This is why AMD needs a new PR scheme

[13Gigatons]

AMD claims its chips have been designed from the start for dual-core use, and early reviews indicate they outperform Intel's offering despite the larger chip maker's higher frequencies. AMD's chips also can address larger amounts of memory than Intel's current dual-core offerings.

The first Athlon 64 X2 chips are roughly twice the price of Intel's Pentium D processors. The low-end AMD chip runs at 2.2 gigahertz and costs $537 when purchased in volume, while the high end runs at 2.4 GHz and costs $1,001.

By comparison, Intel's low-end Pentium D runs at 2.8 GHz but costs $241, while its high-end Pentium D runs at 3.2 GHz and costs $530. Intel also offers a dual-core Extreme Edition Pentium for $999 each

 

[Bateluer]

I don't follow. The X2 outperform the D's. The D's require a whole new motherboard, RAM, and likely videocard too, adding to their cost.

With the X2, I can drop it almost any s939 mobo, so that 537 cost is all I have to pay. With the D, I have to spend 241 on the 2.8Ghz, 180 for the mobo, around 200 for RAM, and around 300 for a PCIe X800XL. And it'd still be slower than the cheaper X2 system.

So, what is the point you were trying to make?

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I don't follow. The X2 outperform the D's. The D's require a whole new motherboard, RAM, and likely videocard too, adding to their cost.

With the X2, I can drop it almost any s939 mobo, so that 537 cost is all I have to pay. With the D, I have to spend 241 on the 2.8Ghz, 180 for the mobo, around 200 for RAM, and around 300 for a PCIe X800XL. And it'd still be slower than the cheaper X2 system.

So, what is the point you were trying to make?

His point is simple if you weren't such a flaming fanboy.

$537 versus $241
$1001 versus $530

Pretty simple really.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I don't follow. The X2 outperform the D's. The D's require a whole new motherboard, RAM, and likely videocard too, adding to their cost.

With the X2, I can drop it almost any s939 mobo, so that 537 cost is all I have to pay. With the D, I have to spend 241 on the 2.8Ghz, 180 for the mobo, around 200 for RAM, and around 300 for a PCIe X800XL. And it'd still be slower than the cheaper X2 system.

So, what is the point you were trying to make?

His point is simple if you weren't such a flaming fanboy.

$241 versus $537
$1001 versus $530

Pretty simple really.

true but agian the performance is greater when using the X2's, so its still worth while to invest in the AMD's (not flaming by the way), although if you were looking at parallelism i.e. multi apps then this might appeal, becasuse of the low cost, which you have to say fairplay to intel for .. but then again you do have to purchase a new mobo whatever the case, and this will bump up the price a tad

 

[CheesePoofs]

What does that have to do with their PR scheme. They need to charge higher prices than intel because they are very limited with their manufacturing.

What's your point Crazyfool? For $241, you can get a processor that performs significantly slower than one for $537. Whats the big deal with that?

 

[Markfw]

What about comparing the $530 Intel performance to the $537 AMD performance. If I remember correctly, it still won almost all the benchmarks.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: CheesePoofs
What does that have to do with their PR scheme. They need to charge higher prices than intel because they are very limited with their manufacturing.

What's your point Crazyfool? For $241, you can get a processor that performs significantly slower than one for $537. Whats the big deal with that?

LOL i just re-read the title This is why AMD needs a new PR scheme,

to the OP what the hell is this got to do with PR ratings, i call NEWB CAKES

 

[Screech]

yet another thread on the cost of the X2. gee, i guess we didn't have enough of these already...

but simply for argument, one might also want to take note that if you run the computer about 10 hours a day, every day, you will end up paying about $50 more each year for energy alone on the intel platform (this of course depends upon energy prices in your area though).

 

[13Gigatons]

Future Best Buy Conversation:

Joker: Get Intel they are the best

Fool: But AMD is pretty good

Joker: Yeah but PentiuM D is running at 2.8 Ghz and the Athlon 64 is only at 2.2 Ghz

Fool: Yeah 2.8 Ghz is alot faster, I'm going to buy that.


In terms of Marketing the whole "4200+" is a complete flop.

 

[Maluno]

I believe the OP is saying AMD needs better PR, because to an uneducated person, it looks as if buying the intel is a no-brainer. They see high clock speeds and a low price, and think that is all that matters. We know this is faulty logic, but AMD needs to use PR to educate the masses.

 

[CheesePoofs]

Originally posted by: Maluno
I believe the OP is saying AMD needs better PR, because to an uneducated person, it looks as if buying the intel is a no-brainer. They see high clock speeds and a low price, and think that is all that matters. We know this is faulty logic, but AMD needs to use PR to educate the masses.

I agree with the OP's intentions, but there is still nothing they can do about it. They aren't about to rework their entire architecture just to make it run faster so the idiots of the world will think its faster.

 

[Capt Caveman]

fyi, I posted this earlier in another thread:
---------------------------------------------
I found this article and stunned that AMD has no marketing or advertising plans for their new releases. I think this is a big mistake.

"The first topic that I brought up was in regards to AMD's lack of marketing and advertising, particularly in the US, against what seems to be a constant barrage of Intel TV and Internet ads. With a solid performance lead, feature lead and price lead, it would seem that AMD has all the right points to make an effective ad campaign that could address the masses and not just the PC enthusiast market. AMD's response was that the performance and feature advantages that AMD has are already known to those users that are interested or understand those points. The general end user then, may not benefit from such a large scale advertising campaign and thus AMD hasn't delved into it yet."

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=147

Edit: Another quote from another article. Appears that a number of AMD officials are saying a number of things. I think they need to come out with a central message.

"The debut of the dual-core chips also means the beginning of the end for the Athlon 64 line. "We have no immediate plans for new Athlon 64s," Seckler said. (The top chip right now goes at 2.4GHz). There are also no current plans to come out with a dual-core chip for the Sempron line, AMD's budget processor."

http://news.com.com/AMD+to+unveil+dual-.../2100-1006_3-5723507.html?tag=nefd.top

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: CheesePoofs

Originally posted by: Maluno
I believe the OP is saying AMD needs better PR, because to an uneducated person, it looks as if buying the intel is a no-brainer. They see high clock speeds and a low price, and think that is all that matters. We know this is faulty logic, but AMD needs to use PR to educate the masses.

I agree with the OP's intentions, but there is still nothing they can do about it. They aren't about to rework their entire architecture just to make it run faster so the idiots of the world will think its faster.

No need to change anything except pro-rate them like cyrix did.

2.2 x 1.63 = 3.6 Ghz
2.2 x 1.72 = 3.8 Ghz

2.4 x 1.66 = 4.0Ghz
2.4 x 1.75 = 4.2Ghz

Multiple by 1.6 for 512k and 1.7 for 1024k and of course always round up.

The problem isn't the product it's the marketing scheme, people love Gigahertz, it's simple and easy to understand.

Hell Hard drive makers have no problem lying about there 200 gig hard drives that aren't really 200 gigs.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
fyi, I posted this earlier in another thread:
---------------------------------------------
I found this article and stunned that AMD has no marketing or advertising plans for their new releases. I think this is a big mistake.

"The first topic that I brought up was in regards to AMD's lack of marketing and advertising, particularly in the US, against what seems to be a constant barrage of Intel TV and Internet ads. With a solid performance lead, feature lead and price lead, it would seem that AMD has all the right points to make an effective ad campaign that could address the masses and not just the PC enthusiast market. AMD's response was that the performance and feature advantages that AMD has are already known to those users that are interested or understand those points. The general end user then, may not benefit from such a large scale advertising campaign and thus AMD hasn't delved into it yet."

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=147

Edit: Another quote from another article. Appears that a number of AMD officials are saying a number of things. I think they need to come out with a central message.

"The debut of the dual-core chips also means the beginning of the end for the Athlon 64 line. "We have no immediate plans for new Athlon 64s," Seckler said. (The top chip right now goes at 2.4GHz). There are also no current plans to come out with a dual-core chip for the Sempron line, AMD's budget processor."

http://news.com.com/AMD+to+unveil+dual-.../2100-1006_3-5723507.html?tag=nefd.top

I agree with you wholeheartedly that's what AMD ideally needs to do. They currently have two big problems that prevent them from doing so.

1. Production Capacity - If they could generate large increases in sales they don't have the production capacity to meet the demand.

2. Money - They simply don't have enough to effectively run a competitive national ad campaign without depleting there operating capital.

If they are as sucessful as it looks like they will be with the dual core A64 and opteron, and they get their new FAB plant up and running next year, then we may see AMD go toe to toe with Intel and try and take a bigger piece of the pie

 

[Zebo]

AMD's slowest $500 x2 beats intel fastest EE820 @$1000. Explain that?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

To me the cheap pentium dual core is a "loss leader" for Intel. A "bone" so to speak for distributers. "If you keep pushing our overpriced chips, we will give you these dual cores at a price AMD can't compete with"

 

[Amplifier]

I agree with the OP. AMD's marketing department is dropping the ball on marketing. They have far superior chips and yet Joe Sixpack doesn't know it.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
To me the cheap pentium dual core is a "loss leader" for Intel. A "bone" so to speak for distributers. "If you keep pushing our overpriced chips, we will give you these dual cores at a price AMD can't compete with"

Thier not a loss. Chips cost like $20-$60 to make. Intel still gaugeing....just not like 1990-1998 times when AMD was a blip and $500 processor was normal from Intel.

 

[redhatlinux]

Does ANYBODY in this forum understand pipeline design, branch prediction, cache schemes etc .. I am an AMD DIEHARD, but running on a Hyper-threading P4 right now. THE P4 clock can run fast because the pipe is SOOOOO long it does almost nothing each cycle. When the pipe steps VERY frequently, the pipe is filled with NOPs (dummie ops blazing away at this high gig speed). A Cache miss on P4 is like DEATH. Translation for those who don't know, high speed, little work per cycle. Lower speed, more work per cycle, much better cache scheme, better pipe design etc etc AMD. BENCHMARKS ARE BULLSH!T. I have re-written, some of IBM's code in the past and gotten a 15% improvement. At pretty much zero cost.
Now to the TOPIC, AMD has VERY small margins, they pretty much sell EVERYTHING they can make and OBTW, the FEDS, ( can't say any more, CLASSIFIED), use lots of AMD64 chips

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I don't follow. The X2 outperform the D's. The D's require a whole new motherboard, RAM, and likely videocard too, adding to their cost.

With the X2, I can drop it almost any s939 mobo, so that 537 cost is all I have to pay. With the D, I have to spend 241 on the 2.8Ghz, 180 for the mobo, around 200 for RAM, and around 300 for a PCIe X800XL. And it'd still be slower than the cheaper X2 system.

So, what is the point you were trying to make?

His point is simple if you weren't such a flaming fanboy.

$537 versus $241
$1001 versus $530

Pretty simple really.

X2 4200+ at $540 >> Pentium D XE at $1000.

A64X2 consumes 110W Vs PXE 300+W.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: carlosd

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I don't follow. The X2 outperform the D's. The D's require a whole new motherboard, RAM, and likely videocard too, adding to their cost.

With the X2, I can drop it almost any s939 mobo, so that 537 cost is all I have to pay. With the D, I have to spend 241 on the 2.8Ghz, 180 for the mobo, around 200 for RAM, and around 300 for a PCIe X800XL. And it'd still be slower than the cheaper X2 system.

So, what is the point you were trying to make?

His point is simple if you weren't such a flaming fanboy.

$537 versus $241
$1001 versus $530

Pretty simple really.

X2 4200+ at $540 >> Pentium D XE at $1000.

A64X2 consumes 110W Vs PXE 300+W.

Yep! The AMD are so much more than Intel's dualcore. You are paying for a performance smackdown of the Intel part. You could say the same for the 550 AMD part beating the 1000 Intel part.

I think it is funny that the supposed fall release of the X2 is now the middle of June (according to Monarch, a leading AMD supplier) while the Intel dualcore (D versions) is rolling out at the end of June.

Has anyone done a theoretical cost comparison of the two processors (AMD dualcore versus Intel) in power if left on over the course of a year (like me with my Folding@home. It would be interesting.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Actually the D 820 is already available at ZZF.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: redhatlinux
Does ANYBODY in this forum understand pipeline design, branch prediction, cache schemes etc .. I am an AMD DIEHARD, but running on a Hyper-threading P4 right now. THE P4 clock can run fast because the pipe is SOOOOO long it does almost nothing each cycle. When the pipe steps VERY frequently, the pipe is filled with NOPs (dummie ops blazing away at this high gig speed). A Cache miss on P4 is like DEATH. Translation for those who don't know, high speed, little work per cycle. Lower speed, more work per cycle, much better cache scheme, better pipe design etc etc AMD. BENCHMARKS ARE BULLSH!T. I have re-written, some of IBM's code in the past and gotten a 15% improvement. At pretty much zero cost.
Now to the TOPIC, AMD has VERY small margins, they pretty much sell EVERYTHING they can make and OBTW, the FEDS, ( can't say any more, CLASSIFIED), use lots of AMD64 chips

And all that means absolutely nothing to the mass of people who go to Best-Circuit-USA, they just want the faster machine and they think that means GIGAHERTZ.

---

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Actually the D 820 is already available at ZZF.

Yes, Its $310, instead of the advertized $241.......

 

[rgreen83]

Originally posted by: carlosd

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I don't follow. The X2 outperform the D's. The D's require a whole new motherboard, RAM, and likely videocard too, adding to their cost.

With the X2, I can drop it almost any s939 mobo, so that 537 cost is all I have to pay. With the D, I have to spend 241 on the 2.8Ghz, 180 for the mobo, around 200 for RAM, and around 300 for a PCIe X800XL. And it'd still be slower than the cheaper X2 system.

So, what is the point you were trying to make?

His point is simple if you weren't such a flaming fanboy.

$537 versus $241
$1001 versus $530

Pretty simple really.

X2 4200+ at $540 >> Pentium D XE at $1000.

A64X2 consumes 110W Vs PXE 300+W.

Where in the flaming hell did you get your numbers? I agree totally that the X2 uses considerably less power than the pentium D, but 300+ watts? Are you out of your mind? That would burn a hole through your motherboard! Perhaps you are quoting total system draw as cpu only?