won't even accept a curent hard drive. That is not AMD's fault at all. You can do the exact same thing with INtel and get an older board. Did you ever try to go to the motherboards Webpage and download the latest Bios for it? That may have solved the problem with the 60Gig HDD.

Please don't blame AMD for problems they did not cause!!

And by the way all my current systems have Intel CPU's so I am not some AMD Fanboy either. I like Both Intel and AMD. Would have an AMD system but a friend bought me the parts for my main system. Hard to say no to free parts!!!

 

[Shockwave]

I wouldnt go so far as to say Bose is bad, there just overpriced. Bose is like Monster Cable, it just shows the power of good marketing. "Got no highs? Got no lows? Must be Bose"

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: AgaBooga
If you have the money for an Athlon XP 3000, then get the 3.06ghz cpu since it has hyperthreading. I would personally go with Intel since they are a lot more stable.

You came to this conclusion how?

 

[moonshinemadness]

I begin to wonder about the sanity of some forum members. IMO AMD are no more or less stable than Intel and Are no better or worse. What is proven time and time again is that AMD continue to match Intel speeds with lower cored CPU's. I run AMD purely because i upgarde at different times and started with a socket a board, had no problems dont see the point in changing.

I often feel that some Intel fanboys are just p*ssed that Intel finally has a decent speed competitor. People only change if they want, everyone is different so leave them be.

As for burning the CPU out well maybe you would have been better gettin your local shop to do it as you obviously wernt capable. And the Motherboard, again you should check these things that whats those lists of specifications on boxes and online are for! If you couldnt be bothered to look, thats your fault.

I am neither a Fanboy or Intel or AMD they both have Pro's and cons the point being AMD suits me so i choose them.

 

[Pocatello]

The sweet spot for the Athlon is the xp2100+ TBred. If AMD wants to sell its processor at the same price as intel, then it better get more recognition. Intel has invested alot of money so people 'want' the "intel inside" logo. The majority of folks out there still don't know what AMD is.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: m1ke101

Originally posted by: AgaBooga
If you have the money for an Athlon XP 3000, then get the 3.06ghz cpu since it has hyperthreading. I would personally go with Intel since they are a lot more stable.

Whats that supposed to mean? amd cpu's aren't stable?

Gayest Intel fan-boy statement ever made.... this type of crap runs rampant across the net.
education: AMD CPU's are not "unstable" else they wouldn't be used by millions of people. It's not the CPU itself, 99% of the time, chipset instability or other hardware is the problem. I think Intel was the only company to recall a CPU due to instability problems, (IIRC) and that was the PIII 1.13 Coppermine.

 

[MikeMike]

Intel is less stable then amd!! I once tried to build an Intel, and it kept crashing. I finally looked inside the case and DIRECTLY at the processor because it would beep at me and crash all the time! Why i still have no idea. So i sent all the stuff back and bought an AMD. I applied the HSF which the intel didnt have and it works perfectly stable. no crashing or anything.

see i could argue that because of user error that Intel isnt as stable as AMD. So yeah.


(back onto topic)

If you were selling an item that could compete and beat in some instances a competing product, and they priced there product at 1000 dollars, and you could sell your product for 900 dollars but make about 10 dollars profit for each one sold, but when incresed to 1000 dollars would you do that to make 110 dollars profit would you? i would. it is basic economics and is what most companies should do.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Now everyone can save their reply in this thread for the next 50 threads that have the same rhetorical discussion so you can just cut&paste the reply next time........like I just did

 

[LordAccord]

Also from the get-go, I think there is some misunderstanding of the processor design dynamic here... clock speed is NOT the golden indicator of processor performance... AMD has clearly shown that.... performance of their processors at PR rated speeds parallels intels actual speeds... IE the XP 2000+ (1785?ghz) performs like the P4 2ghz chip, etc.

Then you have actual chip design...1.8mu vs 1.3mu, etc... is why the XP3000+ is clocked lower but performs better than their own XP2800+, and at the same time around the same as the P4 3ghz.

I mean, both processors have their golden qualities, but the only reason AMD has to use its PR tags is because stupid consumers would see the lower clock speed as an indicator of an inferior processor, which it's not.

AMD has not gone insane, AMD is doing a damn good job still establishing itself as a worthy competitor, and as aforementioned has just now started to raise its prices a little. Most problems people encounter with hardware and instability... well...as this thread clearly shows... is not due to hardware problems, it's due to overconfident and stupid people.

I won't go into my spiel on the lack of focus, making sure to work with and learn all prominent technology... you are cheating yourself if you stay with intel only and try to reason it with assumptions, and you are cheating others if you stay with intel and call yourself knowledgable or an expert in the field. It's just like OS's.

 

[chizow]

I think Intel was the only company to recall a CPU due to instability problems, (IIRC) and that was the PIII 1.13 Coppermine.

There was that obscure multiplication error with the original Pentium too. They didn't replace 'em all though; I think it was a limited recall depending on what you used the CPU for.

Chiz

 

[mechBgon]

Is Windows "stable?" A chain is as strong as... yep.

(edit: FWIW, Win2000 is "stable" enough for me )

 

[Ophir]

Originally posted by: AgaBooga
Also, the chipsets for Athlon processors and the cpu together, sometimes run into problems where it just freezes or something. With my intel cpus and intel chipsets, I haven't had any problems of that sort yet. That is why I don't consider Athlons stable. Lets not argue over this since it wo n't change our minds either, but I hope this just brings another point of view to everything.

I just noticed this in his post ... HA HA HA

 

[dullard]

History lesson:

AMD started out in mass marketing as a value processor manufacturer. AMD's chips couldn't perform at the same level as Intel's, so they instead tried to make money selling them cheaper than Intel's processors. It worked and AMD got a decent market share - but no where near what Intel had. Many years passed and not much changed. AMD was the value processor, and wasn't making much profit.

But then AMD started to catch up to Intel's speeds. AMD saw that as an opportunity to finally make some money. AMD raised their prices. This went on for a while - AMD made a little profit.

Suddenly multiple big things hit all at once: the race for 1 GHz occured, the economy was booming, everyone was in a rush to replace their old computers with y2k compatable ones, and there was a boom in technology stocks and thus technology spending. AMD quickly ramped up their speeds and their prices. AMD almost exactly 3 years ago charged $1299 for a processor (yes that is in US dollars). AMD had completely abandoned any attempts to be the value processor. AMD needed money, and money was being raked in.

Sadly for AMD they still couldn't break the 15% market share barrier - even with winning the 1 GHz race and having the clear top performing chip. Intel's P4 was ramping up speed and the Athlon was stagnant in speed - eventually surpassing the Athlon in performance. AMD was feeling wealthy with all the cash they had been making recently. And to top it off, the economy crashed - people were no longer willing to spend $1299 for any chip especially what they still considered a 'value' chip not a performance chip. So what did AMD do?

Yep a temporary price cut to (a) gain market share, (b) spend some of the money they raked in, and (c) deal with the economy crash. Within a blink of an eye, AMD's top chip price was slashed. Down to the lower $200s. Yes AMD did gain marketshare, but their profits turned quickly to massive bleeding losses - losses that were too big to maintain permanently.

Thus quickly AMD had to raise prices back to a more moderate level. AMD released the 2400+, 2600+, 2800+, and 3000+ all while Intel stagnated with just one processor release: the 3.06 GHz P4. This gave AMD the opportunity to raise prices just when AMD needed higher prices the most to survive. So that is where we are now - reasonable prices that AMD can maintain. Their top chips are in the $200 range where they lose money and go bankrupt. Their chips aren't in the $1299 range where no one will buy them now. A $600 chip is exactly what the economy will pay for and what AMD needs.

Thus no AMD hasn't gone crazy. They only crazy people are the ones that thought the temporary slash in prices for a measly 2 years was what AMD has always done and always will do.

 

[RichieZ]

I don't think they are crazy, I just don't think its prudent. IMHO if AMD and Intel price their chips about the same I'm going w/ Intel.

 

[dullard]

Now on to the stability topic. AMD got a bad reputation that today is unjustified. Like I said above, AMD really made their mass marketing start as the value processor. It doesn't make sense to sell a value processor with an expensive motherboard. So instead the market demanded a value motherboard with the value processor. I first got my first chance to work with an AMD computer back in the 300 MHz days - when AMD was still trying to be the value processor maker. The 'value' motherboard available at the time was made by VIA - and in an attempt to make it as cheap as possible, the motherboard was a piece of crap. I still haven't seen a day where that computer didn't crash.

Back then Sound Blaster was THE card to have for most people. Sure there was Turtle Beach that had better sound but no one could afford it. There were other options, but they often had problems with other sound cards - but every game worked perfectly with a Sound Blaster. For some reason, the VIA motherboards did not do well with Sound Blaster sound cards. A simple search should come up with tons of forum threads that mention those problems.

To top it off, they usually finished the 'value' computer with the cheapest possible power supply. Everyone knows here that low-quality power supplies can lead to much system instability.

So AMD users had a motherboard that was meant to be as cheap as possible, that was unstable, and that crashed when using the most popular sound card - all while using a power supply that was of low quality. It is no wonder that those computers kept crashing. The AMD chips were running just fine, but the whole system kept crashing. This wasn't directly AMD's fault. But the reputation stuck with AMD.

Today the unstable motherboard problem has been fixed. Has the VIA/Sound Blaster problem been fixed (I honestly don't know)? There is no reason to think that AMD would be unstable. Put an AMD chip in a quality motherboard and use a quality power supply and your system will be as stable as anything out there.

 

[skiznots]

Time to move??

 

[KenAF]

The pricing on the 2800+ and 3000+ was not a good decision, imo. But who am I to question their $$$ marketing folks? That's not my day job...

Even so, it seems to me that AMD may putting a little too much faith in the anti-Intel, pro-AMD crowd. The whole reason for buying AMD chips in the past has been superior price/performance. But if AMD is going to use Intel-like prices, why not just go Intel?