It doesn't matter what the p4's performance is

[Novgrod]

It Only matters what people think the P4's performance. There have been numerous, numerous debates about what "joe schmoe" or some other character thinks when he's going to buy a computer. Some say mhz, others say more than that. Well every now and then I check on some stocks, among them AMD and Intel, to see what (supposedly) not-terribly-informed people think and I'm here to tell you, it's not too pretty for AMD. The general consensus is that the Tbird can "compete with the pentium 3 and some low-end pentium 4s."

The only salvation for AMD would be if those of us who actually look at benchmarks, when asked what performs well, give it to people straight.

Then again, everybody knows the stock market is fickle--perhaps it's also dumber than the general computer-buying public.

 

[CQuinn]

Joe Schmoe does look for more than just MHz, but for him it all comes down to
how the computer is packaged and marketed.

Why you would check stocks and the reasoning of not-terribly-informed people as
your only criteria confuses me. Again, that is a result of Marketing and Packaging:
Intel does a better job of marketing the P4, but AMD was making faster inroads in
getting their chips to market last year. This year is too early yet to tell whether
Intel can actually get enough of the faster P4s out to meet demand and maintain the
MHz gap that they need as a selling point.

AMD is not in need of salvation, they are in need to maintain the productivity they
made last year, in order to keep up the partnerships they've made with OEMs.
It will be the decisions of those companies that will set which brand takes the
forefront on store shelves. And it has proven to be in the best interest of
everyone (except DELL) to promote competition between the two.

Yes, the stock market is fickle, and dumber than the general public. They don't care
which company has better technology, they gamble on which company will have the
better revenue in the short and long terms.

 

[nippyjun]

I'm sure that AMD will put out the 1.4 and 1.5 tbirds shortly, especially if they see their sales falling.

 

[TravisBickle]

damn, and I visited thinking I was in for a good existentialist argument...

 

[Duvie]

I will go you one further...it doesn't matter about performance at all only about the speed rating listed...most people don't read the reviews and count on the sales croonies to give it to them straight, and we all know how that works when we are talking commisions and such. As for packages compaq, micron and HP all have full athlon packaged systems for the buyer with all the bells and whistles...it still doesn't matter.

Since many disputed the claims of the mhz listings by intel as a marketing tool to confuse and mislead consumers...and that a comparison of a 1.333amd versus a 1.7gig isn't relevant I have this to show you...


I asked 4 people I know by brief association this simple question....keep in mind they are not technophiles like prowl this or these types of forums. They tend to be people who buy prebuilt systems from stores.

1) If you had a choice of buying a 1.7gig processor or a 1.333gig processor (kept companies names out of it at first)which one would you get? and why?

all four of them said 1.7...and because it was faster or better...many also said because it was the newest or latest which is also equated by the buying public as being better.

I kept names of copmpanies out to take away bias towards name recognition. My attempt was to gauge what people really think of mhz speed ratings. What I found is what I thought the higher the number the perceived notion is that it is the fastest. So people will disregard the price of the 1.7 as "oh well it is faster and you have to pay for the latest and greatest".

This is the majority computer buyer...they have compared the two in their heads based on notion listed mhz is directly equated to speed and performance. So you see that mhz does mean something when reviewing. Because it is the only way people can learn that this is not always the truth..as the reviews seem to point out to us in regards to the P4 and Athlon ddr.

Intel knows this and plays off of this...people wont know things about pipeline lengths and such...Maybe we need a conversion table listed at all the store so people can convert to INTEL HORSEPOWER or AMD HORSEPOWER.


When I showed the people the review at tech report and Toms hardware they looked at me confused...2 of the people asked "what is wrong with the P4".
I said "nothing".

 

[Quickfingerz]

compare AMD to AMD two years ago and I wouldn't say such things about AMD... Two years ago, some people would not even fathom what AMD has done in the past year and a half. AMD is in a good situation. P4's aren't selling well (due to high price). AMD is rolling their dice well and unless there is an Intel architecture that will blow away the K7 we'll see AMD around for quite a while. Right now as the P4 stands, it's not that great of a chip compared to the P3.

it is INTEL's consensus that the

<< Tbird can &quot;compete with the pentium 3 and some low-end pentium 4s.&quot; >>



it is common-sense to know that right now people are buying sub-1000 dollar machines and when the P4 gets to that price range, desktops will be in a slump.

AMD is in trouble if they don't produce a good portable chip solution. I myself am waiting for that AMD laptop.

 

[Novgrod]

Oh fear not; I have overwhelming faith in AMD, especially if they can do something in laptops and businesses. I personally find it funny that idiots who think they understand the market obviously are too busy to look at the products their companies produce.

The original post was a little too declarative and not quite informative enough; mea culpa. What I should have said was &quot;haha look at these idiots.&quot;

Existentialism always seemed out of place in the computer world because benchmarks are so prevalent. Your RDRAM might seem fast, but it ain't.



&quot;The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation.&quot;

 

[TravisBickle]

-Henry David Thoreau
&quot;A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone.&quot;
but... Iwanna...

 

[Rectalfier]

I am upset that Intel decided to produce a processor that is based on it's marketing potential. When AMD introduced the Athlon, they both increased Mhz and performance.

AMD will be safe for the rest of the year. The P4 will not become popular untill the 0.13 micron part comes out. I think Intel is very worried about the Athlon's penetration into the market, that's why they had to drop prices as such. I feel this will effect Intels bottom line more than AMD's. I think that Intel will continue this pricing stategy untill the DDR and Sdram chipsets come out. A top of the line P4 system will still cost about the same amount, due to the fact that Intel has been giving out rebates untill now. I don't think Intel's price drop will spur much interest in the P4. They are only trying to mess with AMD's ASP. This strategy can be overcome if AMD pumps out faster processors. I believe that AMD has that ability.

 

[Vyle]

<< I will go you one further...it doesn't matter about performance at all only about the speed rating listed...most people don't read the reviews and count on the sales croonies to give it to them straight, and we all know how that works when we are talking commisions and such. As for packages compaq, micron and HP all have full athlon packaged systems for the buyer with all the bells and whistles...it still doesn't matter.
>>



While your 4 person survey is hardly scientific, I don't dispute that people generally for bigger is better. Ask someone if they would rather have a 52inch TV or a 25inch. Ask someone if they would rather have a .357 magnum or a .22. Ask someone if they would rather have $1000 or $750. In those cases, bigger is better. People natural extrapolate that to computers.

In most computer hardware, bigger is better, too. 128MB ram is better than 32MB. A 56K modem is better than a 14.4. A 60gig hard drive is better than an 8. So it stands to reason that they'd think the more MHZ the better.

BUTwhat Intel really has over AMD is brand name recognition. Even when AMD was winning the MHZ race, the uninformed people I know who were buying prebuilt systems were still picking Intel.

I just sold my girlfriend's computer and built her a Duron 750 system. Total out of pocket was $200. I tried to convince a friend to let me build her a Duron system. She wouldn't go AMD because she'd heard Intel was the best. So she spent $800 on a Dell Celeron 600 system.

Now AMD has gained market share. But they don't advertise. People aren't familiar enough with them. The biggest hurdle AMD has to overcome is &quot;Intel Inside&quot;.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< BUTwhat Intel really has over AMD is brand name recognition. >>

And deals with top-tier OEMs like Dell, incredible production capacity, lots of cash on reserve, etc. etc.

If you secretly swapped any zealot's high-end AMD chip with an Intel chip (or the other way around) he wouldn't even notice the difference. For most people either chip is perfectly fine. Of course the devil is in the detail and most ATers have finicky buying critieria (eg. I won't infest my system with rdram given the choice).

 

[tigerbait]

heheh.. I thought this had something to do with WWF's The Rock.

about it not looking pretty for AMD on the market, AMD was one of the best performing tech stocks of the past dreadful year.