- Dec 1, 2005
- 155
- 0
- 0
From the things that I have been reading, it looks like AMD is messing things up by trying to make things simpler.
It's bad enough they released a platform that offered practically no performance boost over their previous offerings, but they wanted to get on the DDR2 boat - understood. It also would help "unify" things a bit by having budget, mainstream, and enthusiest parts all on one socket.
Yet, now they are killing off the 1MBx2 parts:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2858
Which I would see as their way of recoupping their losses they're going to recieve from the massive price cuts, that I'm sure everyone who will be reading this knows about by now, after Conroe.
On top of that, they kill off half of their CPU line-up by december:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2974
Plus Socket F is going to be sporting 1207pin LGA, meaning a larger package, upping the cost-per-proc, even with the 65nm process.
So it seems to me that by getting rid of nearly half their desktop offerings and virtually diminishing 939 support by Q207 ( about the time when Conroe will be much more widely avalible ), when people goto build a new system, why would anyone want to get a lower-performing AM2 proc when they could get a Conroe for what looks to be lower cost and more power efficiant. At which time, Intel will also be gearing up for Penryn.
What I'm trying to say is if AMD cutting support for the platform that most of their chips are selling on ( which can be seen in the hype on any forum about price cuts ); therefore losing profit on the chips that ARE selling, and encouraging people to change platform, you would think in order for them to get people to buy their new platform they would have something that performs at least on par with the competition's right? Which is set back even further by killing off 1mbx2 procs.
And is it just me, or is the new Opteron naming system stupid or what?
Comments?
It's bad enough they released a platform that offered practically no performance boost over their previous offerings, but they wanted to get on the DDR2 boat - understood. It also would help "unify" things a bit by having budget, mainstream, and enthusiest parts all on one socket.
Yet, now they are killing off the 1MBx2 parts:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2858
Which I would see as their way of recoupping their losses they're going to recieve from the massive price cuts, that I'm sure everyone who will be reading this knows about by now, after Conroe.
On top of that, they kill off half of their CPU line-up by december:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2974
Plus Socket F is going to be sporting 1207pin LGA, meaning a larger package, upping the cost-per-proc, even with the 65nm process.
So it seems to me that by getting rid of nearly half their desktop offerings and virtually diminishing 939 support by Q207 ( about the time when Conroe will be much more widely avalible ), when people goto build a new system, why would anyone want to get a lower-performing AM2 proc when they could get a Conroe for what looks to be lower cost and more power efficiant. At which time, Intel will also be gearing up for Penryn.
What I'm trying to say is if AMD cutting support for the platform that most of their chips are selling on ( which can be seen in the hype on any forum about price cuts ); therefore losing profit on the chips that ARE selling, and encouraging people to change platform, you would think in order for them to get people to buy their new platform they would have something that performs at least on par with the competition's right? Which is set back even further by killing off 1mbx2 procs.
And is it just me, or is the new Opteron naming system stupid or what?
Comments?